The truth about slavery and the civil war.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Honor93

 

i would tend to disagree ... equality under the law would have prevented the need for secession, the desire to fight and possibly averted the war entirely.

Your right, if the southern states had considered granting African people greater equality under the law, there would have been no need for secession or war. Good point.

which "law" are you referencing, exactly ?

reply to post by Honor93


All of them.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Honor93

 

All of them.

uh no ... pick one or a bunch of them, it doesn't matter to me ... however, laws are laws and there weren't many that the South were evading.
the North however, they did everything they could to avert the laws of the day.

i am not saying the laws were right or wrong but they were not being followed/honored/obeyed by a majority of the North. that is exactly why the South seceded.

reply to post by Honor93


African slaves were being excluded from the entire Bill of Rights.

Also, secession in itself was unconstitutional.

And to your other points: per capita income isn't the same as biggest economy. Slavery existed in all states, but it was double the rate in the south and much more important because of the agriculture based economy. The abolition movement was pretty much exclusively a northern thing, and you can't just replace the word slavery with industry. Slavery had to end ASAP. The South knew that it was coming to an end soon in the congressional system, and that's why they wanted out.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

African slaves were being excluded from the entire Bill of Rights

Almost ... ALL slaves were being excluded from the BoR.
Slaves were regarded as "property", nothing more.

while it's true a majority of slaves were African, the BoR was not specific to them as a ppl, but to SLAVES (property) of all kinds, in general.

secession is never UnConstitutional, it is the duty of the ppl and is clearly stated in the DoI.

never said it was ... i provided you a selection of links that all support the same thing. the Confederate economy WAS the largest, especially in comparison to the North.
[and one of the links mentioned it was so for 20yrs prior the CW]

if you want more specifics, google it.

no, slavery did not exist in ALL states.
there were several states that did not encourage or permit slavery long before Amendment 13.

look up "Right of Transit" if you need more details.

The abolition movement was pretty much exclusively a northern thing

are you sure about that ??

www.libraryindex.com...
[color=amber]The evangelical Protestant sects were in the forefront of the agitation against slavery. The Methodists took a strong stand during the first decades of the nineteenth century against the continuance of slavery by making it sinful for church members to hold slaves;

but in 1836 Southern Methodists counterattacked by insisting that the General Conference of the Church pronounce slavery a blessing and not a curse. Despite bitter opposition from abolitionist ministers, the Conference circulated a pastoral letter advising against further discussion of slavery, and denouncing abolitionist activity by Northern ministers. In 1844, the issue finally divided the Methodist Church into a Northern and Southern Church. A similar fate awaited the Baptists when, in 1845, the Southern Baptists seceded to form independent organizations for home and foreign missions. The dispute lasted longer in the Presbyterian Church, which underwent final disruption only shortly before the Civil War. Religious disunity cast an ominous shadow over the future of political union. In a nation deeply committed to moral verities, it was not unreasonable to wonder whether a people divided by opposing convictions on the morality of slavery could long remain united.

yes, some of those in the forefront were indeed Northerners, however, they took it to the pulpits and it spread like wildfire from there.

the movement divided everything from congregations to denominations, everyone involved and plenty more who wanted nothing to do with it at all.

why can't you ??
it's just a reading/comprehension exercise ... you should try it

you are missing the point entirely --> many were not against a gradual elimination, however, Lincoln would have no such thing.
for him, it was the Marx way or no way, and we see just how that worked out, don't we ??

Cival War was never about slavery, they didn't care about black people back then...they hated them (no offsense) but it's true. Cival war was all about Government / Power, to take control of the entire country. The victors would write history and say it was about freeing the slaves but it was really about greed and power.

reply to post by VforVendettea

Now 99% of americans are suffering under unfair rules and taxation not just the southern states. .

Cival war will happen again it's only a matter of time that the country of USA turns into several different countries known as states right now that will fight eachother for territory and resources...it's inevitable, it will happen. Corruption can only go so far as people let it and we won't turn the other cheek forever.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

look it is not my intention to argue about history, it's history.
but what i will say, is after re-reading the post i'm replying to, if nothing else, i hope you realize that what you've been taught is not a complete story.

i would never support slavery, then or now.
however, as slavery was a part of everyday life for most of the country, it behooves me to think that 150yrs later we cannot discuss these issues, openly, calmly and with a single goal of understanding.

reply to post by Honor93


I have no problems with the discussion we're having, everyone is free to think as they pleased.

There was a real movement to end slavery at the time of the civil war. The Southern States vehemently opposed this movement. It was as big a factor as any in their secession. These are all facts of history. I understand there were some other issues involved. And from this discussion I've realized I need to learn more about the Civil War. But I have found no compelling evidence to suggest slavery did not play a major role in the conflict. Nearly all the historical documentation points in the other direction. I interpret the attempt to downplay slavery as a severe spin on the facts, probably motivated by the desire to avoid the facts that one's state, region, and ancestors fought a war for reasons that we now consider extremely unethical.

Yeah it had to be about slavery it couldn't have been at all about the northern robber baron's frustration that they couldn't get in on the action .....

There is a LOT more to the civil war ....

And I do so love how the proestablishment arguers deign to completely ignore the fact that not only were there white slaves but also there were a great man BLACK slave masters....

It would also behoove you to carefully research where a person of average or below average means had a better standard of living.... I can guarantee you it WAS NOT the north!!!

The bottom line is while there were some very rich southerners wealth in general was much more equitably distributed than in the North where industrialization was already rapidly creating an atmosphere of social inequality where those that Had money had lots of it and those without money starved.

So yes you are right the civil war was indeed about morals and values.... and sadly the mess we're in today ties in directly with which side won...

Before you bust out your flamethrower to call me a bigot .... ah hell say what you want... after all you are the ones who are so uncomfortable with the idea that the history you've been taught might be a very fraudulent bill of goods that you COMPLETELY REFUSE to take a close look at the real history of that sad time.

Bottom line is slavery was a dying phenomena.... It was completely economically nonviable and would have ended in short order... All the Northern robber barons did was capitalize on a situation that would have resolved itself without the need for violence had they not done what they did.

The blood is on their hands.... and many of these same families are still getting people killed and maimed or failing to pay a living wage to this day.

In Jefferson Davis's farewell address to Congress, he talks about two issues: the right to secession, and the fact that black people are not to be considered equals.

The implication is clear: the primary disagreement is the future of slavery.

link

It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do - to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men—not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.

Do you all think the federal government was over-reaching with the Civil Rights Act too?

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

the movement began some 30yrs before the civil war.
[back then, that was 2 generations of adults]

it was a brewing, simmering, agitating, drawn-out situation that eventually came to a head in spite of the fact that ALL parties (states, not the ppl) agreed to the concept from day 1.

here's a question.
since the South (of that day) was so deeply entrenched in slave labor and the North didn't want it, why didn't They (North) secede ??

ever think it might have more to do with economics and that's why Union slaves weren't freed until much later ?

can't you put the paintbrush down and call it like it was ?
the agriculture barrons and politicians didn't want it to end.
not the entirety of the South ... is it really necessary to demonize an entire region ??

But I have found no compelling evidence to suggest slavery did not play a major role in the conflict

nor will you.
not in historic documents or in this thread.
it WAS a labor industry, like it or lump it, that's what it was.
"institution" is merely a fancy word to avoid the truth.

major or minor role depends on the territory, doesn't it ?
so, when you can begin to see the "South" as ppl instead of territory, maybe then you'll begin to understand more than you do now.

no one is downplaying slavery, why would you say such a thing?
however, downplaying the dictatorship of Lincoln has to end if we are to understand anything about that time in our history.

do you realize the majority of deaths in the CW were not from fighting?

ancestors aren't the topic of this thread and why would that matter anyway ?

i'm a northern transplant.
i grew up very close to Gettysburg and several other battlegrounds/cemetaries.
i have held this opinion for many years and only learned greater details since the internet

believe me, i have spent more than my fair share of time in detention for voicing such opinion, however, i considered it confirmation simply because the "adults" weren't willing to discuss or dispute it. (and that was nearly 1/2 century ago )

once greater details emerged, the knowledge enabled me to see that the conversion from some slaves to all slaves was NOT a good one.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

i disagree and i see you eliminated this part ...

Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. [color=amber]This is done, not in hostility to others; not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit, but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our duty to transmit unshorn to our children.

keeping in mind that the religious push from both sides was already in full swing for nearly 2 decades before this speech was uttered.

i already said the concept of slavery was wrong, but, i will not accept that it was a major cause of the CW. there were literally tooooo many causes for any one to wear such a label.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Do you all think the federal government was over-reaching with the Civil Rights Act too?

edit on 12/8/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

Jefferson Davis was right about secession and wrong about the Declaration not including "Negros" , that said yes the Civil Rights Act was overreaching. Not because it correct so many wrongs but because it went beyond correcting injustice and sought to instill its own version of Justice, depending on who championed the act.

On constitutional grounds the Civil Rights Act goes against Constitutional government; specifically Title II and Title VII. Those titles imposed governmental action upon private enterprise, outside the scope of Government. Social Justice is not what the Constitution provide; that is done through freedom of speech and the ability to vote with your feet. The government shouldn't be in the business of dictating how people think. The overall Act itself is good, but certain portions of it eroded Constitutional authority.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


When the sun is in your eyes it can be very hard to see. Slavery was a nightmare, when I was little I would thank God or luck that I wasn't born a slave.

However, slavery was decreasing in the border states Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky like it had all but dissapeared in the northern states, for moral reasons backed up by economic forces. And the soil in the Deep South was getting used up from constant cotton planting, so the South would have had to change. Technology was constantly increasing its economic ability. Slavery was going away, just like jobs are going away today.

If slavery was the whole issue then why didn't we free the Poles after World War Two, or beat the Russians when we had the A-Bomb and they didn't, or start the Civil War in 1850, or wait to start the Civil War until the North was sure to win? Because war comes from the top down and it only happens when the top gets a benefit.

In 1861 the South could have won. Where would the slaves be then? In a few more decades the North would have won for sure or slavery would have been gone. The leaders who started the Civil War look to be grabbing at their last chance to kill alot of God -Fearing, independant, free thinking americans and estabish a central power base before the problem went away, one way or another.

Originally posted by Bildo

Originally posted by FreeAmericanInhabitant
reply to post by Bildo

 

Hey Bildo care you PM me about the UCC-1 stuff? i would like to talk with ya, also be sure to check out the site i posted earlier, its got some really good info on it!

This is only my 2nd post so im not sure how to send PM's sorry

edit on 7-12-2012 by FreeAmericanInhabitant because: im a ATS newb LOL

I PM'd you. Go to "My ATS" in the top bar of the page. Yuo'll see a message from me. You can also click on my name to the left of this post and that will take you to my page. As you can see, no one is interested in getting out from under Corp US jurisdiction which would solve ALL of their problems.

Yes Bildo this is VERY important, i don't think these folks quite understand what is going on in reguards to this subject!

I have received what you sent in the PM and the email is on the way, thanks agian buddy!

As for everyone else, shame on you for trying to fix the symptoms and not the ACTUAL PROBLEM

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
Cival War was never about slavery, they didn't care about black people back then...they hated them (no offsense) but it's true. Cival war was all about Government / Power, to take control of the entire country. The victors would write history and say it was about freeing the slaves but it was really about greed and power.

Exactly. People think it just freed the slaves when it in fact sent everyone into banker slavery. The people of the south did not want their selves, or their property and children, put up as collateral against the debt. They lost. Now we're all screwed. Unless you opt out of being a US citizen/person. Google US citizen/person and you will be surprised. It's all about jurisdiction.

Jefferson Davis wanted a trial, he was never given one. The reason was, the Supreme Court justices had told the Republican administration, that if there was a trial, they would rule the South had a constitutional right to secede. Slavery was the single most important issue causing secession, but it was not the only reason. Most white southerners did not own slaves, and fought because their states were invaded by the Northern armies. The real question of the civil war, why was the US the only country, aside from Haiti, that needed a war to end slavery? There were very real economic issues, such as the South paid all the Federal taxes as cotton exports were taxed. Lincoln, to fund his program of "internal improvements", imposed a massive increase in tariffs. Lincoln was willing to compromise with Southern states on slavery, but not on tariffs. If the South had agreed to accept the tariffs, Lincoln was willing to let them keep slavery. Tariffs were one major cause of the war. Another reason was because wealthy Southern plantation owners were willing to sacrifice a generation of poor white southern males, mostly teenagers, so they could keep their slaves. The war should have been avoided. Lincoln should have compromised on tariffs, plantation owners should have compromised on slavery.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

When the sun is in your eyes it can be very hard to see. Slavery was a nightmare, when I was little I would thank God or luck that I wasn't born a slave.

However, slavery was decreasing in the border states Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky like it had all but dissapeared in the northern states, for moral reasons backed up by economic forces. And the soil in the Deep South was getting used up from constant cotton planting, so the South would have had to change. Technology was constantly increasing its economic ability. Slavery was going away, just like jobs are going away today.

If slavery was the whole issue then why didn't we free the Poles after World War Two, or beat the Russians when we had the A-Bomb and they didn't, or start the Civil War in 1850, or wait to start the Civil War until the North was sure to win? Because war comes from the top down and it only happens when the top gets a benefit.

In 1861 the South could have won. Where would the slaves be then? In a few more decades the North would have won for sure or slavery would have been gone. The leaders who started the Civil War look to be grabbing at their last chance to kill alot of God -Fearing, independant, free thinking americans and estabish a central power base before the problem went away, one way or another.

WOW. Let the invisible hands of the market decide when to abolish slavery, huh?

What utter foolishness. The South continued to treat African Americans terribly until the Federal government stepped in again under the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations and then the passing of the Civil Rights act. If slavery hadn't been abolished, but left to die its own economically-based death, it would never happen. Slaves would have been used to build the railroads and there would be massive sexual slavery to this day. Heck, why do we need any laws protecting people of all races then? Just let economic and moral pressure force people to behave and treat others fairly, as that always works -- as it has throughout history.

The leaders who started the Civil War were the secessionists, in case you never read a history book. But I take you to be claiming that the Northern leaders were itching to kill independent-minded Southerners. Yes, the Civil War was a vast Northern conspiracy to kill off all decent, god-fearing, independent-minded folk. Right...

And the South might have had the ability to win the Civil War in 1861, so it was rash and gambling of the North to put its foot down when it came to secession??? Guess because Nazi Germany might have won WWII early on it was rash and imprudent of England, Russia and the US to continue waging war against it too. What poppycock you're peddling. And you have the audacity to insinuate I have the sun in my eyes? Give me a break. You're just another secessionist apologist -- and as lame as the rest of them.

Never mind that the South was never going to win that war on account of manpower, economic, industrial and logistical considerations. To claim the South ever had a chance in that war is the height of speculative history onanism.

As to why the Civil War didn't occur until 1861, perhaps it didn't occur until then because the South didn't secede until then. What an inane question. Some Southern states did threaten to secede when Jackson was president, but he threatened the the leaders with hanging, and they backed down. Let's be clear: the South seceded and started the war. Who started hostilities? The South, bombarding Fort Sumpter.

As for why "we" (the US by itself???) didn't stop the Soviets from controlling Poland, what does that have to do with an internal conflict, which the US Civil War was? I never claimed the US should be the policeman of the world; all I am discussing is the US putting its own house in order. And I guess you're also arguing for using nuclear weapons against countries not armed with nuclear weapons. Thanks for proving your own immorality and depravity. Again, would expect anything less from a Southern secessionist apologist.

Originally posted by The Old American
The apparent contradiction is because Lincoln abhorred slavery itself. He got physically ill when seeing an enslaved human. He didn't, however, believe that it was his duty to abolish it, as he believed it was a right of whites to own slaves. The African race was inferior to the white race in his eyes, not much better than dogs, but they were still humans.

I'm sure if it has been mentioned here, but his freeing of the slaves was both a political and militarily tactical move. He was losing the war against an inferior (by numbers) force. General Lee was probably the best military commander in the last 200 years, and one of the top 5 in military history. He was making a mockery of Lincoln's generals, and gained ground daily, getting as far north as Gettysburg, PA.

Lincoln, realizing that his tail was being kicked, figured that he needed about a quarter-million more soldiers. He got them with the Emancipation Proclamation. Freeing the slaves gave him more than enough soldiers to win the War of Northern Aggression.

Sure, the Emancipation Proclamation was done for strategic military reasons -- as well as political and possibly/likely even moral reasons. So what? All is fair in love and war. Sure, it helped the North, but it is hard to claim that the E.P. turned the tide of the war. Seems the capture of Vicksburg and the battle of Gettysburg did that.

But then what is your explanation for the 13th Amendment? That was done in the closing months/year of the war. Seems that was done solely for political and moral reasons.

And no, Lincoln and the Union were not getting their clock cleaned by the South. At best it was a stalemate -- except that the South's largest port and industrial center, New Orleans, was captured and the rest of the Southern ports were blockaded. No major Union town or city was ever captured, and with a few exceptions, including the Gettysburg campaign, the war was fought on Southern soil. And when Lee did go North he got his backside handed to him by a fairly mediocre Union general, George Meade. Furthermore, Lee may have been a great leader, but he wasn't much of a tactician, to wit: the slaughters he led his army to at Gettysburg -- against his best general's (Longstreet's) protests. Lee's other tactical genius, Stonewall Jackson, was already dead.

Nor were the soldiers raised by the E.P. enough to win. Many more Northerners were conscripted for the war in the last two years of the conflict. Moreover. the E.P. wasn't so much about getting black soldiers as about depriving the South of its work force.