The truth about slavery and the civil war.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

when the Constitution was drafted, slavery was ALREADY the industry of the day.
that is exactly why the 3/5ths clause was negotiated
to give greater voting weight to the plantation states.

it is INSANE for anyone to think that the founding fathers would have even been EXPOSED to such a concept as "equality".

do tell, where in the world could they have been exposed to such a concept in practice in the 1700s ???

while they should be honored for their foresight they should not be demeaned for failure to practice a concept of which they had never been exposed.

no one is fighting for or fought for the right to own slaves, except for one black man, a long time ago.

what the South demanded was equal treatment under the law ... of which they were systematically denied. they revolted, it happens.

you are so mistaken it's downright scary.

reply to post by Honor93

when the Constitution was drafted, slavery was ALREADY the industry of the day.

So what? You're saying that if a signed law isn't followed, then it doesn't apply? So since 18 year olds drink every day, then the 21 year old drinking age shouldn't be considered at all?

Like I said, the founding documents were a bit of a sham. The things you're saying are in agreement with what I said regarding the Emancipation Proclamation. The idea of equality was just that, an idea. For a long time. But it was on paper and it became a practice quicker than it would have if it had not been written in law.

This story that keeps getting told about the black man fighting for the right to own slaves is ridiculous...noone else had to fight for that right because it was accepted. It's not like that guy is to blame for slavery in America.

Also, a primary motivation for the South fighting was for the right to own slaves.

I'm confused at this mindset that slavery was a side issue. Enslaving other people is a big deal, and so is ending it.

Clearly, as shown in the result, it was the Union with a higher regard for equality under the law.


Do you think we would be better off had the South won the war? Or not been fought for seceding?

Do you think these states would have ended slavery on their own accord? When? Is this not an issue?

reply to post by Honor93


You're coming at me (and a lot of other southern sympathizers) like I think Lincoln was a freedom fighter... I don't think the was. He was a politician... during the debates he was racist then after the war he was giving speeches on racial equality. Lincoln said what the people wanted to hear, like modern day politicians.

The SOUTH is who made the civil war about slaves, that is the WHOLE reason why the seceded. Lincoln didn't make it about slaves...THEY did...because they were paranoid right wing greedy nut cases.

the South had already declared secession BEFORE Lincoln was sworn in so technically, he had no Union to defend

This makes no sense.

your snipits of the declarations only highlight what YOU want them to ... unfortunately for you, i've read ALL of them from start to finish and yes, slavery was included, it was an issue, no one has said it wasn't.

Yeah, they go on about slavery, then how states should have the right to keep slaves if they want to aka "states' rights". The Texas declaration says the word slave 21 times.

the North retained their slaves, after emancipation because there was NO path for their freedom until a Constitutional amendment was passed and ratified, years later.

Yeah, the EP was a war strategy to weaken the south. It didn't outlaw slavery or free slaves in the north.

there were numerous European slaves and indentured servants all throughout the states, north and south.

By the 1800's European indentured servitude barely existed. Slavery became increasingly racialized over the years and African slaves took their place.

btw, what's with New York being in the South, anyway? NY was indeed a slave state or is this news for you ?

I already acknowledged that there were slaves in the north in my last post to you.

i would suggest you link what you think are the relevant parts that support your theory and not from wiki, either. the originals from the state archives will do.

I've read many books on the civil war. Wiki is an easy source to post on the internet.. so....all you have to do is follow the wiki sources links.

who knows, maybe you'll learn something

You're the one who needs to learn, you're the southern sympathizer. You still can't realize what you're sympathizing with, which is the states' right to own slaves.

Lincoln was a tyrant!

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ShotGunRum

 

the South had already declared secession BEFORE Lincoln was sworn in so technically, he had no Union to defend. by the time the 1st shot was fired, a MAJORITY of states had already seceded ... Constitutionally, Lincoln really had no authority to intervene as he did.

your snipits of the declarations only highlight what YOU want them to ... unfortunately for you, i've read ALL of them from start to finish and yes, slavery was included, it was an issue, no one has said it wasn't.

it WAS the industry of the region (right or wrong doesn't really matter in this discussion) and since the South provided the 4th largest economy in the world at that time, it was important to everyone, not just the slave owners.

the North retained their slaves, after emancipation because there was NO path for their freedom until a Constitutional amendment was passed and ratified, years later.

so, you accept the EP was a sham for the most part ?
and, we can agree that it was nothing more than an influential tactic to achieve another goal entirely ?

there were numerous European slaves and indentured servants all throughout the states, north and south.

btw, what's with New York being in the South, anyway?
NY was indeed a slave state or is this news for you ?

who knows, maybe you'll learn something

Your post is full of so much ignorance, falsehoods and half-truths.

New York banned slavery in 1799, so what was your point in bringing up New York? And yes, there were Caucasian/European indentured servants in colonial America, but this phased out sometime in the 18th century (1700's). And if there were any Caucasian/European SLAVES pe se in the US, I for one have never heard about it.

You make all kinds of specious claims and cite nothing and link to nothing, but you have the audacity to demand that others do so???

Oh, and you complain when someone only quotes the pertinent passages of some historical document that makes that person's point. I guess they should quote everything but that, because that would help to make your false point. lol:

While we are on the subject of citations, PUH-leeze provide one that backs up your claim that the South was the world's fourth largest economy at the time of the Civil War.

A majority of states seceded from the Union? What bizarro-world American history are you referring to? There were 20 free states, five border slave states and 11 insurrecting slave states. Eleven does not make a majority of 36. Or are you also using some bizarro-world mathematics? There was a United States of America when Lincoln was inaugurated, albeit some states were in insurrection. So what? The Constitution give Congress the power to wage war against insurrection, and the President executes this authority. Or do you also subscribe to some bizarro-world US constitution as well?:

As for industry, the South didn't have a whole lot, compared to the North. That is one of the many reasons the insurrectionists lost the Civil War. And even if it did, BFD. the North's was larger by far. In any case, what does the South's economy in the 1860's have to do with what was the cause of the US Civil War? Sounds like Johnny Reb is just making a lame attempt at chest thumping.

And no, I don't accept that the Emancipation Proclamation was a sham. It was a political move during a time of war and it helped the Union's war effort; in addition it laid the ground work for the 13th Amendment. In any case, how was it a sham? It did what it proclaimed: that slaves in the insurrecting states were freed. Please cite one instance of former southern slaves being returned to their former masters by Union forces; otherwise it was not a sham. Was it full emancipation/manumission for all slaves in the US? NO. That was done with the 13th Amendment. The EP was issued on Jan. 1, 1863; the 13th Amendment was adopted adopted in Dec., 1865, so yes, slaves in the border states had to wait three more years for emancipation. I'll hazard a guess that if you asked any of them, they would say the wait to insure victory for the North was worth it.

As is typical with GOP'ers, Teabaggers and their fellow travelers, you are trying to prevaricate and misdirect. FAIL.

What's up with this revisionist history crap from the Southern sympathizers? You guys lost the last election, so now you are trying to rewrite US history because you got nothing else? PATHETIC and DEMENTED

You're the one who needs to do some learning.

reply to post by MrInquisitive




That was hilarious.

It is interesting how little people consider the impact of the Civil War on the current US. The seceded states do get demonized, a lot of people have ancestors who fought that battle. There is a very deep rooted pride in these places, and it is difficult to admit that their states and families may have been wrong in any way.

There is probably a good amount of superiority complex in the North as far as intellectualism goes, which may have some roots in the Civil War period. There is also an inferiority complex in the South. Both can have negative effects on psychology and cognition.

I do think there are some problems with the way the conflict is taught in schools. Slavery being included as a reason for the war isn't one of them.

But they teach this thing as if it wasn't just a few generations ago, and issues aren't still lingering.

Clearly they are.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

The reason that the Southern sympathizers/revisionist historians want to downplay the role of slavery as being a cause of the US Civil War is because slavery is such a despicable, indefensible and sickening social/economic system, that they'd be VERY hard-pressed to defend the southern states' secession otherwise. The South rose in insurrection against the Union in order to preserve slavery and the economic and political benefits that went with it. They want to claim it was about State's rights, but the states' rights in question concerned slavery. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

It was the rich slave-owning plantation owners who wielded power in the southern states and they manipulated the poor white southerners to fight their wars for them just like in this day and age it is the oil and war-profiteering interests that control the US government and convince Americans that we have to fight and kill people overseas to protect corporate interests -- although, of course, they claim it is about keeping us safe from terrorism, even though the number of yearly terrorist attacks have tripled since 9/11/2001.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Hmm. Interesting link to draw.

So if all goes well, the modern day oppressors will also be overthrown and their ancestors will be left revising history to avoid the guilt somewhere down the road.

I don't really get why so many southerners have an emotional connection to the civil war.

YOU are not your great great great grand uncle that was in the confederate army....

Just get over it and admit the reality of the war.

This revisionist history going on is extremely creepy and ignorant at the same time. I hope they don't teach this to their kids to continue the cycle of ignorance and emotional attachment to a war they personally had nothing to do with.

Originally posted by chuckMFd
Lincoln was a tyrant!

Yeah, and he was the father of the Republican party, the powerbase of which now resides in the South. Ain't life and US politics ironic?

For the record, if Lincoln was really a tyrant he would have hung every Confederate officer and elected political leader, but he chose reconciliation instead. Wish he had been more of a tyrant; there'd be a lot fewer red states now.

reply to post by ShotGunRum


A pretty good way to discredit this is to note that pretty much noone outside the south agrees with what the OP and others are saying.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Yes, there is definitely some inferiority/superiority complex going on in the descendants of the Civil War. However, if a certain side stops bringing it up and attempting to revise history, the other side will have no reason to get in their face about it.

And yes indeedy, there is a WHOLE LOT lacking in how US history is taught in K-12th -- and likely in college as well, starting with the fact that this country was founded on genocide, ethnic cleansing and slavery, and all through its history it has been a case of one group after another having to fight to gain the rights that the majority have. The influence of the moneyed class throughout US history -- and that of any other country for that matter -- is also woefully underplayed. I'd wager most young people these days have no idea what a robber baron is or what the Guilded Age was.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Yup, I agree. A few years ago I decided to write my state/local gov't term paper on the progress made in NY state concerning equal treatment.

The paper ended up coming out completely anti-European/early America, condemning the way history is taught, basically a long rant about how messed up everything was and still is because of our inability to address the issues.

I'm sure it earned me a spot on some federal potential terrorist list.

I got a 100 grade on it, though, and an excellency in writing award Totally worth the terrorist label.

lincoln was a racist and a white supremacist. shocking.

the way they are re-writing history, lincoln is the white martin luther king jr.

if any politician said the exact same things in that excerpt of lincoln, the msm would go ballistic.

Slavery was set up by the North in the first place. The North sold the South all of the slaves they had at the start.

Slavery would have died a natural death due to economic forces in the South, llike it did in the North and in Europe.

The Civil War was an excuse to increase centralized power. That is why it happened.

Why aren't you dieing to free North Koreans? or save Tutsis?

reply to post by Semicollegiate


Slavery wasn't set up by the north, it was set up by European trading companies.

It may have died a natural death...sure let's not worry about all the miserable slaves for now, eventually it'll die off. That's not a good way to handle problems, to just assume they'll go away.

The Civil War was a reaction to the threat of all centralized power being gone, because of secession. And also taking a stance against slavery.

You're right that comparable problems exist in the world now and go largely ignored. But abolishing slavery within ones own country and doing it world wide are two very different things.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
The North was also missing something else - deepwater ports. The South had the majority of them and would have held a near monopoly on imports and exports charging hefty tariffs Northern Industrialist didn't want to pay.
Cleburne along with Forrest are both heroes of mine - people of great character and ability who have been maligned or forgotten by those who wrote the history books. Had they fought for the North they would celebrated as much as Grant or Sherman.

Some will never concede there was any other issue to the war besides slavery.
Facts matter little to their agendas.

They forget that blacks were so welcome up North a riot was started that burned down a black section of NYC in July 1863 killing over 100 people including women and children. They were actually race riots but were called the "draft riots".
By the numbers it was still a minority of Northerners who were for abolition. Lincoln used the emancipation proclamation as a tool to tie up Confederate forces to watch for rebellions and escapees. He also gladly employed freed slaves in the Union army, freeing up white men to serve on the front lines. Blacks did serve with distinction in combat though in many more places than the movies would have one believe.

edit on 6-12-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

Facts clearly don't matter to you, Southern Sympathizer. Deep-water ports? Did they have giant oil tankers and aircraft carriers back then or something? And the northeastern seaboard -- and the rest of the free states had plenty of ports. Ever heard of Bangor, Portland, Boston, Newport, Providence, New Haven, New London, New Beford, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Wilmington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland or Seattle, amongst others? Evidently not.

Again, Southern sympathizers are living in some bizarro-world with alternate geography.

As for tariffs, they are between nations. And, as it turns out, it was the North that was pro-tariffs and the South that was against them. The North was a manufacturing economy and wanted tariffs to fend off competition from Europe. The South, on the other hand, had king cotton as its major economy and did not want tariffs because it cut into cotton profits and made manufactured goods more expensive to them -- as they predominantly came either from the North or Europe.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good revisionist history meme regarding the causes of the the Civil War when Southern-sympathizing revisionist historians want to conveniently downplay the issue of slavery as the prime one. Yes, it was about states' rights, but the states' rights in question revolved around slavery, the slave economy and the additional political power wielded by slave states because of the 2/5 clause in the constitution.

You seem to be suggesting that in your bizarro-world ante-bellum US, most all goods were shipped into the North by rail from southern ports, and that the Southern states tacked on surcharges to these goods -- what you call tariffs. About the only thing the South sold to the North was cotton and other agricultural goods. If the North wanted to import stuff from Europe, they could bring it into Northern ports just fine, thank you very much.

Where do the Southern sympathizers get their US Civil War history talking points, from the Grand Wizard?

reply to post by Tardacus



Glad you mentioned that.
Francis Scott Key's grandson was imprisoned in Fort. McHenry and wrote the book American Bastille.
Lincoln commited many unconstitutional acts - first declaring war without Congress.

On April 15, he called for Congress to return to session — but only on July 15, months after Ft. Sumter .

On April 19, he declared a naval blockade of the South.

On April 21, he instructed the U.S. Navy to buy five warships — an appropriations act needing congressional approval.

On April 27, he began the unprecedented act of suspending the constitutional right of habeas corpus.

On May 3, he called up thousands more troops — for three-year hitches — another act the law did not authorize the president to commit.

thenewamerican.com...

Now comes the movie to romanticize him and make him the hero of the Union.
The unlearning continues.......

reply to post by Semicollegiate

Slavery would have died a natural death due to economic forces in the South, llike it did in the North and in Europe.

It wouldn't have ended any time near the civil war. The cotton gin was commercialized in the 1800's, which raised the south's dependance and importation of slaves.

The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy.[12] While it took a single slave about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin, a team of two or three slaves could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[13] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850. By 1860, the Southern states were providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to 80% of the crucial British market.[15] The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe's first agricultural powerhouse, and – according to many historians – was the start of the Industrial Revolution".[16]

en.wikipedia.org...

Plus this is a lame mentality to have due to the sheer torture that slaves were put threw. It needed to be ended ASAP.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Slavery was set up by the North in the first place. The North sold the South all of the slaves they had at the start.

Slavery would have died a natural death due to economic forces in the South, llike it did in the North and in Europe.

The Civil War was an excuse to increase centralized power. That is why it happened.

Why aren't you dieing to free North Koreans? or save Tutsis?

Southern sympathizer/slavery apologist, where do you get your history facts? From textbooks approved by the state of Texas? The North DID NOT sell the South all of the slaves the South had. Slaves were introduced in the 1600's and involved financial and shipping interests in England. Forget if it was Liverpool or South Hampton, but one of these two cities' wealth was built upon slavery. Were there northeastern financial and shipping interests that were involved in slavery at some point? Sure, but laves were no longer legally imported into the US after 1808. And most of the northern states banned slavery by about that same time. So who was keeping this peculiar institution going? THE SOUTH!!!

Slavery did not die away because of economic reasons in the North or in Europe. It demise in those places was due to moral reasons, i.e. the abolitionist movement. Even after slavery was abolished in the South southerners kept the ex-slaves subjugated, to wit: Jim Crow laws and sharecropping scams -- as well as good, old-fashioned violence and assassinations.

GOP'er = Teabagger = Southern Sympathizer = slavery apologist. And you all play fast and loose with the facts. In fact, you cast away the facts and spout 200-proof mendacity.