Dec 20, 1860: South Carolina says "buh-bye" to the Federal Union

[Okla-homey]

Please note: This is kinda dense stuff this morning, but seasoned Good Morning fans will plow through this and learn something solid they can use when Neo-Confederates blather on about how the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery, which to many of you may sound absurd, but nevertheless, you'll hear that sort of thing all over the South, especially at "reenackments.";)

Dec 20, 1860: South Carolina secedes from the Union

On this day, 146 years ago, South Carolina officially leaves the United States when a convention of politically powerful South Carolininans, assembled for the purpose at the state capital in Columbia, ratifies an Ordinance of Secession in Charleston.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4908/zzzzzzzz4770du3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
"Extra" published by a Charleston paper as soon as the word arrived that the deed was done.

South Carolina, the first state to secede, was followed within a few weeks by six other states, who collectively formed the Confederate States of America. When hostilities erupted in April 1861, four more states joined the Confederacy.

Three slave states, Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky, did not formally secede because the majority of those states' residents would not go for it. That said, substantial numbers of slaveholders in those states pressed for secession just the same and managed to cobble together "shadow" Confederate coalitions in those states which disavowed the lawful pro-Union state governments and declared their states part of the Confederacy. The shadow governments raised troops and sent regiments into Confederate service. Thus, in those states, internal Civil War's raged as well.

As an aside, here in Indian Territory, the Five Tribes were rent by internal splits but Confederate allegiances predominated in Oklahoma because many powerful tribal members owned slaves and believed their agrarian lifestyle fit better with the South. Thus, the Five Tribes, like some of the states, had forces clad in blue and gray and internicene conflict raged within the tribes.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7503/zzzzzzzzzzzcsaxk2.gif

Secession's precipitating event was the presidential election the month prior of the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln. All knew the official policy of the GOP was to end slavery in the United States and "Old Abe's" election in November of 1860 was the proverbial "last straw."

The act of secession would remain bloodless for a few months over the coming winter as the Federal government simply ignored the illegal secession acts. Secession would lead to open warfare the following spring in April of 1861 when assembled South Carolina forces opened the party by firing on Fort Sumter, thus kicking over a hornets nest.

The war would rage on battlefields around North America for four years and became the defining event in American history. In the end, the Union was restored, slavery was ended, and the notion that state sovereignty trumped federal authority was consigned to the trash can of US history.

Today, it has become quite common among Confederate apologists and others to sincerely assert the subsequent Civil War was about little more than "states rights" and the manifestation of decades of righteous Southern indignance at the rise of federal power.

In the interest of truth, and in order to dispel this myth, take a couple minutes to read the SC Ordinance of Secession published on this day in 1860 and ratified on Christmas Eve and see what you think. The beginning of the document is mostly "stage-setting," the second half is the heart of the document. Read carefully the bolded text.

In case you're wondering, "Ordinances of Secession" adopted by the other Confederate states use similar language.


The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

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.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety. On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

Ergo, IMHO, anyone who persists in asserting the Civil War was NOT predominantly about maintaining the existence of chattel slavery...is ignorant of the historical facts. Either that, or in their attempt to honor the sacrifice and courage of brave Confederate soldiers, they have turned a blind eye to history.

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/6238/insane7zocn2.jpg

[DoubleDown]

:pop:

[SoonerProphet]

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[jk the sooner fan]

[sic'em]IT WAS ABOUT STATES RIGHTS!!!!!!!![/sic'em]

yep Homey - it was VERY much about slavery....i have a book that has transcripts of the debate in the south carolina state legislature on this topic........it was VERY clear to me reading that what they were concerned about the most

[OklahomaTuba]

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another

Yet they didn't dissolve the political bonds, as they (the confederacy) actually just copied the constitution and made an even more centralized form of government, and of course kept the right to own another human being.

[SoonerProphet]

Economic interests are a hard bitch to part with, see current tar baby in the mideast.

[sooner_born_1960]

Regardless of their motives, they make a good argument that their succession was a lawful act.

[Okla-homey]

That's a good point. In fact, Jefferson Davis sought a trial based on his presidency of the Confederacy. The US government came close to granting his wish a couple times, but in the end, he was released from Federal detention after about a two-year confinement without one.

Some historians assert this was because the government knew deep-down that secession was probably not forbidden by our Constitution and there were no federal statutes in force in 1860 proscribing it.

That said, I'm sure they could have found any number of federal judges who would have been willing to rule that way and by 1865, the SCOTUS was packed with hard-shell Union men.

Unlike Lee, Davis never had his US citizenship restored, although I'm unsure if he ever applied.

[FaninAma]

It wasn't about slavery. Lincoln, the driving force behind the Civil War, said it wasn't about slavery. In his mind it was about preservation of the Union....damn what the Constitution said. And the means justified the ends. Every means to accomplish this was on the table.....torching the South, starving the citizens, destroying the economy.

Lincoln was the Stalin of his time.

Slavery was the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument(of the time) used by the North to try and justify the war.

If you support the Civil War based on any reason.....preservation of the Union, ending slavery, etc........then you should never,ever criticize the former USSR or Russia for trying to force the various republics to remain a part of their Union. Same goes with China and every other dictatorial regime in history.

[jk the sooner fan]

It wasn't about slavery. Lincoln, the driving force behind the Civil War, said it wasn't about slavery. In his mind it was about preservation of the Union....damn what the Constitution said. And the means justified the ends. Every means to accomplish this was on the table.....torching the South, starving the citizens, destroying the economy.

Lincoln was the Stalin of his time.

Slavery was the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument(of the time) used by the North to try and justify the war.

If you support the Civil War based on any reason.....preservation of the Union, ending slavery, etc........then you should never,ever criticize the former USSR or Russia for trying to force the various republics to remain a part of their Union. Same goes with China and every other dictatorial regime in history.

wow....

[sooner_born_1960]

You're mixing apples and oranges. Succession was about slavery. The civil war was about preserving the Union. They are different things.

[JohnnyMack]

It wasn't about slavery. Lincoln, the driving force behind the Civil War, said it wasn't about slavery. In his mind it was about preservation of the Union....damn what the Constitution said. And the means justified the ends. Every means to accomplish this was on the table.....torching the South, starving the citizens, destroying the economy.

Lincoln was the Stalin of his time.

Slavery was the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument(of the time) used by the North to try and justify the war.

If you support the Civil War based on any reason.....preservation of the Union, ending slavery, etc........then you should never,ever criticize the former USSR or Russia for trying to force the various republics to remain a part of their Union. Same goes with China and every other dictatorial regime in history.

Why was it necessary to preserve the Union?

[FaninAma]

Why was it necessary to preserve the Union?

I don't think it was. I think the states that left the Union would have eventually rejoined and I think that slavery would have ended within a decade just because of evolving technology and economics.

Societal change is always better if it comes from the citizens themselves through the democratic process instead of being forced upon them by tyrannical, arrogant government officials....and that includes judges and future female Presidential candidates.

[jk the sooner fan]

I don't think it was. I think the states that left the Union would have eventually rejoined and I think that slavery would have ended within a decade just because of evolving technology and economics.

Societal change is always better if it comes from the citizens themselves through the democratic process instead of being forced upon them by tyrannical, arrogant government officials....and that includes judges and future female Presidential candidates.

i think the civil rights movement folks of the 60's would totally disagree with you

in fact, President Kennedy, when considering the civil rights bill, consulted with sociologists who stated that people are more likey to change when forced than rather on their own

[FaninAma]

wow....

Glad you're impressed.

Lincoln essentially took the Constitution and wiped his @$$ with it.

From that point on the Constitution means whatever the people wielding power in the government say it means. In the mid 20th century the court system figured out that they could get in on this game and became the most powerful branch of government despite the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government.

Now we have rule by juristocracy and we have a legalistic society ran by lawyers and beaurocrats.

[jk the sooner fan]

oh i'm nowhere near impressed.....

[FaninAma]

i think the civil rights movement folks of the 60's would totally disagree with you

in fact, President Kennedy, when considering the civil rights bill, consulted with sociologists who stated that people are more likey to change when forced than rather on their own

It's really ironic that the government decided to correct a problem they created in the first place.

The Civil War created such divisions and resentment in the country that civil rights for minorites were set back a century.

So instead of winning the hearts and minds of the population we get another arrogant President who believes he's smarter than everybody else and he's going to just show alll of the dumb sumbitches in the country how stupid they are.

It's the height of arrogance and an abuse of power, imo, to circumvent the legislative and democratic process and force your moral values on the rest of the country through the use of power. I will give Kennedy a pass because at least he was elected and would have to stand on his record for reelction.....unlike the unelected federal judges.

Maybe somebody should have passed a law that forbade Presidents from sleeping around and making deals with the mafia.

[JohnnyMack]

It's really ironic that the government decided to correct a problem they created in the first place.

The Civil War created such divisons and resentment that civil rights for minorites were set back a century.

So instead of winning the hearts and minds of the population we get another arrogant President who beleives he's smarter than everybody else and he's going to just show alll of the dumb sumbitches in the country how stupid they are.

It's the height of arrogance and an abuse of power, imo, to circumvent the legislative and democratic process.

Maybe somebody should have passed a law that forbade Presidents from sleeping around and making deals with the mafia.

So you really think that people from say Georgia are more tolerant in terms of race and race relations than people from New Jersey are?

[jk the sooner fan]

well color me enlightened......

[sooner_born_1960]

Has the federal government become stronger than the framers of the constitution ever intended? Absolutely. Is it the federal government's fault that this has happened? I think not. It is the elected representatives of the several states that allowed this to take place. For good or evil we are the county we have become because we the people allowed it to happen.
We should probably quit pretending that states even matter and just have a national government.

[Okla-homey]

IMHO, the all-powerful federal government (with respect to its power to void actions by individual states) really got rolling in the 1930's during the FDR administration.

Frankly (no pun intended) the emerging prevalence of federal involvement in things that had previously been the strict perogative of states and business really began then.

Before 1930, if a state wished to allow child labor on an 80 hour, six day a week work week in a dynamite factory lit by open candles, that wasn't something the Federal government could or would have tried to nix. That changed in the Thirties.

After WWII started, it went bonkers and by 1945, the government could tell widget makers whether they could continue to make widgets or must shift to making war-related material. If they were allowed to continue to make their widgets, the Federal government could tell them how many and how much they could charge.

Things have loosened up since then, but none of this is a legacy of the Civil War and the Lincoln administration.

[XingTheRubicon]

The US was a democratic experiment at this point, with Europe boasting day in and day out that it would never work. The masses need to be ruled vs the masses need to be empowered.

The civil war DID begin to vindicate democracy. It developed into a slavery issue as the war continued.

If the South were to successfully secede or won the war, or both, true Democracy would have been deemed worldwide as a failed experiment.

Lincoln was advised by pretty much everyone in '64 that an election was not necessary due to obvious reasons. Lincoln, believing so strongly in preserving the democratic process at all costs, insisted on the election taking place. So many men were displaced, Lincoln's advisers were nervous about an unnecessary risk. Lincoln didn't care, democracy would prevail at all costs.

[SoonerProphet]

The US was a democratic experiment at this point, with Europe boasting day in and day out that it would never work. The masses need to be ruled vs the masses need to be empowered.

The civil war DID begin to vindicate democracy. It developed into a slavery issue as the war continued.

If the South were to successfully secede or won the war, or both, true Democracy would have been deemed worldwide as a failed experiment.

Lincoln was advised by pretty much everyone in '64 that an election was not necessary due to obvious reasons. Lincoln, believing so strongly in preserving the democratic process at all costs, insisted on the election taking place. So many men were displaced, Lincoln's advisers were nervous about an unnecessary risk. Lincoln didn't care, democracy would prevail at all costs.

That is pretty rich. Seeing how he felt that "democracy" could be returned to the South by using only 10% on the population to rule the other 90%, with the help of Federal soldiers of course.

[TUSooner]

Suppose... that the majority of states & people & President and Congress were vehemently pro-slavery and the federal government passed ever more restrictive apartheid-type laws and sent federal troops into the (say) 5 antislavery states to enforce those laws at the point of a bayonet (sort of in the style of the Nazis against Jews in the occupioed countries). Then suppose the the five northern states each passed secession ordinances just like S Carolina's except that the states were protesting the IMPOSITION of slavery. Wouldn't the "Preserve the Union" arguments have less moral force? Less legal weight?

As to whether the war was fought by north or south on grounds of "slavery/ free labor" or "states/union" is almost like asking which side of the scissors cuts. But slavery happened to be the only issue that excited sufficient passion to bring the Union vs States' Rights question to a vote (or rather a fight). And it was destined to be the crucial question, either in 1865 or 1885or 1905

I do nt think the Constitution forbids opting out.
But the South had the wrong side in the slavery questions, and the North had the better view concerning what I call "continental policy" - the ideer that governing a continental empire from sea to sea would permit only One Nation, or: "This continent ain't big enough for both of us." and the one of us that wants to enslave human beings must go!
So... in hindsight, the war and the resolution of the states-rights question in favor of Union was inevitable because of . . . SLAVERY


Sorry that is not more logically organized, but i hope there's a good point in there somewhere.

[FaninAma]

Lincoln was advised by pretty much everyone in '64 that an election was not necessary due to obvious reasons. Lincoln, believing so strongly in preserving the democratic process at all costs, insisted on the election taking place. So many men were displaced, Lincoln's advisers were nervous about an unnecessary risk. Lincoln didn't care, democracy would prevail at all costs.

With most of South disenfranchised I wouldn't say it was an exercise in true democracy.

So under the Constitution individual States entered the Union of their own free will but once in the Union there is apparently a binding, no-compete clause that prevents States from leaving the Union that isn't obvious when you first read the document.

And there is also a clause somewhere that negates the principle that all rights not enumerated as belonging specifically to the Federal government shall belong to the States.

I agree that FDR widely expanded the role of the Federal government into social issues but the prinicple that the Federal government is supreme and the States have no recourse but to submit to the will of the Federal government hoisted upon the country by Lincoln is the foundation that allows FDR and all future powergrabbers to do this.

[TUSooner]

I agree with Faninama that Lincoln, through the force of arms, imposed an unwritten "no-exit" clause onto the constitution. However (unlike Faninama ?) I think he was historically correct and morally right to do so because the alternative would have been a fractured collection of states and confederations competing for a continent while some of the states or confederations wanted to perpetuate the intolerable moral wrong of chattel slavery.

[JohnnyMack]

The Civil War created such divisions and resentment in the country that civil rights for minorites were set back a century.

Yeah, cause the Southerners were so tolerant of blacks and their "rights". It was the damn Yankees fault that they weren't treated right.

[jk the sooner fan]

Yeah, cause the Southerners were so tolerant of blacks and their "rights". It was the damn Yankees fault that they weren't treated right.

not only that.......in the hundred years between the end of the war and the civil rights movement........the "people" sure as hell didnt correct the problem on their own as suggested they would

[soonerscuba]

Interesting topic. I feel that the North played a higher moral hand, which it probably wasn't aware of at the time as a justification for preservation of the Union. I mean in hindsight it is really easy to say "Slavery is bad", but I don't think the North went in fighting for equality so much as a notion that the nation would be in a better position for Westward expansion as a United front.

As for Lincoln being like Stalin, I would like a hit of what you're smoking. If Lincoln were like Stalin he would have authorized Confederate soldier's families bayoneted and raped in front of them, and then a bullet put between the eyes. Historically, in terms of being on the losing side of a Civil War, the South got off easy.

[TUSooner]

Interesting topic. I feel that the North played a higher moral hand, which it probably wasn't aware of at the time as a justification for preservation of the Union. I mean in hindsight it is really easy to say "Slavery is bad", but I don't think the North went in fighting for equality so much as a notion that the nation would be in a better position for Westward expansion as a United front.

As for Lincoln being like Stalin, I would like a hit of what you're smoking. If Lincoln were like Stalin he would have authorized Confederate soldier's families bayoneted and raped in front of them, and then a bullet put between the eyes. Historically, in terms of being on the losing side of a Civil War, the South got off easy.
Right.
& the Lincoln = Stalin deal is outrageous

[FaninAma]

As for Lincoln being like Stalin, I would like a hit of what you're smoking. If Lincoln were like Stalin he would have authorized Confederate soldier's families bayoneted and raped in front of them, and then a bullet put between the eyes. Historically, in terms of being on the losing side of a Civil War, the South got off easy.

I'm willing to share but all I have are a few stale stogies.

There are several accounts that the Union Army was very cruel and savage to the vanquished South. How much more savage do you get than burning entire towns and regions, burning their crops and starving entire cities and populations? The atrocities committed by individual Union soldiers is legendary and that's what gave rise to the local support of guerilla fighters in Missouri and elsewhere after Lee surrendered...... including the Cherokees' own General Stand Watie.

The only thing that kept Lincoln's Union armies from ravaging the South even more was the lack of modern day warfare technology that would have increased the mass killings.

The only thing that kept Lincoln from further violations of civil rights was the lack of means to spy on and monitor the citezenry. His suspension of habeus corpus and declaration of Marshall Law is right out of the "How to be a Dictator For Dummies" book.

The only reason the Reconstruction didn't last longer is because the North didn't have the money to keep their armies in the South and the underground resistance, including the KKK, was wreaking a toll on the Federal government budget.

And I can see a philosophical difference in how the participants in this discussion view human nature. I think that Americans are basically decent people and if given enough information and enough time will make the right decision. Those who support what Lincoln did tend to have no faith in their countrymen to do what is right and think an all-powerful central government is necessary to force us all to do live up to a subjective code of moral behavior.

[TUSooner]

How many times did Stalin stand for election?

No snot intended, & War is Hell and all. But the Lincoln-Stalin comparison is more than a stretch

[FaninAma]

How many times did Stalin stand for election?

Many. He got near 99.999% of the vote, too.

Saddam Hussein was reelected many times in Iraq.

Same with Fidel Castro.

The election of 1864 was rigged. No Southern White man could vote. Of course no women were allowed to vote. If I were a betting man I would have certainly bet the house on Lincoln winning that election.

As far as Lincoln-Stalin comparisons....compare the number of civilian casualties in the South and look at the casualty rate as a percentage of the total population. The figures are pretty similiar to those racked up by Stalin and Mao-TseTung during their murderous political purges.

[SoonerProphet]

Closing down 300 or so newspapers and having thousands of people arrested, some of them congressmen, is not my idea of liberty or freedom.

[JohnnyMack]

I still don't understand how the Civil War caused race relations to be set back a hundred years in this country.

I knew I shouldn't have slept through history class in high school.

[SoonerProphet]

I still don't understand how the Civil War caused race relations to be set back a hundred years in this country.

I knew I shouldn't have slept through history class in high school.

Because social engineering imposed from on high usually has the opposite effect on societies, especially in societies where custom and tradition are so entrenched.

[FaninAma]

Closing down 300 or so newspapers and having thousands of people arrested, some of them congressmen, is not my idea of liberty or freedom.

Agreed.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/rthg/chap6.htm

18% of the Southern population was killed in the American Civil War. Put pencil to paper and figure out how many tens of millions of human beings that would be in Russia, China or even modern America.

Nah, the Civil War was a good thing.

Forced radical social change always meets with resistance. It's human nature. Add to that the fact that almost every family in the South lost a loved one(or many) to a bullet or other act of violence from the North and the resentment, hatred and resistance to the goals of the North had to be huge.

With the comparison of the centuries long revenge-seeking bloodletting that has been going on in other societies(like the Middle East) as a reference point I think it's a testament to the benign, forgiving charcter of the average American that the resentment the South held for the North lasted less than 3 generations.

If the South had been allowed to make their own changes in regards to the way their society approached civil rights I think the transition to a more tolerant society would have been much, much shorter. And I base this contention on the abolision of slavery in other western countries where it was done in a non-violent way.

[TUSooner]

Many. He got near 99.999% of the vote, too.

Saddam Hussein was reelected many times in Iraq.

Same with Fidel Castro.

The election of 1864 was rigged. No Southern White man could vote. Of course no women were allowed to vote. If I were a betting man I would have certainly bet the house on Lincoln winning that election.

As far as Lincoln-Stalin comparisons....compare the number of civilian casualties in the South and look at the casualty rate as a percentage of the total population. The figures are pretty similiar to those racked up by Stalin and Mao-TseTung during their murderous political purges.

People freely voted against Lincoln and his policies in 1864 and neither they nor Lincoln's opponent, McClelland, were shot. In fact, they sounded a lot like you do, and lived to tell about it.
But I'm done wasting my time, and yours, on this "argument."

[FaninAma]

People freely voted against Lincoln and his policies in 1864 and neither they nor Lincoln's opponent, McClelland, were shot. In fact, they sounded a lot like you do, and lived to tell about it.
But I'm done wasting my time, and yours, on this "argument."

Citizens of the South were not allowed to vote. How is that different from the Communist Party running a couple of Party candidates with the guy in power remaining in power?

Lincoln is responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans and the loss of billions of lost dollars through destroyed economies.

Bush is getting criticism for his decision that has cost less than 4000 American lives.

I guess to be considered a great leader in this country you either have to squander millions of lives or billions to trillions of American wealth.

[JohnnyMack]

If the South had been allowed to make their own changes in regards to the way their society approached civil rights I think the transition to a more tolerant society would have been much, much shorter. And I base this contention on the abolision of slavery in other western countries where it was done in a non-violent way.

I completely and totally disagree with you. It's like having a hostage situation in which the SWAT team shoots the hostage taker because said hostage taker is holding a gun to a hostage's head. Then after the fact the family of the hostage taker suing the police saying, "he was gonna put the gun down" if you had just given him time.

[TUSooner]

Citizens of the South were not allowed to vote. How is that different from the Communist Party running a couple of Party candidates with the guy in power remaining in power?

Licoln is responsibel for the deaths of millions of Americans and the loss of billions of lost dollars through destroyed economies.

Bush is getting criticism for his decision that has cost less than 4000 American lives.

I guess to be considered a great leader in this country you either have to squander millions of lives or billions to trillions of American wealth.

:pop:

[FaninAma]

I completely and totally disagree with you. It's like having a hostage situation in which the SWAT team shoots the hostage taker because said hostage taker is holding a gun to a hostage's head. Then after the fact the family of the hostage taker suing the police saying, "he was gonna put the gun down" if you had just given him time.

In your scenario what the North did to the South would be equivalent to the SWAT team shooting the perpetrator, the hostage, the family of the hostage and the neighbors of the hostage and then having the SWAT team declared great heroes for what they did.

Again we disagree because of the different way we view the inherent tendencies and qualities of our fellow Americans. I think, by and large, most Americans want to do what is right. I think that has been our nature since the country was founded. There is no example you can point to where a Western society continued slavery until the end of the 19th century. Yet the other societies were able to achieve this admirable goal without killing millions and millions of their own countrymen.

Amazing.

[jk the sooner fan]

if americans wanted to do what was "right" why did it take 100 years and a legislated act to establish civil rights?

how many blacks were killed by their own countrymen in the south before and after the war?

[JohnnyMack]

In your scenario what the North did to the South would be equivalent to the SWAT team shooting the perpetrator, the hostage, the family of the hostage and the neighbors of the hostage and then having the SWAT team declared great heroes for what they did.

Again we disagree because of the different way we view the inherent tendencies and qualities of our fellow Americans. I think, by and large, most Americans want to do what is right. I think that has been our nature since the country was founded. There is no example you can point to where a Western society continued slavery until the end of the 19th century. Yet the other societies were able to achieve this admirable goal without killing millions and millions of their own countrymen.

Amazing.

I disagree. Your continued support of the south and its ways is baffling. You won't apologize for slavery, rather you rail against the north for forcing the issue.

[Frozen Sooner]

As an aside, I thought that federal child labor law started well before the Depression. I was wrong, though. Federal regulation of child labor really began with the Fair Labor Standards act of 1938.

However, the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause does predate FDR by a few decades. See Swift v. United States.

[FaninAma]

if americans wanted to do what was "right" why did it take 100 years and a legislated act to establish civil rights?

how many blacks were killed by their own countrymen in the south before and after the war?

That's a good question. After killing millions of their own citizens why did it still take legialative action 100 years later to ensure civil rights? I suspect because it took 100 years for Southern society to get over having millions of their citizens killed.

I simply propose that a peaceful abolition of slavery would have resulted in the South recognizing the civil rights of blacks much sooner because the country would not have had to deal with all of the hatred, resentment and economic sequelae of the Civil War. All of the energy, money and time spent on heling thee wounds could have been spent in a more constructive manner toward improving race relations. Why was Hitler able to come to power after WWI?

I suspect not very many blacks were killed before the Civil War. I suspect the greatest loss of lives among black Americans occured during the Civil War.

[jk the sooner fan]

so you're saying that only the north ever had any responsibility for killing "millions" of their citizens?

nobody in the south?

let me guess, you grew up with confederate flags all over your house right? and those "the south will rise again" stickers?

[Jeopardude]

Glad you're impressed.

Lincoln essentially took the Constitution and wiped his @$$ with it.

From that point on the Constitution means whatever the people wielding power in the government say it means. In the mid 20th century the court system figured out that they could get in on this game and became the most powerful branch of government despite the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government.

Now we have rule by juristocracy and we have a legalistic society ran by lawyers and beaurocrats.

If you don't love it, leave it...

[JohnnyMack]

That's a good question. After killing millions of their own citizens why did it still take legialative action 100 years later to ensure civil rights? I suspect because it took 100 years for Southern society to get over having millions of their citizens killed.

Or, maybe it's because they were a bunch of racists (my family fought for the South in Tennessee by the way) who didn't think much of colored folks and continued stringing them up in trees for the next 80 - 100 years.


I simply propose that a peaceful abolition of slavery would have resulted in the South recognizing the civil rights of blacks much sooner because all of the hatred, resentment and economic sequelae of the Civil War would not have had to been dealt with. All of the energy, money and time spent on heling thee wounds could have been spent in a more constructive manner toward improving race relations.

And why in the hell would the South want to give up their slaves and cripple their businesses? You honestly believe that they were ever going to peacefully agree to a complete and total paradigm shift like that? I for one don't.

[jk the sooner fan]

the blacks were so well treated by southeners

[Frozen Sooner]

the blacks were so well treated by southeners

Well, they WERE the white man's burden. :rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

The election of 1864 was rigged. Lincoln only won 55% of the popular vote. WTF does that = rigged? No Southern White man could vote. Of course no women were allowed to vote. Simply not true. White Southern men who resided in states NOT in armed, open rebellion with the legitimate government of the United States could and did vote. The only reason anyone in the states in rebellion could not vote was because, well, its silly to even have to say this, 1) loyal citizens in the South had to take to the brush to avoid being hanged (or worse) by their fellow Southerners 2) There was no way for them to vote anymore than a British subject in the colonies could vote in a Parliamentary election back in England. Back then, you had to vote at the polling place or you lost your franchise.

As far as Lincoln-Stalin comparisons....compare the number of civilian casualties in the South and look at the casualty rate as a percentage of the total population. The figures are pretty similiar to those racked up by Stalin and Mao-TseTung during their murderous political purges.

War is hell. Civilians in war-torn country suffer mightily. Always have. The actual reason more Southern civilians died or were directly affected by the Civil War was because it was fought in their pastures and towns and around their front doors! I am willing to listen if you have documentable evidence from any source that indicates Southern non-combatants were rounded up and executed by Federal forces as civilians were under Hitler, Stalin or any of the 20th century monsters.

[FaninAma]

I disagree. Your continued support of the south and its ways is baffling. You won't apologize for slavery, rather you rail against the north for forcing the issue.

Weak. I've made a point to emphasize that getting rid of slavery was a worthyy goal. I simply disagree with the contention that 18% of the citizens of the South had to die to accomplish that goal.

I guess I could contend that you think the loss of millions of American lives was trivial and well worth ending slavery a few years earlier than it would have been ended without the War. Seems pretty bloodtirtsy for somebody who is so against military action in Iraq.

[Jerk]

If people think that Bush went too far with the Patriot Act and that our civil liberties are threatened due to the war on terror, then they'd really be in for a shock if they were transported back in time to Lincoln's America. But, hey, the ends justifies the means, right?

[Frozen Sooner]

Suspension of Habeas Corpus in time of insurrection is provided for in the Constitution. Last I checked, we aren't in a state of armed insurrection right now.

[Jerk]

Suspension of Habeas Corpus in time of insurrection is provided for in the Constitution. Last I checked, we aren't in a state of armed insurrection right now.

No, but we should be.

I mean, I can't call Dirka Jirka Mohamad Jihad in Pakistan without the CIA listening. That is loss of rights!

[FaninAma]

War is hell. Civilians in war-torn country suffer mightily. Always have. The actual reason more Southern civilians died or were directly affected by the Civil War was because it was fought in their pastures and towns and around their front doors! I am willing to listen if you have documentable evidence from any source that indicates Southern non-combatants were rounded up and executed by Federal forces as civilians were under Hitler, Stalin or any of the 20th century monsters.

So your telling me that burning cities, crops and destroying everything in your path as Sherman did on his march to the sea wouldn't have been labeled a war crime by the Hague or the UN? And I am sure Sherman's armies were very careful to only destroy possesions and never touched the civilain population.Um, OK.

Before modern methods of news coverage and worldwide communication the atrocities of any war were not well covered. There is only antcedotal evidene of the atrocities of such brutal conquerors as Ghengis Khan, the Huns and the Spaniards in Central America. The lack of detailed reports from wars and battles that transpired in the 1860's and before doesn't mean that a lot of atrocities didn't happen. Somehow 18% of the popultion ended up dying in the South. I guess they all just died of means unrelated to the efforts of the North. Maybe they all died of old age.

[FaninAma]

Or, maybe it's because they were a bunch of racists (my family fought for the South in Tennessee by the way) who didn't think much of colored folks and continued stringing them up in trees for the next 80 - 100 years.
Thanks for proving my point. Societal attitudes never change according to you contention. No other countries ever gave up slavery without the use of force. Right? We treat women the same way they were treated in the 1800's. Right?




And why in the hell would the South want to give up their slaves and cripple their businesses? You honestly believe that they were ever going to peacefully agree to a complete and total paradigm shift like that? I for one don't.

Simply a matter of economics. Technology would have made the use of human labor obsolete in growing and harvesting many crops. Paying workers a low wage to pick other crops would have proven cheaper than housing, feeding and caring for large groups of laborers. I'm quite sure my Irish ancestors in America worked many menial tasks for meager wages when they came over from Ireland. Cheap labor would have never been a problem and the South would have figured that simple economic fact out soon enough.

[FaninAma]

so you're saying that only the north ever had any responsibility for killing "millions" of their citizens?

nobody in the south?

let me guess, you grew up with confederate flags all over your house right? and those "the south will rise again" stickers?

I've tried to conduct a polite, respectful discusion on this topic and give reasonable responses to questions and queries regarding my position but I must say the above post is just blinking ignorant and devoid of any semblance or intelligent thought....a reflection on the person who posted it I suppose.

[jk the sooner fan]

well.....i'd say your posts are reflective of the person who posted them...i dont think i'm the only one who see's it that way

[FaninAma]

well.....i'd say your posts are reflective of the person who posted them...i dont think i'm the only one who see's it that way

Well then if you've resorted to making unsubstantiated accusations about my personal beliefs rather than debating the ideas and principls contained in my posts leads me to the conclusion that you hve nothing else to add to the discussion.

[Scott D]

This thread is beyond amusing.

[Jerk]

I think the south was legally right but morally wrong.

The reason this interests me is how it relates to the future of this nation when there are two distinct camps of people: Those who want socialism, and those who want a free-society built on individual rights and free markets. I don't want to be dragged into the other camp just because I'm out-numbered. Why can't the rural state say to the urban state "hey, I don't want to live by your values, so I am leaving!" ?

Hopefully, when and if 1984 really does happen, you guys will read that they found my dead body in a huge pile of empty brass. Then you can talk about what a jerk I was.

I used to have hope, until I realized that both parties are for big government.

[FaninAma]

This thread is beyond amusing.

How so?

[KABOOKIE]

I've tried to conduct a polite, respectful discusion on this topic and give reasonable responses to questions and queries regarding my position but I must say the above post is just blinking ignorant and devoid of any semblance or intelligent thought....a reflection on the person who posted it I suppose.


Niiiiiiiiice.

[jk the sooner fan]

i dont think you wait for technology to end something like slavery......its immoral, always was and always will be......nor do you wait for the populous on their end to figure out its not working...

[jk the sooner fan]

This thread is beyond amusing.

dammit Jim, say something.......

[FaninAma]

I think the south was legally right but morally wrong.

The reason this interests me is how it relates to the future of this nation when there are two distinct camps of people: Those who want socialism, and those who want a free-society built on individual rights and free markets. I don't want to be dragged into the other camp just because I'm out-numbered. Why can't the rural state say to the urban state "hey, I don't want to live by your values, so I am leaving!" ?

Hopefully, when and if 1984 really does happen, you guys will read that they found my dead body in a huge pile of empty brass. Then you can talk about what a jerk I was.
I used to have hope, until I realized that both parties are for big government.

You are right. The Founding Fathers never wanted a smothering central government that dominated American Society. They wanted the various states to be able to determine their own social and ecomomic systems so the country could see what works and doen't work.

Instead of the beaurocratic, inefficient mess we have now in the Federal government there would have been a trend to effecient and responsive local state governments.

[Frozen Sooner]

No no, jk, we should have totally told that dude who got his tongue ripped out for backtalking his master that economic forces would have eventually ended slavery. When, you know, we got around to it.

[Scott D]

How so?

Because the only way the Southern states would have peaceably moved from a Chattel Slavery foundation, would have been to been overrun with an influx of persons from non Slavery states in the North, whom could have used a block of political power to eradicate the legality of Slavery.

You bring up other countries that outlawed Slavery on their own. None of those other countries ever tried to use religion to justify Slavery in the first place. Southern states did just that, and then used religion to justify the Jim Crow era that followed it.

As a person in the medical profession, if you were told that you couldn't use your journals, books, or implements of your trade I'm sure you wouldn't respond to it in a very likely manner. After all, your belief would be that your livelihood was being taken away from you by outside forces that have no business interfering with how you do business. That's no different than the viewpoint used by those whom justified secession from the Union on the grounds of being told "Well hey, we know you guys have spent the last 200 years getting wealthy on the backs of people whom we in our infinite lack of wisdom we deemed to have fewer rights than common livestock. But, we've come to the conclusion that well, that thought process was short sighted and it was wrong. So we'd appreciate if you'd look into, you know, finding another way to run your profitable cotton/tobacco/other agricultural pursuit plantation."

But, I'm sure my grandfather whom has been deceased for the past 30 years and took a boot in the face from an Alabama cop in Selma in the early 60s would appreciate your viewpoint.

[Jerk]

:pop:

[Scott D]

:pop:

"To those whom much is given, much is expected."

[Jerk]

"To those whom much is given, much is expected."

It's so easy when it's someone else's money.

[FaninAma]

Because the only way the Southern states would have peaceably moved from a Chattel Slavery foundation, would have been to been overrun with an influx of persons from non Slavery states in the North, whom could have used a block of political power to eradicate the legality of Slavery.

You bring up other countries that outlawed Slavery on their own. None of those other countries ever tried to use religion to justify Slavery in the first place. Southern states did just that, and then used religion to justify the Jim Crow era that followed it.

As a person in the medical profession, if you were told that you couldn't use your journals, books, or implements of your trade I'm sure you wouldn't respond to it in a very likely manner. After all, your belief would be that your livelihood was being taken away from you by outside forces that have no business interfering with how you do business. That's no different than the viewpoint used by those whom justified secession from the Union on the grounds of being told "Well hey, we know you guys have spent the last 200 years getting wealthy on the backs of people whom we in our infinite lack of wisdom we deemed to have fewer rights than common livestock. But, we've come to the conclusion that well, that thought process was short sighted and it was wrong. So we'd appreciate if you'd look into, you know, finding another way to run your profitable cotton/tobacco/other agricultural pursuit plantation."

But, I'm sure my grandfather whom has been deceased for the past 30 years and took a boot in the face from an Alabama cop in Selma in the early 60s would appreciate your viewpoint.

Again I will use my trump card which is that the viability of a system that uses slave labor to conduct business is not sustainable. Throughout history economic truths have trumped religious and political philosophies.

Why did the USSR fall? Why is the socialist sytem in Europe about to collapse under it's own weight? Why has the United States supplanted Great Brittain as the dominant power in the world? Why is China the greatest threat to the dominance of the US in the world?

Now, you can argue the point that even a few more years or even a couple more decades of slavery was intolerable and the loss of millions of lives and the destruction of an economy were reasonable sacrifices for achieving the immediate end to slavery. I don't support that opinion.

There are lots of social injustices in this country today that I don't agree with. Abortion is, imo, an abomination against humanity but I don't advocate going to war or even using force to end the practice. I am willing to do everything I can to see the practice ended through peaceful, democratic means.....however long that takes.

Maybe Homey can comment on the plight of blacks after the Civil War. My understanding is that the North was unprepared and incapable of retraining or assisting the newly freed slaves. It is also my understanding that the black population suffered immensley in terms of economic deprivation following the war becaue of the lack of planning for the financial welfare of black families as well as the inability of newly freed blacks to eek out a living in an economy devestated by the war..

And again I will point out that the Civil War was fought and millions lost their lives including many blacks but that did not prevent your grandfather from getting boot in the face a century later. So I must ask you what exactly did the Civil War accomplish that would not have been accomplished without it? My contention is that a peaceful ending of slavery would have led to a quicker resolution to the state of race relations in the South. I fully understand that is an opinion I can't prove but just as an observer of human emotion if there are other options to violent resolution of a conflict the recovery and healing generqally proceed at a much faster pace using the non-violent means.

Nothing can justify that slavery was allowed in this country but it was. And nothing can justify the terrible human and economic toll wreaked on the country by the Civil War when other options were available.

[Frozen Sooner]

I fail to see how anyone who previously did not own the fruits of their own labor or even their own bodies could possibly be economically disadvantaged by being freed.

The home and food of a slave is a gift of his owner. No matter the luxury of his surroundings, he still owns nothing and lives only by the largesse of his owner.

[Scott D]

Again I will use my trump card which is that the viability of a system that uses slave labor to conduct business is not sustable. Throughout history economic truths have trumped religious and political philosophies.

It depends on whom has the money...in past socieities religion flourished because to a lesser degree, it controlled the economy.


Why did the USSR fall? Why is the socialist sytem in Europe about to collapse under it's own weight? Why has the United States supplanted Great Brittain as the dominant power in the world? Why is China the greatest threat to the dominance of the US in the world?

The USSR fell because it's military machinations were simply unsustainable with their economy. There was no true creative enterprise, however going into pre-Soviet times, that has always been an issue with Russia. As a society, they never really flourished in any economical manner throughout time. The United States supplanted Great Britain as the dominant world power because we began our stretch of Colonialism at a time where the European nations were in the beginning stages of regression at that time. Also, history has shown that whomever has superior Naval power, tends to be the dominant Nation/Culture in the world. Also, having a land mass 3x their size, and more than 4x the population doesn't hurt in terms of supplanting them in that manner. The same with bloodying their nose twice in warfare, and removing their general aura of invincibility (sound familiar?). China is a major threat because they have the population, desire, and drive to make themselves a force in the world. China has ALWAYS been a sleeping giant in geo-political terms, and someone has finally figured out a way to wake up the Tiger without pulling his tail to do it.


Now, you can argue the point that even a few more years or even a couple more decades of slavery was intolerable and the loss of millions of lives and the destruction of an economy were reasonable sacrifices for achieving the immediate end to slavery. I don't support that opinion.

Saying 'a few more years' would be short-sighted, I have my doubts that the Cotton Gin would have impacted slavery in a negative manner despite it being touted that way. It would have led to a redistribution of manpower. I do however take umbrance that you seem to be insinuating that the only massive loss of life was sustained by those whom resided in Confederate states. Hell, it can be argued that even with the war there was no real immediate end to slavery, as there were still slaves in some southern states well into the 1880s. The bloodshed from the Northern side of it was from a 'Preserve the Union/Quell the Rebellion' point of view and not from a 'Free the Slaves' point of view. The 'Freeing of Slaves' was the perpetual boogie man being flaunted by states that seceded as justification for that secession. The Confederacy used the scare tactic of "Join the Army, before those Northerners let all the darkies run free to take what is rightfully yours."


There are lots of social injustices in this country today that I don't agree with. Abortion is, imo, an abomination against humanity but I don't advocate going to war or even using force to end the practice. I am willing to do everything I can to see the practice ended through peaceful, democratic means.....however long that takes.

That would be you as an individual. There are other individuals whom are more than content to use violent means to fight Abortion. Do you condone the actions of individuals whom are Pro-Life, who believe it's justifiable to harrass people whom work in Abortion Clinics or whom for whatever reason get a consultation/have an abortion performed? I'd hardly think Abortion is a fair comparison to Slavery though.


Maybe Homey can comment on the plight of blacks after the Civil War. My understanding is that the North was unprepared and incapable of retraining or assisting thenewly freed slaves. It is alos my understanding that the blck population suffered immensley in terms of economic prosperity following the war.

The largest amount of suffering in that regard was due to the fact that since so very few had anything more than the most basic of educations at best, it was a lot easier to take advantage of them. In many cases, some went from being slaves to being charged excessive amounts of money (most of the time in excess to their income), to do the same jobs they were doing before they were free. In other cases, those whom had decent/good businesses before the end of slavery were finding their businesses being burned to the ground, and the perpetrators being protected by local law enforcement (hence the beginning and growth of Jim Crow laws)

The strongest argument in regards to the handling of post-slavery assimilation was that similar to Iraq, the administration didn't have a plan in that regards. Then again, the administration wouldn't have made freeing the slaves a priority had it not been for the seceding states making it into a central issue.

[FaninAma]

I fail to see how anyone who previously did not own the fruits of their own labor or even their own bodies could possibly be economically disadvantaged by being freed.

The home and food of a slave is a gift of his owner. No matter the luxury of his surroundings, he still owns nothing and lives only by the largesse of his owner.

I realize I am running the risk of heading down a slippery slope where I will be accused of claiming that balcks were better off as slaves than being free in a wrecked economy and a society(including the North) that was hostile to their presence.

My point is that the war was ill-conceived on multiple fronts. One of those fronts was that because of the sudden upheaval and radical societal change the party that was supposed to be the benefactor of the War, namely former slaves, suffered immense hardship following the war. I do make the assumption that a more ordered and peaceful ending of slavery may have allowed more planning and an easier transition into freedom for the former slaves with fewer hardships and more acceptance by both Northern and Southern societies.

[Scott D]

And to address the points you edited in after your original post


And again I will point out that the Civil War was fought and millions lost their lives including many blacks but that did not prevent your grandfather from getting boot in the face a century later. So I must ask you what exactly did the Civil War accomplish that would not have been accomplished without it? My contention is that a peaceful ending of slavery would have led to a quicker resolution to the state of race relations in the South. I fully understand that is an opinion I can't prove but just as an observer of human emotion if there are other options to violent resolution of a conflict the recovery and healing generqally proceed at a much faster pace using the non-violent means.

Why was it so important for those southern states to hold onto slavery? Why is it that the reason non-violence resistance worked so well in India as compared to Dr. King's attempt to use it in this country? I know I'll never get a satisfactory answer for the first part of my questions, however for the second. Ghandi had a vast superiority of numbers with his non-violence resistance to British rule in India. Dr. King had a vast inferiority of numbers with his attempt to recreate Ghandi's peaceful resistance. Unfortunately, over 3000+ years the only thing humanity has ever proven itself adept at is responding to any differences with violence.


Nothing can justify that slavery was allowed in this country but it was. And nothing can justify the terrible human and economic toll wreaked on the country by the Civil War when other options were available.

I would say that other options had been tried before the Civil War. But yet, they failed and things ended up going down the path of the Seceding South Carolinians firing the first shot rather than seeking a peaceful resolution to the matter.

[Mixer!]

So the South should have hauled the North before the SCOTUS and forced them to live up to their constitutional requirements first, and then if that failed, declare secession? Or, if they'd won their case, then the North might've seceeded and started their own band?

[TUSooner]

In your scenario what the North did to the South would be equivalent to the SWAT team shooting the perpetrator, the hostage, the family of the hostage and the neighbors of the hostage and then having the SWAT team declared great heroes for what they did.

Again we disagree because of the different way we view the inherent tendencies and qualities of our fellow Americans. I think, by and large, most Americans want to do what is right. I think that has been our nature since the country was founded. There is no example you can point to where a Western society continued slavery until the end of the 19th century. Yet the other societies were able to achieve this admirable goal without killing millions and millions of their own countrymen.

Amazing.

Can you name any other Western society where a large part of that society was so obsessed with slavery that it would to destroy the nation in order to preserve slavery?

[FaninAma]

It depends on whom has the money...in past socieities religion flourished because to a lesser degree, it controlled the economy. Religious practices and religions that ignore sound economic practices do not gain wide acceptance in a society. Religions that advocate vows of poverty are not popular in prosperous scoieties where there are other option that do not advocate vows of poverty.




The USSR fell because it's military machinations were simply unsustainable with their economy. There was no true creative enterprise, however going into pre-Soviet times, that has always been an issue with Russia. As a society, they never really flourished in any economical manner throughout time. The United States supplanted Great Britain as the dominant world power because we began our stretch of Colonialism at a time where the European nations were in the beginning stages of regression at that time. Also, history has shown that whomever has superior Naval power, tends to be the dominant Nation/Culture in the world. Also, having a land mass 3x their size, and more than 4x the population doesn't hurt in terms of supplanting them in that manner. The same with bloodying their nose twice in warfare, and removing their general aura of invincibility (sound familiar?). China is a major threat because they have the population, desire, and drive to make themselves a force in the world. China has ALWAYS been a sleeping giant in geo-political terms, and someone has finally figured out a way to wake up the Tiger without pulling his tail to do it.

Summary: The USSR did not have the economy to sustain the arms race with the west or continue their imperialistic grab for world domination through the practice of supporting despotic regimes throughout the 3rd world. The US developed a far more vibrant economy that England had at the turn of the century and it wsn't because the US was a great force in the colonization of other parts of the world. Yes, the US was larger than England but the sun never set on the British empire. It was huge. So why did it fail? Because it was economically untenable for england to finance the security and maintenance of their empire. The reason China is now a player in the world now is becaue they have figured out how to gain an economic advantage form their huge labor resources. It gives them an edge in economic competition.It's not because they have a a stronger military or a superior system of government. In fact, their system of government is actually hindrance to the economic power that China could possess.



Saying 'a few more years' would be short-sighted, I have my doubts that the Cotton Gin would have impacted slavery in a negative manner despite it being touted that way. It would have led to a redistribution of manpower. I do however take umbrance that you seem to be insinuating that the only massive loss of life was sustained by those whom resided in Confederate states. Hell, it can be argued that even with the war there was no real immediate end to slavery, as there were still slaves in some southern states well into the 1880s. The bloodshed from the Northern side of it was from a 'Preserve the Union/Quell the Rebellion' point of view and not from a 'Free the Slaves' point of view. The 'Freeing of Slaves' was the perpetual boogie man being flaunted by states that seceded as justification for that secession. The Confederacy used the scare tactic of "Join the Army, before those Northerners let all the darkies run free to take what is rightfully yours."
I realize my opinion on this issue is unprovable, as is yours. I would merely point out again that it would seem improbable that the US would be the only western country to buck the trend of all other western countries who had already abandoned the practice.




That would be you as an individual. There are other individuals whom are more than content to use violent means to fight Abortion. Do you condone the actions of individuals whom are Pro-Life, who believe it's justifiable to harrass people whom work in Abortion Clinics or whom for whatever reason get a consultation/have an abortion performed? I'd hardly think Abortion is a fair comparison to Slavery though.
And again, imo opinion the use of violence to prmote the pro-life opinion is wrong. And yes it is your opinion that abortion is not comparable to slavery. But I would use persuasion and peaceful means to try to convince you abortion is not right.....not a threat of viollence even if I did have superior force on my side.




The largest amount of suffering in that regard was due to the fact that since so very few had anything more than the most basic of educations at best, it was a lot easier to take advantage of them. In many cases, some went from being slaves to being charged excessive amounts of money (most of the time in excess to their income), to do the same jobs they were doing before they were free. In other cases, those whom had decent/good businesses before the end of slavery were finding their businesses being burned to the ground, and the perpetrators being protected by local law enforcement (hence the beginning and growth of Jim Crow laws)
The North wasn't prepared to absorb the newly freed slves either and there was tremendous resentment to the fomer slaves moving to Northern cities and competing for jobs with whites. Better planning, less upheaval and less resentment would have aided a better, not perfect, way to end slavery and help the freed slaves transition to Amercan society.


The strongest argument in regards to the handlin. of post-slavery assimilation was that similar to Iraq, the administration didn't have a plan in that regards. Then again, the administration wouldn't have made freeing the slaves a priority had it not been for the seceding states making it into a central issue. I agree. Impulsive action without enough planning leads to disasterous results. It always has and it always will. Lincoln acted impusively and wiht little thought about the consequences a massive Civil War would have on the country.

[TUSooner]

This just in: WWII was a needless waste of lives and resources, a bunch of blood shed over a few generations of Jews and some Red Russians. Hitler would have died, and the conquest of Europe and the Final Solution would have ended "eventually." If the fat obnoxious Churchill would have kept his mouth shut and the tyrant FDR had kept our boys at home, it all would have worked out in the end.

[Okla-homey]

I'd like to make one other thing abundantly clear here. Despite high-toned words to the contrary, the Constitution was written to cure the defects of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles weren't practical because the federal government was largely non-existent and therefore the darn thing was just too impractical.

The states needed someone to ref in their interstate disputes and to make the business of business work in the US. The key to remember is simply the fact that the Constitution was written to bring about the world's first common market. It was about commerce and free trade among the former colonies first and foremost. Never lose sight of that fact.

BTW, the cats who largely wrote the Constitution were Southerners. Those guys needed cheap goods from Europe and the North and they needed to be able to sell their goods to those markets as freely as possible. As you guys know, the leading light among the drafters was a d00d named James Madison. As an aside, someday, I plan to visit his private study at his home "Montpelier" in Virginia. I want to inhale the air of the room where, as some pretty smart people have written, no human ever thought more deeply about representative democracy and how to bring one into being.

Anyhoo, I think the evidence is compelling that the drafters and signers knew they were giving up a lot of state soveriegnty in order to conduct interstate business.

It just so happened, that by 1860, many Southerners were convinced the Federal government (in the form of its elected representatives in Congress) was on the verge of denying them the basis of their economic viability. That succed for the South, but folks who refuse, or are unable to evolve when they see the proverbial writing on the wall usually don't last anyway.

[FaninAma]

This just in: WWII was a needless waste of lives and resources, a bunch of blood shed over a few generations of Jews and some Red Russians. Hitler would have died, and the conquest of Europe and the Final Solution would have ended "eventually." If the fat obnoxious Churchill would have kept his mouth shut and the tyrant FDR had kept our boys at home, it all would have worked out in the end.

I don't recall that the South ever invaded the North and threatened the North with military force or sunk their ocean liners or bombed their allies or threatened their economic viability by attempting to control the sources of the energy in the Middle East.

The South was apparently guilty of offending Northern sensibilities on the issue of slavery and for wanting to take their ball and go home.

[FaninAma]

That succed for the South, but folks who refuse, or are unable to evolve when they see the proverbial writing on the wall usually don't last anyway.

And why wouldn't they last? And if it was a forgone conclusion that their economic system wouldn't survive was the Civil War necessary ?

[TUSooner]

I don't recall that the South ever invaded the North and threatened the North with military force or sunk their ocean liners or bombed their allies or threatened their economic viability by attempting to control the sources of the energy in the Middle East.

The South was apparently guilty of offending Northern sensibilities on the issue of slavery and for wanting to take their ball and go home.

That analogy was STILL better than your comparing the 1864 presidential election to a communist party 1-candidate election.

[JohnnyMack]

The South was apparently guilty of offending Northern sensibilities on the issue of slavery

That's not reason enough?

[Scott D]

The North wasn't prepared to absorb the newly freed slves either and there was tremendous resentment to the fomer slaves moving to Northern cities and competing for jobs with whites. Better planning, less upheaval and less resentment would have aided a better, not perfect, way to end slavery and help the freed slaves transition to Amercan society.

Ironically this country to a degree has had the same pattern with waves of immigration. The problem with the early post-slavery era was in regards to the solutions that were being thrown out there. There was a portion that wanted it to be viable to put freed slaves onto ships and sail them back to Africa (mostly disasterous, and eventually it ended up being mostly first generationers whom had relatively recently come to America). Another portion attempted the indentured servant/sharecropping route (Which in some cases was nothing more than semi-legalized slavery under a different guise. The last resort was the relatively random spreading of freed slaves all over the country. In the case of the last which tended to be the majority effort, it became once again a matter of immigration.

Regardless, as to your point of violence being the primary option. Abolitionism didn't just appear in 1860.


All of the states north of Maryland began gradually to abolish slavery between 1781 and 1804; all the states abolished or severely limited the slave trade, Rhode Island in 1774 (Virginia had also attempted to do so before the Revolution, but the Privy Council had vetoed the act), all the others by 1786, Georgia in 1798. These northern emancipation acts typically provided that slaves born before the law was passed would be freed at a certain age, and so remnants of slavery lingered; in New Jersey, a dozen "permanent apprentices" were recorded in the 1860 census. The first state to abolish slavery outright was Pennsylvania in 1780.

The institution remained solid in the South, however, and that region's customs and social beliefs evolved into a strident defense of slavery in response to the rise of a stronger anti-slavery stance in the North. The anti-slavery sentiment, which existed before 1830 among many people in the North, was joined after 1840 by the vocal few of the abolitionist movement. The majority of Northerners rejected the extreme positions of the abolitionists; Abraham Lincoln, for example. Indeed many northern leaders including Lincoln, Stephen Douglas (the Democratic nominee in 1860), John C. Fremont (the Republican nominee in 1856), and Ulysses S. Grant married into slaveowning southern families without any moral qualms.

[Okla-homey]

And why wouldn't they last? And if it was a forgone conclusion that their economic system wouldn't survive was the Civil War necessary ?

Because the South started it by petulantly gathering up their chips and leaving the casino. See, like the "Hotel California,"... you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

There was also that little issue of the Confederate States confiscation of all Federal property within their borders which had to be dealt with. The Federal government couldn't stand idly by while armed mobs waltzed on to Federal property and announced, "this is now ours, now git!." That's precisely what happened at dozens of US forts and arsenals throughout the South in 1860-61 when those states seceded. IMHO, that alone justified invasion.

Anyway, the rest of the country said "No you don't Buster" and a lot of good boys on both sides died in order to settle it once and for all.

Don't forget, during the 1832 "Nullification Crisis" during the Jackson administration, SC almost seceded after declaring it had the power to "nullify" any Federal law it didn't like. SC only backed down when "Old Hickory" announced he would "personally lead an army of 200,000 into SC and hang the organizers." SC believed Jackson was serious and secession was postponed 30 years.

In 1860, SC calculated that the feckless "n----r loving baboon from Illinois" in the White House would let them walk. It was one of the worst examples of underestimating the resolve of your opponent in history. You can look that up my friend.

In the end, the slave masters got exactly what they deserved. Total ruin. Karma is a b1tch.

[Jerk]

Okay.......so....say some future day that Congress bans abortion, and some northeastern blue states secede. This means that the rest of the U.S. can invade their land, burn down their homes, etc Okay...I understand now. Basically, you need the moral issue on your side, plus lots of guns.

[OUinFLA]

In the end, it had nothing to do with what most thought the conflict was really about.

The truth of the matter is, the war was about land.

Even though it has taken over 100 years since the actual bullets have quit flying, the conquest of "The Southernmost State" is still at full tilt.

All one needs to do is drive around my resident state to see that the invasion is reaching a critical stage.

We should have built a wall.

[TUSooner]

Okay.......so....say some future day that Congress bans abortion, and some northeastern blue states secede. This means that the rest of the U.S. can invade their land, burn down their homes, etc Okay...I understand now. Basically, you need the moral issue on your side, plus lots of guns.


I think that's about it, really. But you need either a really good moral issue (better than either side of the abortion debate IMHO) or lots more guns.

If the "Yankees" want to rip up the nation over abortion like the Confederacy wanted to rip it up over slavery, they deserve what they get from the rest of the nation. More or less. I think. Probably. Maybe. In my humble opinion.

[TUSooner]

Because the South started it by petulantly gathering up their chips and leaving the casino. See, like the "Hotel California,"... you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

There was also that little issue of the Confederate States confiscation of all Federal property within their borders which had to be dealt with. The Federal government couldn't stand idly by while armed mobs waltzed on to Federal property and announced, "this is now ours, now git!." That's precisely what happened at dozens of US forts and arsenals throughout the South in 1860-61 when those states seceded. IMHO, that alone justified invasion.

Anyway, the rest of the country said "No you don't Buster" and a lot of good boys on both sides died in order to settle it once and for all.

Don't forget, during the 1832 "Nullification Crisis" during the Jackson administration, SC almost seceded after declaring it had the power to "nullify" any Federal law it didn't like. SC only backed down when "Old Hickory" announced he would "personally lead an army of 200,000 into SC and hang the organizers." SC believed Jackson was serious and secession was postponed 30 years.

In 1860, SC calculated that the feckless "n----r loving baboon from Illinois" in the White House would let them walk. It was one of the worst examples of underestimating the resolve of your opponent in history. You can look that up my friend.

In the end, the slave masters got exactly what they deserved. Total ruin. Karma is a b1tch.
Egggg-ZACT-ly. I'd certainly SPEK you real good for that fine, concise argymint. But I have to spread some around first. :)

[FaninAma]

And to address the points you edited in after your original post



Why was it so important for those southern states to hold onto slavery? Why is it that the reason non-violence resistance worked so well in India as compared to Dr. King's attempt to use it in this country? I know I'll never get a satisfactory answer for the first part of my questions, however for the second. Ghandi had a vast superiority of numbers with his non-violence resistance to British rule in India. Dr. King had a vast inferiority of numbers with his attempt to recreate Ghandi's peaceful resistance. Unfortunately, over 3000+ years the only thing humanity has ever proven itself adept at is responding to any differences with violence.



I would say that other options had been tried before the Civil War. But yet, they failed and things ended up going down the path of the Seceding South Carolinians firing the first shot rather than seeking a peaceful resolution to the matter.

I would disagree about the effectiveness of Dr. King's peaceful approach. I think his movement was picking up a tremendous amount of momentum. I think his efforts, coupled with his unfortunate death, is what led to the greatest changes in the hearts and minds of the country regarding Civil Rights......even the South.

[FaninAma]

Because the South started it by petulantly gathering up their chips and leaving the casino. See, like the "Hotel California,"... you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

There was also that little issue of the Confederate States confiscation of all Federal property within their borders which had to be dealt with. The Federal government couldn't stand idly by while armed mobs waltzed on to Federal property and announced, "this is now ours, now git!." That's precisely what happened at dozens of US forts and arsenals throughout the South in 1860-61 when those states seceded. IMHO, that alone justified invasion.

Anyway, the rest of the country said "No you don't Buster" and a lot of good boys on both sides died in order to settle it once and for all.

Don't forget, during the 1832 "Nullification Crisis" during the Jackson administration, SC almost seceded after declaring it had the power to "nullify" any Federal law it didn't like. SC only backed down when "Old Hickory" announced he would "personally lead an army of 200,000 into SC and hang the organizers." SC believed Jackson was serious and secession was postponed 30 years.

In 1860, SC calculated that the feckless "n----r loving baboon from Illinois" in the White House would let them walk. It was one of the worst examples of underestimating the resolve of your opponent in history. You can look that up my friend.

In the end, the slave masters got exactly what they deserved. Total ruin. Karma is a b1tch.

So, Lincoln went to war over the loss of property the North would have lost and in the process of conducting that war he manged to use and otherwise waste Federal treasury funds probably with a value probably many times the value of property the Federal government held in the South at the time? Add to that the negative effects on the Union economy and just on economic grounds the Civil War didn't make sense.

The Union could have been perserved and slavery ended without the War. But Lincoln was short sighted, depressed and and morbid. I actually think his personal life made him unable to fully appreciate or comprehend the costs his decisions would have on other human beings.

[JohnnyMack]

In the end, it had nothing to do with what most thought the conflict was really about.

The truth of the matter is, the war was about land.

Even though it has taken over 100 years since the actual bullets have quit flying, the conquest of "The Southernmost State" is still at full tilt.

All one needs to do is drive around my resident state to see that the invasion is reaching a critical stage.

We should have built a wall.

Heh. My wife is from NJ. In 2002 the company she worked for relocated to..................wait for it.........................Florida. I don't think anyone is actually from Florida. They all just transfer/move down there at some point.

[JohnnyMack]

So, Licoln went to war over the loss of property the North would have lost and in the process of conducting that war he manged to use and otherwise waste many times the amount of Federal treasury funds of the property the Federal government probable held in the South at the time? Forget the human cost of the war....just on economic grounds it didn't make sense.

The Union could have been perserved and slavery ended without the War. But Lincoln was short sighted, depressed and and morbid. I actually think his personal life made him unable to fully appreciate or comprehend the costs his deciions would have on other human beings.

It's Lincoln's fault there was slavery?

Gawldarnit you can't trust anything you read in textbooks nowadays.

[TUSooner]

It's Lincoln's fault there was slavery?

Gawldarnit you can't trust anything you read in textbooks nowadays.

Y'know, I had HEARD there were still some die-hard Confederate apologists, excuse-makers, and sympathizers out there, but I'd never seen a real one until I started reading this thread. :pop:

[JohnnyMack]

Y'know, I had HEARD there were still some die-hard Confederate apologists, excuse-makers, and sympathizers out there, but I'd never seen a real one until I started reading this thread. :pop:

SPLOOSH! SPLOOSH! SPLOOSH!

[FaninAma]

Y'know, I had HEARD there were still some die-hard Confederate apologists, excuse-makers, and sympathizers out there, but I'd never seen a real one until I started reading this thread. :pop:

Nice to see you've run out of anything intelligent to say and have resorted to snide comments about me being a racist or confederate sympathizer. You'd look a little more intelligent if you would just bow out of the debate gracefully. But, oh well.

[FaninAma]

Homey, the slave owners were simply carrying on a legal practice, the precedent of which had been established by none other than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of that band of hooligans. Was it reprehensible....yes. My contention is that ending it a few years earlier than it would have ended without the war did not justify the terrible price the country paid in terms of lives and economic loss, not to mention the loss of local/state autonomy to a powerful central government which the founding Fathers recognized would be the greatest threat to freedom and civil liberties the citizens of this country would face.

[C&CDean]

I'm not gonna get in the middle of this whole mess, but I will say this:

Those of you who are making the cute little "so ripping out your slave's tongue is a good thing" and "I bet you grew up with rebel flags all over your momma's titties" need to knock it off. You're being more ignorant than you know.

I do not agree with Fanin's Lincoln/Stalin comparison, but I do not believe he ever said "slavery is good" or "I support owning slaves" or anything like that. He's sharing an opinion that hundreds of thousands of Americans died in the Civil War - and didn't have to, and y'all are attacking him like he said "string up the ******s."

I think those of you acting like you wouldn't have owned a few slaves if you lived back in the day AND it was what everybody else did are ****ing liars and hypocrits. And you know it. I had to listen to a hundred yahoos like you when I was working on my MHR. You're trying to put 21st-century "standards" on the 19th century and it reeks of ignorance.

I've never owned a slave. My daddy never owned a slave. My grand-daddy never owned a slave. My great-grand-daddy never spoke English. However, if we just happened to live in the southern U.S. during the early-mid 1800's, chances are we'd have had several. It's the way it was. It's not that way anymore, and that's a wonderful thing. How about we leave it at that?

[sooneron]

I think this thread can be summed up as follows, Ama- eternal optimist, everyone else- pessimists.

I truly don't think slavery would have ended within the next 40 years if there had been no action taken by the North. The almighty dollar and the need for supremacy are too entrenched in some people.

[TUSooner]

Nice to see you've run out of anything intelligent to say and have resorted to snide comments about me being a racist or confederate sympathizer. You'd look a little more intelligent if you would just bow out of the debate gracefully. But, oh well.
I tried to bow out gracefully, but this thread is so hideous that I can't look away.
You have disclaimed being a racist, and I take your word on that; I have not accused you of racism. BUT there is nothing "snide" about me calling you a Confederate sympathizer; I'm saying it straight up: If you are not making excuses for the South, absolving the Confederacy for its role in starting the War, poo-pooing the likelihood and consequences of extended slavery, belittling Abolitionist and Unionist motives, and blaming Abraham Lincoln for single-handedly causing the War and its horrible consequence, then what exactly have you been posting for the last 2 days ? To me, that sounds like Confederate sympathizing and excuse-making.

Pardon me if I've made it personal. I didn't sign up to get in personal arguments (though regrettably, I sometimes do). I'll be happy to "buy you a beer" at a tailgate or something. But I do disagree vigorously and wholeheartedly with your views on the Civil War, which I believe are not supported by clear and consistent reasoning or based on sound presumptions or history.

And now....gracefully or not ... I bow OUT.

[JohnnyMack]

Homey, the slave owners were simply carrying on a legal practice, the precedent of which had been established by none other than George Washingto, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of that band of hooligans. Was it reprehensible....yes. My contention is that ending it a few years earlier than it would have ended without the war did not justify the terrible price the country paid in terms of lives and economic loss, not to mention the loss of local/state autonomy to a powerful central government which the founding Fathers recognized would be the greatest threat to freedom and civil liberties the citizens of this country would face.

You have absolutely no proof to defend this argument. None. Other than to say, well no other developed nation carried slavery into the 20th century, so we wouldn't have either. You paint Lincoln as the great Satan in this whole mess and the South as innocent victims. The South supported slavery. The South seceded from the Union, not the other way around. As Homey pointed out, the South took Federal property that didn't belong to them. The South forced the issue here and then when they got their *** kicked the sympathizers want to talk about the awful loss of life and how put upon they were. How they were unjustly picked on.

I think it's your inability to recognize that there may have been actions committed by the South that led to this war and that it wasn't some sucker punch delivered by the North.

[sooneron]

The Stalin thing struck a chord, but I don't see Ama as a "sympathizer". He disagrees with the implementation, not the rule it was following.

[C&CDean]

You have absolutely no proof to defend this argument. None. Other than to say, well no other developed nation carried slavery into the 20th century, so we wouldn't have either. You paint Lincoln as the great Satan in this whole mess and the South as innocent victims. The South supported slavery. The South seceded from the Union, not the other way around. As Homey pointed out, the South took Federal property that didn't belong to them. The South forced the issue here and then when they got their *** kicked the sympathizers want to talk about the awful loss of life and how put upon they were. How they were unjustly picked on.

I think it's your inability to recognize that there may have been actions committed by the South that led to this war and that it wasn't some sucker punch delivered by the North.

I'm thinking that part of Fanin's "anger?" stems from how everybody holds Lincoln in such high regard - and in reality he WAS the CIC of the Northern army who DID burn, rape, pillage, and burn again. Hell man, Atlanta was burned to the ground.

Today, people like you hate GWB for what he's doing in Iraq. You lament the loss of American lives. Just to put it in perspective, more AMERICAN lives were lost in an average hour of battle during the Civil War. More AMERICANS died during the Civil War than all the other wars combined. I think that's what he's trying to get at.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm thinking that part of Fanin's "anger?" stems from how everybody holds Lincoln in such high regard - and in reality he WAS the CIC of the Northern army who DID burn, rape, pillage, and burn again. Hell man, Atlanta was burned to the ground.

Today, people like you hate GWB for what he's doing in Iraq. You lament the loss of American lives. Just to put it in perspective, more AMERICAN lives were lost in an average hour of battle during the Civil War. More AMERICANS died during the Civil War than all the other wars combined. I think that's what he's trying to get at.

I get that. I understand that it was without a doubt the darkest time in our nation's history. What it wasn't was Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. What it wasn't was Germany invading Poland. The South has as much responsiblity for the loss of life in this as does the North. What bothers me the most is when Southern sympathizers blame this whole mess on the North. It's about accountability. On both sides.

[colleyvillesooner]

I get that. I understand that it was without a doubt the darkest time in our nation's history. What it wasn't was Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. What it wasn't was Germany invading Poland. The South has as much responsiblity for the loss of life in this as does the North. What bothers me the most is when Southern sympathizers blame this whole mess on the North. It's about accountability. On both sides.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5849/thatsracistdk6.gif

[Scott D]

Once again, the war from the perspective of the Union was NEVER about slavery. It was ALWAYS about slavery from the perspective of the Confederacy. If both sides were so up in arms about the slavery issue, Lincoln never would have uttered the words "If there was a way to preserve this nation without freeing the slaves, then I would do it." Basically South Carolina and her cohorts forced the issue, first by seceding, then by taking by force federal property, and lastly by beginning the war itself by firing the first shots.

While I appreciate your optimism in regards to the slavery issue, I would like to point out that basically everyone else outlawed slavery prior to 1830. I think your faith in humans to do the right thing should have taken a further blow in regards to the fact that for both blacks and women to be anywhere close to being considered full citizens with equal rights we had to rely on legislation from Washington DC.

Dean, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be owning any slaves if it was legal today. This thread has been interesting to see the perspectives brought forth. Fanin is no fan of the loss of life and hateful of the fact that the issue couldn't have been resolved peacefully, despite backing the initial aggressors. Jerk thinks that this, like everything else is a conspiracy by the Fed to turn the USA into a socialist regime. ;)

The thing that amuses me the most, is that there are families in southeastern states who still think that the civil war is ongoing today.

[JohnnyMack]

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5849/thatsracistdk6.gif

I love you. And not in the way that :dean: loves Bikerfox's brother. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, sorry Dean, but when someone says that slavery would have just ended on its own and the North should have just allowed it to die out on its own then I'm going to respond pretty negatively.

Simply because FIA's view is shared by many doesn't mean it's any less ridiculous. Slavery is the most evil thing one man can do to another, and to listen to a defense of a nation that made war on my nation simply so they could continue to practice this vileness because they'd have eventually stopped is ludicrous.

That being said, I'm done.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, the slave owners were simply carrying on a legal practice, the precedent of which had been established by none other than George Washingto, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of that band of hooligans. Was it reprehensible....yes. My contention is that ending it a few years earlier than it would have ended without the war did not justify the terrible price the country paid in terms of lives and economic loss, not to mention the loss of local/state autonomy to a powerful central government which the founding Fathers recognized would be the greatest threat to freedom and civil liberties the citizens of this country would face.

I agree. The South should passed a law freeing all the slaves and making slavery illegal and got with the flippin' program! THEN it would not have been necessary for the Boys in Blue to march in and burn their plantations down.

Essentially, it was also about greed on the part of the slaveholders. They were unwilling to pay a wage to field workers because the payroll would have hurt the bottomline. It was more profitable to use forced labor who worked for the food they ate and the rags on their backs.

Please don't bother trying to convince me that slavery was something essential to Southern economic viability which would have eventually ended naturally. It wasn't.

Instead, it was an essential element of approximately 15% of the white Southern populations' great wealth...and it also helped keep a lot of common crackers who owned little land and no slaves (a/k/a "surfs" in medieval Europe) trying to scratch out a living on a few acres in abject poverty.

The great tragedy is that many of these cracker's sons went off to fight, mostly because it was more exciting than walking behind a mule and pushing a plow. Others went because they got caught up in the war talk and the high-sounding platitudes spoken by fat men from plantation verandas who actually didn't give a bucket of spit if Private Cletus of the 26th Alabama Infantry Regiment, who lived (if you can call it that) in the sticks on 2 acres, got his head blowed-off or not.

For every plantationer who went off to war "to defend his rights" sporting his fresh new officers tunic made by a Charleston or New Orleans tailor, thousands of those cracker boys marched off in sh1tty shoes and coarse jean-cloth uniforms which were hastily sewn-up in the penitentiaries and sewing rooms of the Southern cities.

What those fat men in their white linen suits cared about was their agribusiness and ending the war quickly so they could focus on growing more cotton and selling it for top dollar to the textile mills of the world. Far too many of those crackers' boys are buried on battlefields far from their homes and the fat man lost his a$$ anyway. "States rights" and the "burdensome Federal government?" I don't buy it my friend, and I've studied this period my entire life.

Call it what you will, but the Southern slaveocracy was nineteenth century feudalism alive and well in the "land of the free," thus making it a festering boil that had to be lanced and sterilized before healthy flesh could grow.

Oh, and one more thing, this is fun. You don't get to converse like this on historical subjects unless you hang out with academics, and most of them are so tired of talking about it, its tough to get a rise out of them. :)

[JohnnyMack]

IInstead, it was an essential element of approximately 15% of the white Southern populations' great wealth...and it also helped keep a lot of common crackers who owned little land and no slaves (a/k/a "surfs" in medieval Europe) trying to scratch out a living on a few acres in abject poverty.

The great tragedy is that many of these cracker's sons went off to fight, mostly because it was more exciting than walking behind a mule and pushing a plow. Others went because they got caught up in the war talk and the high-sounding platitudes spoken by fat men from plantation verandas who actually didn't give a bucket of spit if Private Cletus of the 26th Alabama Infantry Regiment, who lived (if you can call it that) in the sticks on 2 acres, got his head blowed-off or not.

For every plantationer who went off to war "to defend his rights" sporting his fresh new officers tunic made by a Charleston or New Orleans tailor, thousands of those cracker boys marched off in sh1tty shoes and coarse jean-cloth uniforms which were hastily sewn-up in the penitentiaries and sewing rooms of the Southern cities.


My relatives fought in Tennessee for the south, but they sure as **** didn't have enough money to own slaves. They didn't have no fancy clothes, they just marched cause they was told their way of life was bein' threatened.

[FaninAma]

Please don't bother trying to convince me that slavery was something essential to Southern economic viability which would have eventually ended naturally. It wasn't.

Instead, it was an essential element of approximately 15% of the white Southern populations' great wealth...and it also helped keep a lot of common crackers who owned little land and no slaves (a/k/a "surfs" in medieval Europe) trying to scratch out a living on a few acres in abject poverty.

Even more reason for a supposedly intelligent, great leader like Lincoln to not blast headlong into a destructive war that the Southern aristocrats greatly desired. It was akin to two junior high punks goading each other into a fight and Lincoln obliged. This, imo, makes him anything but the greatest leader in US history.

As far as slavery ending without a War I can point to the other western societies who ended it without engaging in a costly war and even many states in the Union who had already done so without the use of violence. Can you point to any examples in western society where slavery didn't end or it took a War to force the end other than the US? Didn't think so.

And you realize by now that the Civil War is a very interesting topic to me. I would really like to discuss the warfare tactics/strategies of the North and South at some point with you.

[Okla-homey]

As far as slavery ending without a War I can point to the other western societies who ended it without engaging in a costly war and even many states in the Union who had already done so without the use of violence. Can you point to any examples in western society where slavery didn't end or it took a War to force the end other than the US? Didn't think so.


au contraire mon fre'r:

Brazil didn't outlaw negro slavery until the 1880's. The Portuguese imperial family outlawed it (it was hailed as the "Golden Law" in Brazil) around 1880 it to try and keep power because it made them popular with the common folk. The landed gentry (like those in the American South) revolted against the Crown, and bloody revolution reigned all over the country for years. Eventually, the people won out, Brazil eventually became a free republic, and the rest, is history.

[Frozen Sooner]

I could be wrong, but didn't slavery continue in Haiti until the slaves revolted?

[SoonerBorn68]

the blacks were so well treated by southeners

...and equally well by Yankees. I think this whole thread is laughable. Northerners fighting the good fight for slavery. :rolleyes: I'm sure many did, but the truth of the matter is that 98% of the north was white. While they wanted to end slavery they didn't, repeat didn't want the freed slaves to be their neighbors. As long as they were free in the South it was OK. (see NY draft riots)

I wrote a paper in college about the causes of the Civil War & started doing research trying to trump my Yankee professor. I was always one of those "war of northern aggression" folks & frankly there's a lot to be said for that argument. There's also a lot to be said about the slavery issue. It wasn't one or the other, or even both. It was a big f'd up powder keg of economics, morality, jealousy, & misconception that had been on the slow burn since independence. Lincoln's election from the split vote triggered the cause. Personally, I blame Kansas.




Comparing the North and South Prior and During the War Between the States


There is no question the Federals won the Civil War. They accomplished both of their goals of preserving the union and freeing the slaves. However, the North enjoyed many advantages. It held most of the industry at the time, a clear majority of the population, and a much better transportation infrastructure. The South was doomed from the beginning. The lack of a strong centralized government, an agricultural based economy, and limited population made a prolonged war virtually impossible to win.

In the decade leading into the Civil War, the 1850s, the North and South alike distanced themselves from one another. The Northern dominated Federal government passed tariffs that, in essence, punished the South. The South called these the “Tariffs of Abominations”. These tariffs taxed raw materials and not finished goods. This was clearly meant to block the exporting of cotton and tobacco to Europe which would boost the Southern economy. The North was trying to end slavery by these economic measures. The South retaliated by strengthening the fugitive slaves laws passed in the Compromise of 1850. The North saw the Southerners as backward and uneducated, and the South’s perception of Northerners was that of enslavers for their exploitation. When the Democratic vote was split during the presidential election of 1860 and Abraham Lincoln was elected president, South Carolina, vowing to secede if this happened, declared its independence from the United States in December 1860.

Neither side was ready for war. The lame duck Buchanan administration simply ignored the secession and gave the South the time it needed to supply and fortify. Fort Sumter, a Federal garrison in Charleston Harbor, was a thorn in the side of Confederates. It simply had to be taken. In April 1861 the Confederates began shelling the fort. Though there were no casualties Major Anderson, commander of Sumter, lowered his flag and abandoned the garrison. The Civil war had officially started.

The North had the people and the industry to make this a short war. 91% of all factory production and 71% of the population lay north of the Mason-Dixon line, as well as 75% of all total wealth. Virtually all major cities were in the North. The 1860 census shows Charleston, SC as the highest ranked southern city at number twenty two. The North also held a distinct advantage in railroads. Over three quarters of all tracks were in Northern control. This enabled the Federals to re-supply and move troops with speed and efficiency. However, the North squandered this opportunity by moving too slowly and cautiously. George McClellan, appointed General of the Army by Lincoln, was more concerned about the size and strength of the Confederates and would not press an attack. When Lincoln finally replaced him the South had formed a very powerful counter force led by Robert E. Lee. Lincoln went through generals like mad. Burnside replaced McClellan, and was defeated at Fredericksburg. Hooker replaced Burnside and lost the most lopsided battle of the war at Chancellorsville. It wasn’t until July 4, 1863 that the tide changed for the North. Two events happened. Meade had replaced Hooker and defeated the South at the battle of Gettysburg and Vicksburg fell to the Union Siege in the West. This enabled the Federal General U.S. Grant to take command. Lincoln said of Grant, “I can’t spare this man, he fights…”.

Lee and Grant both graduated from West Point and had fought in the Mexican War. Lee was an officer serving on general Winfield Scott’s staff and Grant was an officer in the infantry. Both knew each other’s strategies. However, each came from distinctly different backgrounds. Lee was the son of a Revolutionary War hero and was considered of gentlemanly blood. He married into a wealthy family and owned a plantation in Virginia. He was a career soldier who was a very religious man. Grant, in contrast was a failure. After his retirement from the military he went to Ohio to start a business. After it failed he ran for political office and was defeated. He was flat broke at the beginning of the Civil War and reenlisting was his only chance of success. He rose in rank quickly after defeating the Confederate forces at Ft. Donaldson, Kentucky and became a major general during the Siege of Vicksburg. When Grant was moved east after Vicksburg the strategy for the North changed. There would be no more retreats after battles. Grant knew, as well as Lee, that even if the Federals lost battles they still had the advantage of a larger number of soldiers and vast reserves of supplies. Lee knew that Grant would fight a war of attrition and that the South could not win.

Though the Confederates were outnumbered and out supplied, they were not out soldiered. In almost every major engagement of the Civil War Northern forces sustained more casualties. Most Rebel soldiers were farm boys that learned to shoot at an early age. Most had the ability to sustain themselves in the harshness of the environment. Many were very religious in their convections of this war citing that this was a war of oppression and that God was on their side. And, they held the home field advantage. Many of the men grew up just miles from where they were asked to fight. They knew the lay of the land and used it to perfection. The Southern soldiers were protecting their families and homes. The Northern soldiers in contrast were mainly from the cities. They had never had to shoot a rifle or supply their own food. They were fighting in a foreign land and had no real sense of urgency when asked to fight. They were fighting for the preservation of the Union and the freedom of the slaves and their families and homes were safe hundreds of miles away from the fight.

It is a popular belief the Civil War was fought over slavery. It was, and it wasn’t. For the North, slavery was a moral issue. For the South it was economic. The North wanted to free the slaves, but didn’t have answer after that. Most Northerners didn’t want blacks to move into the North. 98% of the population was white. In contrast, 35% of the population of the South was black. If blacks were freed, they would have to be employed and poor white Southerners didn’t want the competition for those low end jobs. Most Southerners didn’t own slaves at all. The Northern dominated government didn’t help matters by increasing the tariffs on raw materials which made for a lower profit margin on cotton and tobacco. This only fueled the fire. If a cotton farmer had to pay wages, profits would shrink even more. The slavery issue came to a head in May 1852 when Senator Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, delivered a fiery abolition speech entitled “The Crime Against Kansas” in which he berated the South over slavery. Three days later he was beaten mercilessly with a cane by fellow Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina who was regarded as a hero for defending Southern honor.

With major advantages in population, industry, and transportation, the North won the Civil War. With initial ineptness in leadership and poor strategy the Federals squandered their chance for a short engagement. With better leadership and soldiers, and fighting a defensive campaign, the South perpetuated its independence for four years.

SB68


Feel free to read, not read or blast my opinion. My Yankee professor gave me an A. :P

[Scott D]

...and equally well by Yankees. I think this whole thread is laughable. Northerners fighting the good fight for slavery. :rolleyes: I'm sure many did, but the truth of the matter is that 98% of the north was white. While they wanted to end slavery they didn't, repeat didn't want the freed slaves to be their neighbors. As long as they were free in the South it was OK. (see NY draft riots)

I wrote a paper in college about the causes of the Civil War & started doing research trying to trump my Yankee professor. I was always one of those "war of northern aggression" folks & frankly there's a lot to be said for that argument. There's also a lot to be said about the slavery issue. It wasn't one or the other, or even both. It was a big f'd up powder keg of economics, morality, jealousy, & misconception that had been on the slow burn since independence. Lincoln's election from the split vote triggered the cause. Personally, I blame Kansas.



Feel free to read, not read or blast my opinion. My Yankee professor gave me an A. :P

I find fault with the final statement in your conclusion. :D

[FaninAma]

SB68, that was a very good synopsis.

It was apparent that there were factions in the Federal government that wanted the South to be punished for slavery and other things they found distasteful with Southern Society. The South allowed them to get their wish by acting like ****ed off teenagers.

And Lincoln didn't try to be a voice of reason at all in the dispute. And I really believe the personality flaws Lincoln had resulted in him being a depressed, morbid person and which played a large part in his ability ignore the suffering and havoc his War was wreaking on the country. His wife was a loon and he wasn't far behind. I really think he went around the bend when his son died.

[jk the sooner fan]

I think those of you acting like you wouldn't have owned a few slaves if you lived back in the day AND it was what everybody else did are ****ing liars and hypocrits. And you know it. I had to listen to a hundred yahoos like you when I was working on my MHR. You're trying to put 21st-century "standards" on the 19th century and it reeks of ignorance.

I've never owned a slave. My daddy never owned a slave. My grand-daddy never owned a slave. My great-grand-daddy never spoke English. However, if we just happened to live in the southern U.S. during the early-mid 1800's, chances are we'd have had several. It's the way it was. It's not that way anymore, and that's a wonderful thing. How about we leave it at that?

there were more citizens that DIDNT own slaves than those that did....so please, without knowing what lot in life we would have had back in the 1800's, dont assume we'd all be slave owners

its possible though, that some would be.....but we arent living then, we're living now...and we can revise or spin history anyway we choose

to say that we should have allowed slavery to burn out like a campfire, on its own....

well, suffice it to say, i vehemently disagree with that

and my earlier comment may have ****ed some of you off, but i said what several others were thinking

[SoonerBorn68]

Poor jk. Has to duplicate neg spek just because he can.

[jk the sooner fan]

Poor jk. Has to duplicate neg spek just because he can.

blah blah blah, it must bother you or else you wouldnt have mentioned it

[SoonerBorn68]

Not really, but the high & mighty attitude you've exuded lately is just beyond reproach. The stereotyping you've shown in this thread is over the top.

[jk the sooner fan]

you're entitled to your opinion, as i'm entitled to mine.....i grew up around people that feel that way....i've been stationed with them all over the south

i've had just a tad bit of life experience that formulated my opinion

if you dont like it, so be it, dont lose sleep over it

[SoonerBorn68]

Oh, I see. So the "tad bit" of life experience other people have is white washed over with your bumper sticker mentality in this thread, Nice.

I'm not going lose any sleep on it. Your barbs are just lame.

[jk the sooner fan]

i can only draw from my "tad bit" of life experience, thats why its MY opinion....its not everybody else's opinion......just mine

[SoonerBorn68]

blah blah blah, it must bother you or else you wouldnt have mentioned it

Yeah now that you mentioned it I guess it does. JK, the self exclaimed high and exaulted one, can take a meaningful, intelligent expression of ideas & opinions & mess it up like a 5 year old wanting attention. Yeah, I negged you for your stereotyping comment--well deserved might I add, & you neg me with the exact same comment. :rolleyes:

Well, since we're on the subject of stereotyping and since you were a cop I'd offer you some donuts as a peace offering, but all I've got is :twinkies:

[jk the sooner fan]

dude, its neg spek, get over it....go check under your tree, all your presents are still there

[SoonerBorn68]

Apparently you haven't figured out this really isn't about negspek

[jk the sooner fan]

no, i get you dont like me...i get my comments ****ed you off

[SoonerBorn68]

well.....i'd say your posts are reflective of the person who posted them...i dont think i'm the only one who see's it that way

:twinkies:

[jk the sooner fan]

look, if you're offended, then...well be offended

stereotypes, whether you like them or not, exist for a reason....

i told you where my opinion came from...and it wasnt my fourth point of contact.....i told you my opinion came from life experiences

i never said it was an all being opinion, or that it was right, i simply said it was mine

if you dont like it, or me....then fine

i was a special agent, we didnt tend to hang out at donut shops with the marked patrols...but if that makes you feel better, sure....i'd like a chocolate covered glazed....2 even

[jk the sooner fan]

mmmm donuts

http://agitprop.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/donuts.jpg

[Mongo]

stereotypes, whether you like them or not, exist for a reason....

i told you where my opinion came from...and it wasnt my fourth point of contact.....i told you my opinion came from life experiences

So, when a person with an opposing "stereotype" posts, you respond with a derogatory reply.

Does your "life experiences" allow you to scapegoat demeaning posts of others' opinions?

[jk the sooner fan]

So, when a person with an opposing "stereotype" posts, you respond with a derogatory reply.



in this instance it did

[SoonerBorn68]

in this instance it did

...and why's that? I only posted what I did because I knew it'd get your goat.

[jk the sooner fan]

riggghhhhtttt

i guess one of two things is true

1) i make derogatory comments about EVERY SINGLE STEREOTYPE known to man
b) nobody but me has ever done this, ever.....

its really this simple, i thought his comments were over the top and offensive

i responded in kind

[SoonerBorn68]

OK, JK's rules. Your board, I forgot.

[jk the sooner fan]

dude, that comment was on page what.....3? the discussion continued an entire extra day with 3 more pages, and you dug it up to "get my goad"?

puhleeze, it ****ed you off.......thats ok, its ok to be ****ed off about things...its human nature

i was ****ed off by what i read, i responded

you did the same thing!

[SoonerBorn68]

That's fine. You're right. We all have opinions. My work is done. My point has been made...and it had absolutely nothing to do with stereotyping, the Civil War, or the 10 o'clock news.

[jk the sooner fan]

so wait, its not JK's rules, its 68's...because apparently you can read something you dont like and make a point, but i cant?

gotcha

you certainly went to great lengths to make a personal statement

next time send me a peem...

[Mongo]

so wait, its not JK's rules, its 68's...because apparently you can read something you dont like and make a point, but i cant?

gotcha

you certainly went to great lengths to make a personal statement

next time send me a peem...

Maybe you should send FIA a peem instead of making your statement outloud.

[1stTimeCaller]

I just got yelled at by the companyman if it makes anyone happy.

Since when is 4 1/2 hours ago 'a little bit ago'?

[Mongo]

I just got yelled at by the companyman if it makes anyone happy.

Since when is 4 1/2 hours ago 'a little bit ago'?

Good, you need it. Is this company man an employee of the operator, or is he from an outside firm?

[ouwasp]

Haven't read everything...

But the war (from the North's pov) was NOT about slavery. It was about preservation of the Union. Else, why did slavery persist in several Union States? The Emancipation Proclamation (in 1863) just covered the states in rebellion...

[SoonerBorn68]

so wait, its not JK's rules, its 68's...because apparently you can read something you dont like and make a point, but i cant?

gotcha

you certainly went to great lengths to make a personal statement

next time send me a peem...

I'm padding my post count.

[ouwasp]

I'm padding my post count.

good idea.......

[Mongo]

Haven't read everything...

But the war (from the North's pov) was NOT about slavery. It was about preservation of the Union. Else, why did slavery persist in several Union States? The Emancipation Proclamation (in 1863) just covered the states in rebellion...

WASP= White Anglo Saxon Protestant and you dont agree with the south? Your nothing but a dirty yankee:D

[SoonerBorn68]

I just got yelled at by the companyman if it makes anyone happy.

Since when is 4 1/2 hours ago 'a little bit ago'?

You put sugar in his coffee, didn't you? ;)

If it makes you feel any better we lost the entire BHA out of the elevators last night & now it's sitting at the bottom of a mile deep hole.

They fished out most of it but the bit & half the motor's still on bottom.

[1stTimeCaller]

That goofy bastard called up asking about the test 'a little while ago'. 4 1/2 hours ago we tested at surface and we were in the process of testing at the shoe. I was a little confused and told him that the tool had just started pulsing but that we'd be done in about 2 minutes. He goes crazy asking why in the hell we were going downhole with a tool we hadn't tested. I told him that we surface tested around 7pm and everything was fine. He said 'that's what I asked you earlier' and hung up.

Sorry d00d, not MY fault that our tool quit pulsing after 77 feet of drilling. Maybe if YOU kept junk out of YOUR hole, MY tool would pulse.

[SoonerBorn68]

Sorry d00d, not MY fault that our tool quit pulsing after 77 feet of drilling. Maybe if YOU kept junk out of YOUR hole, MY tool would pulse.

Heh, that happened to us too. The lost BHA was originally a bit trip without us having to change out the tool. We went to surface test & flat lined. We pulled it out & inspected it. I pulled a metal spring, rocks, & a safety glasses lens off the top of the pulser. That's right before things went to ****. :D

[Okla-homey]

Haven't read everything...

But the war (from the North's pov) was NOT about slavery. It was about preservation of the Union. Else, why did slavery persist in several Union States? The Emancipation Proclamation (in 1863) just covered the states in rebellion...


Welcome Wasp, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you before.

Okay. I'm going to try this one more time.

You are correct that the loyal states originally went to war strictly to preserve the Union. It is important to understand however, the rebellious states left the Union in order to preserve slavery in their domain.

The fact that four slave states did not secede (MD, DE, KY, MO) should not be interpreted to mean slaveowners in those states felt slavery as an institution was safe. It merely means that the people who made up the majority of those states' government were unwilling to secede.

It's interesting to note that many in the Confederate states expected Maryland to secede so much that a popular song "Maryland My Maryland" was performed throughout the South in 1861 in expectation of her joining the Confederacy. It was set to the tune of "Oh Tannenbaum."

The Emancipation Proclamation, as you correctly point out, was issued freeing the slaves ONLY in the states in rebellion. That however, should not be interpreted as a sign the official policy of the US government was to abide slavery. The EP was limited in scope for a legal/constitutional reason. As you know, the president does not make law in our system. Only the Congress does that. Thus, Lincoln was incapable of unilaterally ending slavery in the US. He did, however, have the authority to exercise his "war powers" to issue an order freeing slaves in the states in rebellion because those slaves' toil was helping the Confederacy in its war effort by helping keep food in the mouths of Confederate soldiers. Practically speaking however, when the EP was issued, it freed virtually no one because, of course, it wasn't enforceable in Confederate territory until those areas were brought under US control again by military conquest.

Another reason the EP not intended to reach slaves in the four slave states which had NOT seceded was to make sure the EP did not tip the balance in favor of secession in those four states. As I've shared, there wasn't enough popular will for secession in those states in 1860 for them to leave the Union. Lincoln and his cabinet feared if they prematurely and unconsitutionally/illegally tried to end slavery in those states, it would be enough to push those states over the edge.

We know, and apparently Lincoln understood as well (despite some who believe he was an evil tyrant who trashed the Constitution) that the slaves in the loyal states could only be freed by a Constitutional amendment because the Constitution as written obviously did not forbid slavery. In fact, as written, it virtually guarenteed slavery's existence. That amendment (13th) came in 1865 after Lincoln was dead.

The EP did do another thing of great importance. It shifted folks in the loyal states thinking from the notion the war was ONLY about preserving the Union. It put folks on notice that the official policy of the governmnet was that slavery as an institution was incompatible with American ideals. After the EP, everyone understood that blessedly, slavery's days were numbered. After the EP, everyone knew that as soon as the war was over and all the chickens were back in the coop, the issue of slavery would be resolved by Constitutional change, thus forever resolving the matter.

Finally, the EP put the European powers on notice the US government's official policy was to end slavery as soon as the war was won. This was important because the South was flirting with Britian and France for official recognition as the legitimate government in the South. That recoginition could very well have led to a military alliance which is what the South desperately sought in order to help win the war. After the EP, those nations decided they could not continue to flirt with the South because slavery was incompatible with those nations' concept of the inherent rights of mankind. Thus, no recognition occured, and no alliance was ever formed.

I've simplified some of this obviously, but I beleive I've accurately assessed all this.

[SoonerBorn68]

Homey the EP was a sly document. It did nothing officially but it sent a powerful message. How can you abolish something you have no control over, do nothing about what you can control, while telling the rest of the world to back off?

I'm not of the opinion Lincoln was a tyrant. He did take control of the Federal government & basically kinged himself during the conflict but justified it be preserving the Union & freeing the slaves. Not unlike FDR, only Lincoln was much more upfront with it.

BTW in Sherman's little scortched earth campaign through GA he deemed freed slaves as contraband & forceabley "enlisted" them to the aid of the Federal Army as pack mules & unpaid laborers.

[ouwasp]

Thank you Homey for an interesting and succinct history lesson. :)