Here's a civil war ? for all you knowing types .

[olevetonahill]

Did the North really want to abolish slavery, and extend Civil rights to the slaves ?
Or
Drum roll please .
Did they just want to See a large cheap labor source become available for all those Manufacturing jobs they had .
Discuss !
















Just stiring the pot Boss, just stiring the pot . :D :pop:

[TUSooner]

What civil war?

And is your real name Karl Marx, comrade? :D

[rufnek05]

What civil war?

And is your real name Karl Marx, comrade? :D

i would like to think that they wanted to end slavery. especially since that was back when politics wasn't like is today

[Scott D]

I think a majority of northerners were of the mindset of the abolition of slavery turning into essential indentured servantry so that the problem of relocation wasn't the issue it was due to the underground railroad and other attempts for freedom prior to the abolition of slavery.

[olevetonahill]

I think a majority of northerners were of the mindset of the abolition of slavery turning into essential indentured servantry so that the problem of relocation wasn't the issue it was due to the underground railroad and other attempts for freedom prior to the abolition of slavery.

So your saying YES ?

[Frozen Sooner]

I think the North wasn't down with half of the country just up and saying "We quit."

I think that the North had been gradually circumscribing slaveowner's rights and had been trying to do whatever they could to make new states non-slave-owning.

I think the South decided to take their ball and go home because of this.

[Scott D]

So your saying YES ?

no, I'm saying that if the northerners could have figured out a way to get the slave states to get rid of slavery AND keep the former slaves in the same place they'd have been happier than a pig in mud pit on a 90 degree day. The minor increase of runaway slaves into northern states was going to put a strain in some way on industry because industry was already getting cheap labor from immigration via Europe.

Basically it's similar to the mindset of people who think we should find a way to admit Mexico as a new state in the USA so long as it means that they'll quit crossing into other states illegally and work in Mexico with the rights of being an American.

[H8HOGS]

Us Yankees kicked that southern ars back to the 17th century...

[FaninAma]

The North's motives for waging war on the South were as pure as the driven snow. How dare you impugn Abe Lincoln's honor by implying his motives weren't totally altruistic derived out of a concern for his nation and fellow man.

And BTW, if hispanics tilted heavily toward the GOP in elections the Democrats would personally be on the border erecting the wall between the US and Mexico brick by brick.

[slickdawg]

Well, it was about states right. Of course, the southern states wanted the right for slaves.

And no, the yankee didn't kick the southerns asses.

[slickdawg]

The North's motives for waging war on the South were as pure as the driven snow. How dare you impune Abe Lincoln's honor by implying his motives weren't totally altruistic derived out of a concern for his nation and fellow man.

And BTW, if hispanics tilted heavily toward the GOP in elections the Democrats would personally be on the border erecting the wall between the US and Mexico brick by brick.


If that ain't the truth!

[Scott D]

then obviously the GOP need to figure out what message will actually reach those whom they want to force the Democrats to subvert.

[BigRedJed]

I was really hoping for a thread on Lincoln today. *Sigh* I guess this will have to suffice.

[OklahomaTuba]

Of course, the north didn't start the war in the first place. But never mind that.

[Scott D]

Of course, the north didn't start the war in the first place. But never mind that.

they started it by not leaving federal property when the seceeding states said "go home"

[TUSooner]

The North's motives for waging war on the South were as pure as the driven snow. How dare you impugn Abe Lincoln's honor by implying his motives weren't totally altruistic derived out of a concern for his nation and fellow man.

And BTW, if hispanics tilted heavily toward the GOP in elections the Democrats would personally be on the border erecting the wall between the US and Mexico brick by brick.
I'm glad you finally came around to the side of Truth & Light!

:rolleyes: :D

[C&CDean]

Next time I see olevet I'm gonna slap him on his *** and take his natty lite.

[SicEmBaylor]

Just kill me.

[soonerboomer93]

STATES RIGHTS










:D

[olevetonahill]

Next time I see olevet I'm gonna slap him on his *** and take his natty lite.
And I was gonna bring a bottle of Crown to share . ;)
Oh and you got the EASY part done .:pop:

[olevetonahill]

Why do you people think the North had any thoughts of their industrial future? It was agrarian and commercial just like the rebel scum.
splain that statement . Please ?

[SoonerTerry]

Us Yankees kicked that southern ars back to the 17th century...


heh... I hope you enjoy your break.

[olevetonahill]

heh... I hope you enjoy your break.
HEH
we now have one less turd stinking the place up ;)

[OCUDad]

Aren't most wars uncivil?

[FaninAma]

then obviously the GOP need to figure out what message will actually reach those whom they want to force the Democrats to subvert.

They could coop the Democrats message:

"A vote for the Democrats means a vote for more $$$$$$ in your pocket."

That's the message of both parties it just that the GOP means that they'll "allow" the evil, rich white guys to keep more of our own money and the Democrats mean that they'll take more money away from evil, rich, white guys and give it to the truly deserving.

[FaninAma]

Why do you people think the North had any thoughts of their industrial future? It was agrarian and commercial just like the rebel scum.

The South was stupid. They actually should have done what the Northern industrialist did and free the slaves then hire them back for pauper's wages.

[Scott D]

The South was stupid.

I thought this was made obvious by SicEm's desire to vociferously defend them.

[royalfan5]

I thought this was made obvious by SicEm's desire to vociferously defend them.
hey-Yo

[Penguin]

All I knows about the civil war is what I learned by watching the History Channel.

In 1860, slaves were a huge part of a plantation owner's wealth. In fact, the slaves themselves were worth more than the crops at that time. So, it's really not too hard to fathom that Southerners didn't want slavery to end. The North was just about to send plantation owners from the upper class to lower class overnight.

Of course, we can't imagine having slaves today. But a slave-free society is a relatively new phenomena. Slavery has been around since the beginning of time.

[OklahomaTuba]

Unfortunatly, slavery was just seen as good business practice by most.

Kind of like hiring illegal workers from mexico in a way. If a business is going to stay competitive, it must keep its cost down to survive. Well, nothings cheaper than a slave.

[Sam Spade]

The North's motives for waging war on the South were as pure as the driven snow. How dare you impugn Abe Lincoln's honor by implying his motives weren't totally altruistic derived out of a concern for his nation and fellow man.

And BTW, if hispanics tilted heavily toward the GOP in elections the Democrats would personally be on the border erecting the wall between the US and Mexico brick by brick.

Do a little research...Hispanics DO tilt heavily toward the GOP in elections.

[FaninAma]

Do a little research...Hispanics DO tilt heavily toward the GOP in elections.

Wrongo. In the better years for the GOP the hispanic vote is split. Show me a year or election where the hispanic vote went heavily to any GOP candidate.......you can't do it.

http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/latino_voting.php

[Sam Spade]

Florida was handed to Bush in 2000 and 2004 by the Cuban (Hispanic) vote. I'd say that played a pretty heavy role in the GOP's success.

[Frozen Sooner]

Florida was handed to Bush in 2000 and 2004 by the Cuban (Hispanic) vote. I'd say that played a pretty heavy role in the GOP's success.

That's pretty much an anomaly in the overall Hispanic population. The Cubans vote heavily Republican because they hate Castro. The rest of the Hispanic population is pretty heavily Democrat.

That's changing somewhat due to the heavy Roman Catholic influence and the anti-abortion stance of the Republican Party.

[Frozen Sooner]

Unfortunatly, slavery was just seen as good business practice by most.

Kind of like hiring illegal workers from mexico in a way. If a business is going to stay competitive, it must keep its cost down to survive. Well, nothings cheaper than a slave.

This is one point that I kind of agree with FIA on. Slave labor is not all that cheap unless it amortizes over several years. A slave was a significant capital investment up front and required significant annual fixed costs in the form of food and shelter. Increasing mechanization would have likely ended the slave trade eventually.

I just don't happen to agree with his assertion that we should have waited to free them. So long as one man is a slave, no man is free. That's something worth dying for in my book.

[85Sooner]

The north just wanted to establish that they could override states rights and let the federal gov controkl things if they wanted. It was the beginning of the end of states rights and the beginning of federalism.

Chapter 2 was WWII and that federal power has been growing ever since.

along comes the internet, and the removal of the fairness docterine which allowed talk radio and cable television to flourish. It has been downhill for the dems since then hence why we are seeing them foaming at the mouth now that they are back in control. Unfortunately for them getting the toothpaste back in the tube will be harder than they think..

[Sam Spade]

That's pretty much an anomaly in the overall Hispanic population. The Cubans vote heavily Republican because they hate Castro. The rest of the Hispanic population is pretty heavily Democrat.

That's changing somewhat due to the heavy Roman Catholic influence and the anti-abortion stance of the Republican Party.

I'd say it still had a pretty strong effect on the course of our nation over the past 7 years, wouldn't you?

[Sam Spade]

The north just wanted to establish that they could override states rights and let the federal gov controkl things if they wanted. It was the beginning of the end of states rights and the beginning of federalism.

Chapter 2 was WWII and that federal power has been growing ever since.

along comes the internet, and the removal of the fairness docterine which allowed talk radio and cable television to flourish. It has been downhill for the dems since then hence why we are seeing them foaming at the mouth now that they are back in control. Unfortunately for them getting the toothpaste back in the tube will be harder than they think..

Whuah?

What the heck are you saying? How does this specifically have to do with the Dems?

[FaninAma]

This is one point that I kind of agree with FIA on. Slave labor is not all that cheap unless it amortizes over several years. A slave was a significant capital investment up front and required significant annual fixed costs in the form of food and shelter. Increasing mechanization would have likely ended the slave trade eventually.

I just don't happen to agree with his assertion that we should have waited to free them. So long as one man is a slave, no man is free. That's something worth dying for in my book.

I agree if enslavement is forced acutely upon a nation. The United States had determined that slavery was legal. The movement toward abolishing slavery was picking up enormous momentum. T he South overreacted to Lincoln's election and threw a temper tantrum. When your 2 year old throws a tantrum you don't beat him within a inch of his life. Being wiser, you step back and assess the situation and figure out a way to reach the goal you were seeking....good behavior from your child without physically abusing him/her.

Lincoln overreacted to the South's temper tantrum. He was a poor leader. I would have had a much higher level of respect for him if he had taken a moment to reflect on the situation and tried to find other means to reach the goal of preserving a nation without slavery(very admirable goals) without killing 20 to 30% of the civilan population of a large part of the nationhe was professing to trying to preserve. A great leader weighs other options before deciding to unleash the hounds of war. Lincoln was not a great leader.

[Sam Spade]

I agree if enslavement is forced acutely upon a nation. The United States had determined that slavery was legal. The movement toward abolishing slavery was picking up enormous momentum. T he South overreacted to Lincoln's election and threw a temper tantrum. When your 2 year old throws a tantrum you don't beat him within a inch of his life. Being wiser, you step back and assess the situation and figure out a way to reach the goal you were seeking....good behavior from your child without physically abusing him/her.

Lincoln overreacted to the South's temper tantrum. He was a poor leader. I would have had a much higher level of respect for him if he had taken a moment to reflect on the situation and try to find other means to reach the goal of a nation without slavery without killing 20 to 30% of the civilan population of a large part of the nationhe was professing to trying to preserve. A great leader weighs other options before deciding to unleash the hounds of war. Lincol was not a great leader.
Yeah...that's why his face is on Mt. Rushmore, the $5 bill and the penny.

So...back to your argument...you think that mutiny or rebellion is okay, then?

[Rogue]

I grew up in a state that wasn't a state during the CW (Idaho) so I got the good Abe Lincoln version in history classes. When I moved to the South as an adult I was initially appalled that there were other opinions about the reasons for the CW. It seems that it was a combination of issues that brought about secession and, ultimately, the CW. Slavery, states rights vs. federalism, property rights (slaves were considered property), and simple economics as described above in that the north wanted more cheap labor for their increasing industrialism and the southern farmers did not want to part with their property and the labor force for their livelihood.

[Rogue]

I've mentioned this before. A couple years ago I got to drive from TN to DC with a colleague from Alabama. She really knows some CW history and pointed out some of the Battlefields in VA as we drove by them. She would tell us that "we" meaning Southerners called it "the battle of such and so" and "they" meaning the Northerners called it "the battle of something else".
Fascinating to me.

Here's some stuff I found related to Lincoln's remarks. And, if memory serves, the confederates fired the first shots at Ft. Sumter.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilwar.htm




In the three months that followed the election of Abraham Lincoln, seven states seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. Representatives from these seven states quickly established a new political organization, the Confederate States of America.

On 8th February the Confederate States of America adopted a constitution and within ten days had elected Jefferson Davis as its president and Alexander Stephens, as vice-president. Montgomery, Alabama, became its capital and the Stars and Bars was adopted as its flag. Davis was also authorized to raise 100,000 troops.

At his inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln attempted to avoid conflict by announcing that he had no intention "to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He added: "The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without yourselves being the aggressors."

[FaninAma]

Yeah...that's why his face is on Mt. Rushmore, the $5 bill and the penny.

So...back to your argument...you think that mutiny or rebellion is okay, then?

Stalin and Lenin had a lot of statues and memorials built in their honor, too. And I bet they were on the currency of the USSR.

In actuality, Lincoln should be considered a war criminal.

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780761526469&view=excerpt

Lincoln was the anti-Jefferson.

And I assume you also think the American Revolution was an illegal war on the part of the Founding Fathers?

[FaninAma]

Lincoln indeed left an unforgettable leagacy on the Untied States...it's just that it's not the legacy taught to the American public by the Lincoln propagandists in the country's education system.

Chapter 3 poses a key question that almost no one has addressed in much detail: Why didn't Lincoln do what much of the rest of the world did in the nineteenth century and end slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation? Between 1800 and 1860, dozens of countries, including the entire British Empire, ended slavery peacefully; only in the United States was a war involved. It is very likely that most Americans, if they had been given the opportunity, would have gladly supported compensated emancipation as a means of ending slavery, as opposed to the almost unimaginable costs of the war: 620,000 deaths, thousands more maimed for life, and the near total destruction of approximately 40 percent of the nation's economy. Standardizing for today's population of some 280 million (compared to 30 million in 1865), this would be roughly the equivalent of 5 million deaths—about a hundred times the number of Americans who died in Vietnam.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah...that's why his face is on Mt. Rushmore, the $5 bill and the penny.

So...back to your argument...you think that mutiny or rebellion is okay, then?

It wasn't a rebellion it was a separation.

[Sam Spade]

You guys sound freakin' retarded. LMAO

[FaninAma]

You guys sound freakin' retarded. LMAO

Sammie, Sammie, Sammie! You are way in over your head in this discussion.

[Ash]

Lincoln indeed left an unforgettable leagacy on the Untied States...it's just that it's not the legacy taught to the American public by the Lincoln propagandists in the country's education system.


Lincoln propagandists in the country's education system? Man, what conspiracy is NOT part of the education system? Let me guess, somehow the "liberal-bias" of the media must somehow be involved...

LMFAO!

[olevetonahill]

This thread was a JOKE people . If you wanta get serious go to My " to great to Not be posted" thread
thanks for playing