Poli-Sci: American Civil War: Slavery or States Rights?

[Half Moon]

**POSTS CULLED FROM ANOTHER THREAD AND ADDED TO THIS ONE, POSTS MAY NOT BE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER**
-BehindBlueI's



Gov. Northam, the Black Lives Matter leader and Gov. who leads the charge to take away 2A rights just announced to take down a huge part of Virginia Heritage by removing Civil War Statutes. His removal of the Robert E. Lee memorial in Historic Richmond at Monument Ave. has kindled a NEW hatred for him and BLM. A Virginia Beach Black Police Chief wants more Blacks in the Force. Say's they should be EXEMPT from taking the Math Portion of the exam. We are seeing these kind of acts all across the state. It is getting Bad.
Many of us remember well the infamous Greek Feast of the 80's, where our Tourist area in Virginia Beach was almost destroyed. And that riot was over nothing, nothing more than the enjoyment it gave them. The National guard was called out, millions of dollars in damage from looting, burning and destruction. Each year the City spends millions in preparation for another Terror attack from this group. of terrorist.
As I write this, last night the Police were called out and able to hold back another attack with Tear Gas. Yet, they estimate about $300,000 worth of damage to shops. 16 arrested. We now have many of those kinds of violence by them each and every year. And we know it will get worse.
We are sick of it. We all know it is a matter of time before they really cross the line. It is going to get very BAD!

Think about it. They destroy our city, while at the same time attempt to take away our right to bear arms. Wake up America. Do not let them hold us Hostage and threaten us with violence any longer. Take a Stand.

“The Virginia Flaggers are disgusted, but certainly not surprised by Mayor Stoney’s announcement today that he would introduce an ordinance July 1 to destroy the beautiful memorials on Richmond’s Monument Avenue. Against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens and to satisfy the demands of a small, violent group of agitators, he is asking the citizens of Richmond to spend millions to destroy national landmarks in the middle of a pandemic that has wrecked the city’s economy.

And if by Heritage you mean glorifying treasonous bastards who fought to keep the ancestors of many Virginia citizens in chattel slavery... what ever could be wrong or problematic with that? I mean what next, Connecticut removes the memorials to Benedict Arnold? Oh, the depravity of these modern times...

[Old Virginia]

And if by Heritage you mean glorifying treasonous bastards who fought to keep the ancestors of many Virginia citizens in chattel slavery... what ever could be wrong or problematic with that? I mean what next, Connecticut removes the memorials to Benedict Arnold? Oh, the depravity of these modern times...

500 thousand men from both sides, died in the Civil War. If BLM think that all of them died over slaves then that would be a mark of insanity. I mean totally insane. It would mean a totally ignorant or stupid understanding of the Reason why the North and South went to war. What gall for them to believe such utter crap. The two different societies of the Industrial North vs Agriculture South were vast. Got news for Ya , slavery was not just contained to the South. The South was fed up with the lack of support in both house's of the Congress and Senate. High tarriffs on Exports, etc etc. Lincoln threatened War because of Succession from the Union LOL NOT SLAVES.
Look at most Civil war photo's and any fool can see that many Confederate soldiers did not even have shoes much less a slave. The cost of one field hand slave in today's money would be around $12-20,000. The major Plantations owned slaves, roughly 5% of the population. The Confederate Army was composed of boys and men from all across Virginia from Shenandoah to Tidewater from small farms. These men fought for their Country against a invasion from the North.

Look at how Blacks seem to love Lincoln. The great Emacipator they call him. What BS! Lincoln only freed the Slaves from the South NOT the North or bordering states. He did this not for love of the slave but hurt any economic and phycological hurt to the south. The fact is, if the war had started two years later, slavery would not even have been a issue at all, due to the fact that Cotton would no longer be KING and slaves were in fact released anyway as the South Could not afford them. Most slaves headed to New York to join the industrial economy.
Funny how in NY had a major Protest and burning due to the fact that Many of the Immigrants hated the Blacks for taking away jobs. The Northern Army did not fight and die because of love for slaves. They did if for money. Millions of Immigrants were coming from Europe especially Ireland due to the Potato Famine. The were conscripted right off the ships in NY and Poor. They joined the Northern Army for MONEY to support their families.

I could write pages about the reason for the Civil War. YES VIRGINA HAS A LOT OF HERITAGE FROM THE CIVIL WAR AND ANCESTORS THAT DIED FIGHT FOR THEIR HOMELAND!

But the real reason the BLM want to destroy the monuments and history is the same reason they want to take away the 2A of the US Constitution. POWER[B]
They know if they can strip the constitution, they can take away even more.

Do you realize that the US gives African Americans more money and and welfare than any other Country in the whole world? Ask yourself this. If any terrorist group like Alqueida etc came to our country, started burning down business's, advocating killing police etc, what would America do? What would you do?

[trailrunner]

500 thousand men from both sides, died in the Civil War.

I think it has been pretty well established that the US Civil War was fundamentally about slavery. It is ironic that most (80%, I think) of the actual soldiers fighting for the south were too poor to own slaves.

Maybe it is time to remove the statues of confederate leaders. Statues are usually erected to honor someone we consider to be good. Lee was objectively a good general, but he fought to preserve slavery, which we all agree was very wrong. So should we really have statues for people who wanted to perpetuate slavery? Note - removing a statue is not erasing history.

[Joe in PNG]

One could make the comparison to postwar Germany putting up statues of Rommel, Von Manstein, and Guderian, or Japan making statues of Yamamoto and Tojo.

Heritage is a good thing, but sometimes, you must admit your ancestors were fighting for a bad cause.

[Old Virginia]

I think it has been pretty well established that the US Civil War was fundamentally about slavery. It is ironic that most (80%, I think) of the actual soldiers fighting for the south were too poor to own slaves.

Maybe it is time to remove the statues of confederate leaders. Statues are usually erected to honor someone we consider to be good. Lee was objectively a good general, but he fought to preserve slavery, which we all agree was very wrong. So should we really have statues for people who wanted to perpetuate slavery? Note - removing a statue is not erasing history.

Like I said, it is insanity to think 500 thousand men died to because of Slavery and obvious a serious lack of knowledge about the Civil War which is sad.
And to compare Virginians to Germany is repulsive. Especially for Civil war Generals. LEE NEVER FOUGHT to preserve Slavery. Ironically it was Lincoln HIMSELF that wanted LEE to head the UNION ARMY!
LEE turned him down and said he could not go against his family, friends or the State of Virginia which was his homeland. HE NEVER ONCE SAID HE WOULD NOT BECAUSE HE LOVED SLAVERY. What nonsense.

It really appears so many Americans were asleep during American History classes. There are many great books available today that go into great detail about the causes of the Civil war from before the beginning to the battles the people and the slaves. How about doing some actual learning instead of just listening to CNN.

For instance after the Civil War LeeIn August of 1865,r, Lee was invited to serve as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), where he and his family are buried. Since his death at age 63 on October 12, 1870, following a stroke, he has retained a place of distinction in most Southern states. He did not get tired for crimes like the German Nazi's at Nuremberg for God sake.

[trailrunner]

LEE NEVER FOUGHT to preserve Slavery. Ironically it was Lincoln HIMSELF that wanted LEE to head the UNION ARMY! LEE turned him down and said he could not go against his family, friends or the State of Virginia which was his homeland. HE NEVER ONCE SAID HE WOULD NOT BECAUSE HE LOVED SLAVERY. What nonsense.

Lincoln wanted Lee on his side because he recognized that Lee was a good military leader. Lee chose the south because of his family ties. It's not an uncommon situation in history. There have been other military leaders that did not believe in the cause or their leader, but they fought for their country.

But Lee chose the south, and the south was fighting for slavery. Therefore Lee fought to preserve slavery. Lee's personal views on slavery are generally considered to be ambiguous. His overriding concern when he chose the south was that it was his homeland. But, there is no denying that he fought on the side that wanted to preserve slavery.

I'm not saying Lee was a bad person. I'm just saying that we should not honor the people that fought to preserve slavery.



It really appears so many Americans were asleep during American History classes. There are many great books available today that go into great detail about the causes of the Civil war from before the beginning to the battles the people and the slaves. How about doing some actual learning instead of just listening to CNN.

You presume to know a lot about me and feel the need to resort to personal attacks to win your argument.


For instance after the Civil War LeeIn August of 1865,r, Lee was invited to serve as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), where he and his family are buried. Since his death at age 63 on October 12, 1870, following a stroke, he has retained a place of distinction in most Southern states.

So what?


He did not get tired for crimes like the German Nazi's at Nuremberg for God sake.

This is for several reasons:

- After the south surrendered, Lincoln wanted to heal the country, and he allowed Confederate soldiers to simply go home and rebuild their lives.
- Lee didn't commit any war crimes. There are plenty of German officers and soldiers who were not tried for war crimes at Nuremberg. Simply fighting for the losing side doesn't mean that a person committed a war crime.

[Zincwarrior]

Gov. Northam, the Black Lives Matter leader and Gov. who leads the charge to take away 2A rights just announced to take down a huge part of Virginia Heritage by removing Civil War Statutes. His removal of the Robert E. Lee memorial in Historic Richmond at Monument Ave. has kindled a NEW hatred for him and BLM. A Virginia Beach Black Police Chief wants more Blacks in the Force. Say's they should be EXEMPT from taking the Math Portion of the exam. We are seeing these kind of acts all across the state. It is getting Bad.
Many of us remember well the infamous Greek Feast of the 80's, where our Tourist area in Virginia Beach was almost destroyed. And that riot was over nothing, nothing more than the enjoyment it gave them. The National guard was called out, millions of dollars in damage from looting, burning and destruction. Each year the City spends millions in preparation for another Terror attack from this group. of terrorist.
As I write this, last night the Police were called out and able to hold back another attack with Tear Gas. Yet, they estimate about $300,000 worth of damage to shops. 16 arrested. We now have many of those kinds of violence by them each and every year. And we know it will get worse.
We are sick of it. We all know it is a matter of time before they really cross the line. It is going to get very BAD!

Think about it. They destroy our city, while at the same time attempt to take away our right to bear arms. Wake up America. Do not let them hold us Hostage and threaten us with violence any longer. Take a Stand.

“The Virginia Flaggers are disgusted, but certainly not surprised by Mayor Stoney’s announcement today that he would introduce an ordinance July 1 to destroy the beautiful memorials on Richmond’s Monument Avenue. Against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens and to satisfy the demands of a small, violent group of agitators, he is asking the citizens of Richmond to spend millions to destroy national landmarks in the middle of a pandemic that has wrecked the city’s economy.

Bro, society has moved on from the Lost Cause South. It was coopted by the Klan and even Virginia is moving beyond that.

[rob_s]

- Lee didn't commit any war crimes. There are plenty of German officers and soldiers who were not tried for war crimes at Nuremberg. Simply fighting for the losing side doesn't mean that a person committed a war crime.

Nor does it mean that they were motivated by the ideals that the winners chose to record in history and teach to subsequent generations as the cause for the war.

You can’t very well win a war and then go write in the books “we kept pushing, and pushing, and pushing, and getting in their shit, and expanding our power over them, and interfering in the issues in new prospective states so that our party could stay in power, all because we didn’t want to lose their contributions to the economy so we went down there and shot those motherfuckers after they got uppity and we provoked them into shooting at us first”.

Wouldn’t be the first time in history that someone wanted a war for a different reason than stated (WMDs, anyone?).

Southerners, at least the ones that did the actual fighting and dying, were fighting against invaders (in their minds) nothing more.

You may choose to believe that the Southern powers that be (politicians and rich folks, I suppose) provoked the war and resisted the invaders so that they could retain their slaves and their social status (I personally don’t, but neither you nor I were there), but it just doesn’t pass the smell test to think that the rural redneck farm kid went off to fight and die (in his mind) so that the rich guy could keep his “free” labor force.

History shows us that wars are really never fought for the ideological excuses given, but are all about expanding power and wealth, or retaining it, or resisting someone else’s.

[Half Moon]

Like I said, it is insanity to think 500 thousand men died to because of Slavery and obvious a serious lack of knowledge about the Civil War which is sad.
And to compare Virginians to Germany is repulsive. Especially for Civil war Generals. LEE NEVER FOUGHT to preserve Slavery. Ironically it was Lincoln HIMSELF that wanted LEE to head the UNION ARMY!
LEE turned him down and said he could not go against his family, friends or the State of Virginia which was his homeland. HE NEVER ONCE SAID HE WOULD NOT BECAUSE HE LOVED SLAVERY. What nonsense.

It really appears so many Americans were asleep during American History classes. There are many great books available today that go into great detail about the causes of the Civil war from before the beginning to the battles the people and the slaves. How about doing some actual learning instead of just listening to CNN.

For instance after the Civil War LeeIn August of 1865,r, Lee was invited to serve as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), where he and his family are buried. Since his death at age 63 on October 12, 1870, following a stroke, he has retained a place of distinction in most Southern states. He did not get tired for crimes like the German Nazi's at Nuremberg for God sake.

Yep, let history speak for itself. For instance:

George Henry Thomas, Virginian, Major General, US Army, The Rock of Chickamauga:


“[T]he greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them. “

[trailrunner]

Just like Lee, I would bet there are not even 1% of African Americans new Lee was a union Officer and fought for American in the union in the war with Mexico.

A lot of soldiers in the ACW fought in the war against Mexico. So what? That doesn't change the fact that when it came time to decide which side to fight on, Lee chose the side that was trying to preserve slavery.




Slaves existed all throughout American. Odd that you never hear of so many of our forefathers being called Racist. Like our 1st President. George Washington.

Actually, you do hear about Washington and his slaves, along with Thomas Jefferson. Visit Colonial Williamsburg or Mount Vernon, and they most certainly do discuss the fact that Washington had slaves, and maybe even a slave for a lover. In the 1990s, there was a lot of discussion and national news about if Thomas Jefferson had also had a slave for a lover. My neighbor is a historian and was conducting research into this. If you go to Monticello, they will most certainly discuss Jefferson and slavery. If you go to Gunston Hall, you will hear about George Mason and his slaves.

[Baldanders]

Like I said, it is insanity to think 500 thousand men died to because of Slavery and obvious a serious lack of knowledge about the Civil War which is sad.
And to compare Virginians to Germany is repulsive. Especially for Civil war Generals. LEE NEVER FOUGHT to preserve Slavery. Ironically it was Lincoln HIMSELF that wanted LEE to head the UNION ARMY!
LEE turned him down and said he could not go against his family, friends or the State of Virginia which was his homeland. HE NEVER ONCE SAID HE WOULD NOT BECAUSE HE LOVED SLAVERY. What nonsense.

It really appears so many Americans were asleep during American History classes. There are many great books available today that go into great detail about the causes of the Civil war from before the beginning to the battles the people and the slaves. How about doing some actual learning instead of just listening to CNN.

For instance after the Civil War LeeIn August of 1865,r, Lee was invited to serve as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), where he and his family are buried. Since his death at age 63 on October 12, 1870, following a stroke, he has retained a place of distinction in most Southern states. He did not get tired for crimes like the German Nazi's at Nuremberg for God sake.

He should have been. He took blacks from Pennsylvania and took them to south to be slaves during his campaign the war. The south refused to allow black Union troops to be part of prisoner exchanges, and they were enslaved or executed.

He often beat his own escaped slaves, and had salt water poured on the wounds.

Not a hero. The Lost Cause of the South was sold to the north after white supremacy regained power. The monuments went up to remind blacks not to do anything stupid after terrorism and other violence ended the idea of any black participation in government.

If the Civil War wasn't fought for white supremacy, why does every Confederate constitution have a statement about the superiority of whites over blacks in the first paragraph? Why did the guy who was promoting the "Stars and Bars" say it represented white superiority from the very beginning?

The "it wasn't about slavery" narrative is what I got in middle school history. It's utter bullshit. The plantation owners knew if new states were "free," their way of life was on the way out.

As a lovely coda, the retaking of the south, and the Jim Crow system was the exact model the Nazis used to formulate their answer to "The Jewish Question." Many Nazis professed public admiration of how the US dealt with it's race problems, and called for similar laws. They just carried it further.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/


https://billmoyers.com/story/hitler-america-nazi-race-law/

[Old Virginia]

He should have been. He took blacks from Pennsylvania and took them to south to be slaves during his campaign the war. The south refused to allow black Union troops to be part of prisoner exchanges, and they were enslaved or executed.

He often beat his own escaped slaves, and had salt water poured on the wounds.

Not a hero. The Lost Cause of the South was sold to the north after white supremacy regained power. The monuments went up to remind blacks not to do anything stupid after terrorism and other violence ended the idea of any black participation in government.

If the Civil War wasn't fought for white supremacy, why does every Confederate constitution have a statement about the superiority of whites over blacks in the first paragraph? Why did the guy who was promoting the "Stars and Bars" say it represented white superiority from the very beginning?

The "it wasn't about slavery" narrative is what I got in middle school history. It's utter bullshit. The plantation owners knew if new states were "free," their way of life was on the way out.

As a lovely coda, the retaking of the south, and the Jim Crow system was the exact model the Nazis used to formulate their answer to "The Jewish Question." Many Nazis professed public admiration of how the US dealt with it's race problems, and called for similar laws. They just carried it further.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/


https://billmoyers.com/story/hitler-america-nazi-race-law/


Lol, man what total crap. Not even worth a honest discussion. Tell me what was the last book you read on the Civil war. Other than some garbage from the "Atlantic". Quoting that rag tells me a whole lot of your lack of knowledge about the Civil.
this is exactly the kind of Crap now taught in our Schools. My brother Teaches, Major in American History. The stories he tells me of how the school system is proposely butchering history to serve the Liberal agenda. Nonsense like you just posted. I have asked him to teach the truth. He say's he can't. He would be fired and he is too close to tenor. Honestly discussing the Civil War with some internet guy that quotes the "Atlantic" is beyond the pale. Sorry my friend. Do not bother me again untill you have at least taken a real class. Please start at the beginning with the export tarriffs and we can go from there.

[blues]

https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Volumes-1-3-Box/dp/0394749138


https://d3525k1ryd2155.cloudfront.net/h/778/140/1109140778.0.x.jpg

[Medusa]

No, let’s go here instead. Actual statements from several of the seceding states.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

[TheRoland]

Lol, man what total crap. Not even worth a honest discussion.

As someone who didn't write the post you're replying to, I'd like to hear which part of it is crap. Can you identify a false statement in there?


Did Lee take blacks from the North to be slaves during his campaign, and beat his slaves that tried to escape? Yes or no?

Did the Confederates enslave or execute all or nearly all their captured black union soldiers (until the last few months of the war when they were clearly losing)? Yes or no?

Does the Confederate Constitution not mention "negro" slavery? Yes or no?

Did the guy promoting the Confederate flag (I assume we're talking about William Tappan Thompson promoting the flag most people know) say it was about white suppremacy? Yes or no?

Is your IP address in the Ukraine, Russia, or an Eastern European country? Yes or no?

[TGS]

Is your IP address in the Ukraine, Russia, or an Eastern European country? Yes or no?

Dude....

.....I was thinking the same thing.

[RJ]

Discuss.

[blues]

Oh, look...


https://img.chewy.com/is/catalog/98230._AC_SL1500_V1456923061_.jpg

[TheRoland]

Dude....

.....I was thinking the same thing.

It's not like pro-confederacy people are all that rare in shooting circles, but the writing style is not quite right, regardless of content. I hope that's within the rules to suggest in this instance.

[Caballoflaco]

Dude....

.....I was thinking the same thing.

As a southerner I don’t think so. It’s possible, but I’ve seen more of his type than I’d like to admit down here. It’s both part of the reason I’ve stayed and part of what makes me want to say screw it.

[RJ]

As someone who didn't write the post you're replying to, I'd like to hear which part of it is crap. Can you identify a false statement in there?


Did Lee take blacks from the North to be slaves during his campaign, and beat his slaves that tried to escape? Yes or no?

Did the Confederates enslave or execute all or nearly all their captured black union soldiers (until the last few months of the war when they were clearly losing)? Yes or no?

Does the Confederate Constitution not mention "negro" slavery? Yes or no?

Did the guy promoting the Confederate flag (I assume we're talking about William Tappan Thompson promoting the flag most people know) say it was about white suppremacy? Yes or no?

Is your IP address in the Ukraine, Russia, or an Eastern European country? Yes or no?


https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Volumes-1-3-Box/dp/0394749138


https://d3525k1ryd2155.cloudfront.net/h/778/140/1109140778.0.x.jpg


He should have been. He took blacks from Pennsylvania and took them to south to be slaves during his campaign the war. The south refused to allow black Union troops to be part of prisoner exchanges, and they were enslaved or executed.

He often beat his own escaped slaves, and had salt water poured on the wounds.

Not a hero. The Lost Cause of the South was sold to the north after white supremacy regained power. The monuments went up to remind blacks not to do anything stupid after terrorism and other violence ended the idea of any black participation in government.

If the Civil War wasn't fought for white supremacy, why does every Confederate constitution have a statement about the superiority of whites over blacks in the first paragraph? Why did the guy who was promoting the "Stars and Bars" say it represented white superiority from the very beginning?

The "it wasn't about slavery" narrative is what I got in middle school history. It's utter bullshit. The plantation owners knew if new states were "free," their way of life was on the way out.

As a lovely coda, the retaking of the south, and the Jim Crow system was the exact model the Nazis used to formulate their answer to "The Jewish Question." Many Nazis professed public admiration of how the US dealt with it's race problems, and called for similar laws. They just carried it further.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/


https://billmoyers.com/story/hitler-america-nazi-race-law/


Lol, man what total crap. Not even worth a honest discussion. Tell me what was the last book you read on the Civil war. Other than some garbage from the "Atlantic". Quoting that rag tells me a whole lot of your lack of knowledge about the Civil.
this is exactly the kind of Crap now taught in our Schools. My brother Teaches, Major in American History. The stories he tells me of how the school system is proposely butchering history to serve the Liberal agenda. Nonsense like you just posted. I have asked him to teach the truth. He say's he can't. He would be fired and he is too close to tenor. Honestly discussing the Civil War with some internet guy that quotes the "Atlantic" is beyond the pale. Sorry my friend. Do not bother me again untill you have at least taken a real class. Please start at the beginning with the export tarriffs and we can go from there.

Pray, continue the discussion on the American Civil War here:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?42888-Poli-Sci-American-Civil-War-Slavery-or-States-Rights

[ranger]

First, it was the War of Northern Aggression, hard to get the conversation started when you start with the wrong description.

[Caballoflaco]

This should be in the romper room.

[TGS]

It's not like pro-confederacy people are all that rare in shooting circles, but the writing style is not quite right, regardless of content. I hope that's within the rules to suggest in this instance.

Exactly. Similar to astroturfers, where it's blatantly obvious because something is just.....off.

[Stephanie B]

The plain wording of several declarations of seccession (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states) should answer the question.

[Medusa]

Obviated by thread culling.

[Joe in PNG]

The plain wording of several declarations of seccession (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states) should answer the question.

Georgia:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

Texas:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.

[BehindBlueI's]

The plain wording of several declarations of seccession (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states) should answer the question.

Georgia:


For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.

Mississippi:


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

South Carolina starts off about state's rights but it's clear which rights they are addressing:


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.

Etc. I'm not sure how revisionist one needs to be to say it wasn't about slavery. You can couch it in terms of 'state's rights' but the right in question was to hold slaves.

Yes, I know, most citizens and soldiers didn't own slaves. Most of our citizens and soldiers don't own oil refineries, either. Yet modern economies require oil so off to war we go to secure supplies for us and our allies and deny it to our enemies.

[Duelist]

Well, the way they phrased it is that they were insisting on a state’s right to be a slave state. Turns out, there was some significant disagreement with that position.

And rightly so.

[Rex G]

The larger, overall issue was state’s rights, but let’s not minimize the HUGENESS of the issue of slavery.

Search for, and read, the various states’ ordinances of secession. Slavery was very important, to the movers and shakers in the states that allowed slavery.

Presumably, I have ancestors on both sides of the slavery issue, for whatever that is worth. My Texas/Louisiana German ancestors would almost certainly have been anti-slavery, and almost certainly pro-Union. My Anglo/Scottish Texian ancestors had migrated to Texas from the Old South, and so some may have been pro-secession. Most of my ancestors, on my father’s side, were probably far too poor to even dream of owning slaves, and the one that brought my quite rare surname to the USA is said to have immigrated more recently than the Civil War, anyway.

[blues]

You know something's wrong with your math (and your world view) when a whole person is only counted as 3/5.

[Joe in PNG]

There's also the whole Antebellum fight over whether or not a state was admitted as slave or free. Including actual fighting in Bloody Kansas.

[BehindBlueI's]

You know something's wrong with your math (and your world view) when a whole person is only counted as 3/5.

I've got an electronic copy of an anthropology book somewhere or other that predates Origin of Species and the US Civil War a bit. It makes both "scientific" and "religious" arguments for white supremacy. Not just any whites, of course, only the right kind of whites. It gets a bit tortured at times as one of the main thrusts is that whites are superior because since mankind was all created at the same time in their various areas of the globe and only whites came up with civilization, the other races never would. There is an argument against the Adam and Eve as a literal story as they couldn't have been every race and babies are always the race of their parents so the number of races could never increase, only decrease due to mixed couplings or birth rates not keeping up with death rates. Also, each race is where it's best suited for the climate and closest to the colors of other animals there. That takes some real cherry picking, but whites do better in the cold because polar bears are white and live there. Penguins/puffins do not get a mention.

I'm not sure how anyone could argue with a straight face that Asians never had a real civilization, but apparently completely accepted at the time. It gets a little confusing with how the Med and Middle East get divided up since Greeks and Egyptians need to be white but Bedouins can't be or the premise gets upset, but he the author gets there. Primarily by nose shape, IIRC. Phrenology was still cutting edge stuff when it was written.


I found the entire thing a fascinating look at just how people were being taught to believe at the time. In the unlikely event anyone is interested, I'll dig through my thumb drives and try to find the title. It's free online through one of the various out-of-copyright sources.

[BehindBlueI's]

Primary sources are typically considered the best sources, am I right history majors?

Well, a quick check of the primary sources already listed in the thread reveals:

Occurrences of the word "slave": 83

Occurrences of the word "tariff": 0

Occurrences of the word "tax": 1, as follows:


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.

Sure looks like slavery might have been a consideration to the people actually living then.

[blues]

"The White Man's Burden"...dontcha know?

[SeriousStudent]

I have never seen one of these threads end well on any forum, ever. People lose their tempers and they always get locked.

If that does not happen here, I will be truly amazed.

[Bergeron]

I'm not here for fighting.

I lived for five years in Virginia, and for three of those years I was physically adjacent to the Stonewall Jackson Shrine (literally its name) where he died. I like military history, I like guns, and during those five years I lived very close to Fredericksburg. I visited a very large number of battlefields and museums, including the Shenandoah Mountains and Harper's Ferry.

The park guides were uniformly great, and were always worth close attention. One of them said that the bare facts of history are constant, and change very little, that it is the interpretation of those facts and the way that we view those facts that changess.

As has been mentioned several times upthread, primary documents are great for studying.

blues, thank you for the pictures, I now have a further additition to my "used bookstore lookout" list.

[blues]

I'm not here for fighting.

I lived for five years in Virginia, and for three of those years I was physically adjacent to the Stonewall Jackson Shrine (literally its name) where he died. I like military history, I like guns, and during those five years I lived very close to Fredericksburg. I visited a very large number of battlefields and museums, including the Shenandoah Mountains and Harper's Ferry.

The park guides were uniformly great, and were always worth close attention. One of them said that the bare facts of history are constant, and change very little, that it is the interpretation of those facts and the way that we view those facts that changess.

As has been mentioned several times upthread, primary documents are great for studying.

blues, thank you for the pictures, I now have a further additition to my "used bookstore lookout" list.

Bergeron

I think you'll find the books rewarding. It's a long road getting through them, but worth the journey.

The Killer Angels (https://www.amazon.com/Killer-Angels-Classic-Novel-Trilogy/dp/034540727X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3GSH1QH5TQRME&dchild=1&keywords=the+killer+angels&qid=1591754972&s=books&sprefix=the+killer+ang%2Cstripbooks%2C285&sr=1-1) by Shaara is a good read...historical fiction. Battle Cry of Freedom (https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Civil-War/dp/019516895X) by James McPherson is also quite good.

[CalAlumnus]

You know something's wrong with your math (and your world view) when a whole person is only counted as 3/5.

There's more to it than that. The anti-slavery Northerners wanted slaves to not count at all, and the pro-slavery Southerners wanted slaves to count like any other person. How slaves were counted would impact the number of votes in Congress to preserve, or end, slavery.

[blues]

There's more to it than that. The anti-slavery Northerners wanted slaves to not count at all, and the pro-slavery Southerners wanted slaves to count like any other person. How slaves were counted would impact the number of votes in Congress to preserve, or end, slavery.

I'm aware of the significance, CalAlumnus. I didn't think they just came up with the number arbitrarily as an exercise in philosophy. :cool:

[Baldanders]

Someone was worried this would degenerate into a must-be-locked shitshow.

Instead, in seems like a bunch of folks discussing facts. And one other person doing something else.

This forum is not "most places" on the internet.

Good job, friends.

[10mmfanboy]

The south was paying 80% tariff aka tax, way more than the northern states. They needed slaves because they got tariff aka tax so high they couldn't afford to run plantations and do all the farming otherwise. Even in Lincoln's speech he said he had no intention of freeing slaves in the states that had slavery. War is always about money. They will use anything in an attempt to get the public on their side for starting a war, still do to this day. Banks run the world, not presidents, they fund both sides of war. In fact every election the same president and vice president get put in office, which is the Rothchilds and the Rockefeller's of the world. If slaves were free'd then I didn't get the memo, because I am still a tax slave.

[Gearqueer]

The larger, overall issue was state’s rights, but let’s not minimize the HUGENESS of the issue of slavery.

Search for, and read, the various states’ ordinances of secession. Slavery was very important, to the movers and shakers in the states that allowed slavery.

Presumably, I have ancestors on both sides of the slavery issue, for whatever that is worth. My Texas/Louisiana German ancestors would almost certainly have been anti-slavery, and almost certainly pro-Union. My Anglo/Scottish Texian ancestors had migrated to Texas from the Old South, and so some may have been pro-secession. Most of my ancestors, on my father’s side, were probably far too poor to even dream of owning slaves, and the one that brought my quite rare surname to the USA is said to have immigrated more recently than the Civil War, anyway.

Agreed, and well said.

Anyone who believes that the civil war was not directly about slavery should read South Carolina’s declaration of secession. There is no getting around that document which states the root cause(s) for the civil war more clearly than any other document.

To say that the civil war was not primarily about slavery is to perpetuate an alternate history. This convenient alternate history was created by a segment of society looking for a way to save face in the late 1800’s.

Now that I have changed everyone’s mind who disagrees, I will quietly show myself the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trigger]

Agreed, and well said.

Anyone who believes that the civil war was not directly about slavery should read South Carolina’s declaration of secession. There is no getting around that document which states the root cause(s) for the civil war more clearly than any other document.

To say that the civil war was not primarily about slavery is to perpetuate an alternate history. This convenient alternate history was created by a segment of society looking for a way to save face in the late 1800’s.

Now that I have changed everyone’s mind who disagrees, I will quietly show myself the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I disagree. I feel it was more about money, economics, and way of life. Slavery also happened to be a key phrase to describe the southern way of life as opposed to the north. The economics of where the south was legally allowed / forced to sell its trade goods (cotton, tobacco) represents a key struggle with the north. The north wanted the southern states to only be allowed to trade with northern states, and northern merchants could then resell southern goods to Britain and Europe. The south wanted to sell to Europe directly. The south got better prices for their goods that way, The northern merchants strongly opposed that.

[BehindBlueI's]

Slavery also happened to be a key phrase to describe the southern way of life as opposed to the north.

and to describe slavery.

Returning to the original documents linked:


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.


For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen.


She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.


n unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.


We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.


maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-

I don't think any reading could assume "slavery" is shorthand for "southern culture" there.

[Baldanders]

Well, I disagree. I feel it was more about money, economics, and way of life. Slavery also happened to be a key phrase to describe the southern way of life as opposed to the north. The economics of where the south was legally allowed / forced to sell its trade goods (cotton, tobacco) represents a key struggle with the north. The north wanted the southern states to only be allowed to trade with northern states, and northern merchants could then resell southern goods to Britain and Europe. The south wanted to sell to Europe directly. The south got better prices for their goods that way, The northern merchants strongly opposed that.


The struggle was over if new states would be "free" or "slave". When it was clear that " free" was going to dominate, that was the writing on the wall for the plantation owners.

The plantation system kept whites who weren't slave owners poor as dirt, in general. Tariffs certainly affected the south more, because it had virtually no industrial development, a condition the plantation owners romanticized to hide the fact that they didn't want a new class of industrialists (like the hellish north) to supplant them. Virginia had something like 80-90% of the south's industrial capacity, and it was underdeveloped by northern standards.

On top of that, as other posters have demonstrated, the southern leaders sure weren't bitching about tariffs when they seceded.

Your line of argument was formulated post-Reconstruction to demonize the north, and put a halo on the south, so the same old powerful families could re-establish overwhelming dominance and go on in the same aristocratic manner as their forebears, keeping almost everyone (white and black) very poor. That really only started changing in any large way in the 1970s. We still see the effects now.

ETA: most countries trying to build industry did the same thing as the US. "Free trade = freedom " was a 20th Century development.

[Old Virginia]

As someone who didn't write the post you're replying to, I'd like to hear which part of it is crap. Can you identify a false statement in there?


Did Lee take blacks from the North to be slaves during his campaign, and beat his slaves that tried to escape? Yes or no?

Did the Confederates enslave or execute all or nearly all their captured black union soldiers (until the last few months of the war when they were clearly losing)? Yes or no?

Does the Confederate Constitution not mention "negro" slavery? Yes or no?

Did the guy promoting the Confederate flag (I assume we're talking about William Tappan Thompson promoting the flag most people know) say it was about white suppremacy? Yes or no?

Is your IP address in the Ukraine, Russia, or an Eastern European country? Yes or no?

Lol, I am actually getting a good laugh at all your nonsense No I do not live in the Ukraine or Russia etc. I live in Virginia Beach, born in Norfolk, from Parents born in Norfolk whose Grandparents were born in Norfolk and Camden County NC. Went to school at W&M, have visited almost every Battle Field in the state as well as many others. Have been a American History buff since high School and college many years ago.
Again, any one who actually thinks that the war was all about slavery IMO is illiterate. And not to insult you, but the thought of 500,000 men that gave their lives over slaves is so far out there it is incomprehensible. I take it you are African American?
Again, I do not want to discuss the Civil War with you. Discussing how Virginian's feel about their heritage to someone like you is a futile wastes of time. Your Nonsense about Lee etc is so far out there. I know most High School curriculum's to not go much into American History, and that is a shame. And you are a example of that illiteracy.

I highly suggest you do some research and start before the civil war. The Economy, the industrial North vs the Agricultural South. Study the reason why the South wanted to succeed. And it was not about slaves (and again both sides, the North and the South had slaves) What part of that do you not get?
By the way, sorry that you do not even understand about Slavery in all of America not just Virginia. You know nothing about the Export Tariffs, westward expansion and on and on. Start with Bruce Canton, and again Start well before the Civil War actually began. How about learning about how the Northern Soldiers felt about Slaves coming to New York? Tell us about the Riots by whites in NY over slaves entering into the city.
Please tell us why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Act in only the Southern States but not the Northern or border States. Lol, why, was he a racist? Please dying to know. Tell us why the Irish and Italians joined the Northern Armies. If you believe they did so because they hated slavery then, I would say you are even further lost than I believe you are.

We are tired of you tearing down our Monuments, our heritage. Perhaps tearing down the statutes of Martin Luther King, Author Ash would be a good revenge. But we do not do that. We will not lower ourselves the way BLM has. We will not try and burn down the city. Loot, hurt innocent people, advocate killing Police, disrupt political events and on and on.
And in no way will we HONOR a drug infested criminal that was nothing but a cheap thug. I find that so totally disgusting I can hardly speak about it. We had enough of Colin Kerpernick and his spitting on the American Flag and every thing good about this country. This is not about the Civil War, this is about BLM. And that is what your problem is. How about just leaving us alone?

[Medusa]

Old Virginia

what part of the primary source documents provided for you do you not comprehend ? To borrow your phrase, we are tired of southern apologists whitewashing the actual causes of the war.

[Old Virginia]

Pray, continue the discussion on the American Civil War here:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?42888-Poli-Sci-American-Civil-War-Slavery-or-States-Rights

Love Shelby Foote. I have all of his works. Recently saw a great documentary featuring him. Hope you have read Bruce Canton's work. Another Great Historian.

Perhaps my all time favorite Historical book on the Civil war is The American Heritage "The CIVIL WAR" by Bruce Canton.

Chapt one "A HOUSE DIVIDE" give a idea of how the Civil war is building up

TWO ECONOMIES is another chapter as well as "The Destruction of Slavery". Yes slavery was a big issue in the civil war for both sides. But that was only one aspect of the war.

Also read anything on Lincoln. There is so much to learn about him and his views on slavery that you do not see in a modern day school room. Not what you think it is.

Clantons "The Civil War" is a must read. Should be mandatory for all school systems. Such a enjoyable informative book. I have read it over so many times. I am lucky to live in Virgina. It is so rich with History. York Town, Williamsburg, all the Battles in and around Richmond, Chesapeake, and on and on. Not mention the Revolutionary war as well.

[Gearqueer]

I highly suggest you do some research and start before the civil war. The Economy, the industrial North vs the Agricultural South. Study the reason why the South wanted to succeed. And it was not about slaves (and again both sides, the North and the South had slaves) What part of that do you not get
?

It’s pretty clear and well documented that during Virginia’s secession convention of 1861 that their states’ right to slavery was a (if not the) core issue. I do agree with you that there were other factors considered to leave the union, but those other reasons were often related to the nation’s trend to isolate and repeal slavery.

Let’s keep things civil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldanders]

Lol, I am actually getting a good laugh at all your nonsense No I do not live in the Ukraine or Russia etc. I live in Virginia Beach, born in Norfolk, from Parents born in Norfolk whose Grandparents were born in Norfolk and Camden County NC. Went to school at W&M, have visited almost every Battle Field in the state as well as many others. Have been a American History buff since high School and college many years ago.
Again, any one who actually thinks that the war was all about slavery IMO is illiterate. And not to insult you, but the thought of 500,000 men that gave their lives over slaves is so far out there it is incomprehensible. I take it you are African American?
Again, I do not want to discuss the Civil War with you. Discussing how Virginian's feel about their heritage to someone like you is a futile wastes of time. Your Nonsense about Lee etc is so far out there. I know most High School curriculum's to not go much into American History, and that is a shame. And you are a example of that illiteracy.

I highly suggest you do some research and start before the civil war. The Economy, the industrial North vs the Agricultural South. Study the reason why the South wanted to succeed. And it was not about slaves (and again both sides, the North and the South had slaves) What part of that do you not get?
By the way, sorry that you do not even understand about Slavery in all of America not just Virginia. You know nothing about the Export Tariffs, westward expansion and on and on. Start with Bruce Canton, and again Start well before the Civil War actually began. How about learning about how the Northern Soldiers felt about Slaves coming to New York? Tell us about the Riots by whites in NY over slaves entering into the city.
Please tell us why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Act in only the Southern States but not the Northern or border States. Lol, why, was he a racist? Please dying to know. Tell us why the Irish and Italians joined the Northern Armies. If you believe they did so because they hated slavery then, I would say you are even further lost than I believe you are.

We are tired of you tearing down our Monuments, our heritage. Perhaps tearing down the statutes of Martin Luther King, Author Ash would be a good revenge. But we do not do that. We will not lower ourselves the way BLM has. We will not try and burn down the city. Loot, hurt innocent people, advocate killing Police, disrupt political events and on and on.
And in no way will we HONOR a drug infested criminal that was nothing but a cheap thug. I find that so totally disgusting I can hardly speak about it. We had enough of Colin Kerpernick and his spitting on the American Flag and every thing good about this country. This is not about the Civil War, this is about BLM. And that is what your problem is. How about just leaving us alone?

My ancestors were Virginians who tried to kill each other on the battlefield during the war, but still broke bread together. I can't say I find them inspirational.

You seem to be responding to a whole bunch of arguments no one is making. Pretty much all Americans were very racist by modern standards. How is this contrary to the idea the slavery was the root cause of the war? You seem to fighting the idea that the heroic north was motivated by altruism to liberate slaves. No one has argued that was true. Yup, mostly northern whites didn't want someone taking their job---- and they could see the terrible status of working whites in the south.

Who is your "we" we should leave alone? 100% white, I`m guessing from your comments. Odd you bring up being offended by the desecration of the Union flag when your own sense of pride is obviously bound to a failed insurrection against it.

The statues only went up long after the war, and the message was "see, we finally won black folks, don't dare to vote."

Virtually all Confederate monuments went up in the 20th Century, and the biggest wave came after civil rights protests took off.

Can you name me another country where huge groups of people defend monuments to a failed insurrection, erected generations after the conflict was ended in an unconditional surrender?

And, do you have even one primary source to quote regarding the motivation for secession from Southern leaders that would back up your pronouncement that most of us are illiterate? Is their something we are missing in the state's own descriptions of their complaints we are missing? Tariffs were obviously not much on their minds. Owning humans was.



A couple of good quotes would really help your case. Rather than rambling screeds about how we are idiots, the world just ain't what it used to be, and listing some books you like. And how "we" (again, who do you speak for, exactly?) are honorable, educated folks facing a sea of illiterate morons.

I notice you are not directly confronting anyone who is presenting actual quotes from Confederate leaders.

I know I am highly biased, but Heinlein's opinion (well at least Lazarus Long's) that the wages of slave-owning should be death had a big influence on me. It's vilest crime imaginable to me. Reading descriptions of the motels in New Orleans that were conveniently located near the slave market so owners could give their new acquisitions "a spin" started me on that path.

[RevolverRob]

Why is it presented as a dichotomy in the title?

In fact, why are the reasons behind the Civil War most often presented as dichotomies?

Slavery was enshrined as a state right in the constitution. And prior to 1865 - states had the ability to choose to pass laws abolishing slavery or not.

I am not attempting to defend slavery - I’m merely pointing out that the state’s right in question was a right to slavery and thus both parts - the defense of the institution of slavery and the assertion to a state’s right are linked and cannot be separated from one another, in a convenient way.

Ergo, anyone who argues it was one or the other has a fundamental misunderstanding of the link between the two.

[0ddl0t]

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, 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." - Abraham Lincoln's stump speeches & inaugural address


It takes 2 to tango... For the first 2 years of the civil war, the union army was fighting only to preserve the union - slavery was still legal in all states. And the emancipation proclamation 2 years in did not free any slaves in union territory (nor did the union army control any rebel territory) - it wasn't until the ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 that all union slaves were freed -- a full 8 months after Lee's surrender.


ETA right up until the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln was steadfast that the northern cause was the preservation of the union, not ending slavery:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

[0ddl0t]

Was the #Resistance (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=Resistance) to Kavanaugh about sexual harassment/assault or was it about abortion?

[BehindBlueI's]

Why is it presented as a dichotomy in the title?

In fact, why are the reasons behind the Civil War most often presented as dichotomies?

Slavery was enshrined as a state right in the constitution. And prior to 1865 - states had the ability to choose to pass laws abolishing slavery or not.

I am not attempting to defend slavery - I’m merely pointing out that the state’s right in question was a right to slavery and thus both parts - the defense of the institution of slavery and the assertion to a state’s right are linked and cannot be separated from one another, in a convenient way.

Ergo, anyone who argues it was one or the other has a fundamental misunderstanding of the link between the two.

I don't think anybody misses that the state, as shorthand for the citizens of the state, had the right to decide if they were a free or slave state under the laws at the time and thus a "state right". The point isn't that slavery wasn't a "state's right" question at the time, but that slavery in particular was the state right the slave holding states were concerned with.

[Joe in PNG]

One often overlooked fact about the Antebellum culture of the South was an sort of spurious aristocracy, and a conspicuous aping of noble English manners and attitudes.
The English nobility looked down on industry as being base and low, and so followed the South. They considered land rents or agriculture to be the only proper form of gaining wealth, and so followed the South. Mark Twain goes into this in his "Life on the Mississippi".

[RJ]

Why is it presented as a dichotomy in the title?



I can answer this one.

During the discussion ensuing in my "Cultural Shifts" thread, it emerged several members wanted to discuss the causes of the Civil War. Since the original intent of my thread was getting lost in the back and forth on States Rights vs. Slavery, I opened this thread, prefacing it "Poli-Sci:", intending to draw attention by posing the dichotomy as a way of highlighting this separate topic. Proving that the p-f #modsarenotactuallyshit (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=modsarenotactuallyshit) , the leadership team took the bait, and migrated all of those posts over to "this" thread, so this discussion could continue in parallel.

Carry on.

:cool:

[Caballoflaco]

Old Virginia your family was hoodwinked into believing that slavery played no part in secession so they would give their lives in an attempt to keep a few wealthy slave and land owners wealthy and in power. Who wants to hear that they’re going off to war or sending their sons to war so that the rich could maintain an agrarian economy based on free labor that involved the buying and selling and “ownership” of human beings.

Or they were the ones doing the lying so that poor white folks would line up to die so they could maintain their wealth.

Since I have some vacation time coming up I have to ask, where in Norfolk or Virginia Beach do could I go to meet some of those fine Virginian white women?

[Baldanders]

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, 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." - Abraham Lincoln's stump speeches & inaugural address


It takes 2 to tango... For the first 2 years of the civil war, the union army was fighting only to preserve the union - slavery was still legal in all states. And the emancipation proclamation 2 years in did not free any slaves in union territory (nor did the union army control any rebel territory) - it wasn't until the ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 that all union slaves were freed -- a full 8 months after Lee's surrender.


ETA right up until the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln was steadfast that the northern cause was the preservation of the union, not ending slavery:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

I've read this a few times before I don't see how it changes the idea that slavery was the primary cause of the war.

It just shows it wasn't altruism which motivated the Union side. It wasn't a "war on slavery."

All the Confederate constitutions are quite clear they saw a threat to their slaveholding ways. You know the business aphorism "if you're not growing, you're dying"? With no new states to spread to, the plantation system was going to face more and more problems in surviving, and plantation owners were facing ever shrinking power in the Union.

Arguments that slavery was somehow one factor among many that all had equal weight are arguments that the Confederate leaders were confused about their own motivations--they stated it was about slavery again and again. It was only post-Reconstruction that the "many issues" narrative was built, because it was part of the whole romanticized Lost Cause of the South narrative which painted the plantation system as a noble flower shattered by the Yankees. (Thanks Gone With The Wind.. The book features the heroes donning Klan robes) The history of the "War of Northern Aggression" was effectively revised in the early 20th Century as the story of how the same folks reasserted power over the South was sanitized.

The coup we had in NC that reestablished the old regime is certainly not on anyone's lips much these days:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898

I'd be fine with keeping Confederate monuments if we built monuments to the people who got crushed post-Reconstruction by old guard retaking power right next to all of them. That would be quite educational.

[Baldanders]

Why is it presented as a dichotomy in the title?

In fact, why are the reasons behind the Civil War most often presented as dichotomies?

Slavery was enshrined as a state right in the constitution. And prior to 1865 - states had the ability to choose to pass laws abolishing slavery or not.

I am not attempting to defend slavery - I’m merely pointing out that the state’s right in question was a right to slavery and thus both parts - the defense of the institution of slavery and the assertion to a state’s right are linked and cannot be separated from one another, in a convenient way.

Ergo, anyone who argues it was one or the other has a fundamental misunderstanding of the link between the two.

But Rob, arguments don't fall into a historical vacuum. The "state's rights" argument is a centerpiece of a narrative that minimizes slavery in every way.

[Baldanders]

Tariffs had been a longstanding battle between North and South since near the beginning.

However, tariffs had been falling for a while, right up to the succession. Than the damn Yankees took the opportunity to jack them back up, absent all the Southern Democrats. Then the Confederacy used that as an example of how the the North was abusing the South.

[Old Virginia]

Old Virginia your family was hoodwinked into believing that slavery played no part in secession so they would give their lives in an attempt to keep a few wealthy slave and land owners wealthy and in power. Who wants to hear that they’re going off to war or sending their sons to war so that the rich could maintain an agrarian economy based on free labor that involved the buying and selling and “ownership” of human beings.

Or they were the ones doing the lying so that poor white folks would line up to die so they could maintain their wealth.

Since I have some vacation time coming up I have to ask, where in Norfolk or Virginia Beach do could I go to meet some of those fine Virginian white women?

Hardly hoodwinked by my family. My Mother and Father were both liberals my father a career Marine. My Dad was also a history buff. First of all, I never said slavery was not a issue, it was, but Slavery was throughout the US including the North. Trying to explain the sentiments to someone not from Virginia is not easy. Who were the men that died in the South? Do you really think all the Pictures you see of them without shoes were slave owners. Read the letters sent home to all the Wife's, Mothers and Fathers. These were boys and Men from all over the Virginia, the many small farms etc.
As stated, the war was about two different Economies. African Americans do want it all to be about them, all about Slavery. I suppose they also believe the Revolutionary War was the same.
The slaves were freed in the second year.(not in the North) And again, Southern Plantation owners would not want or be able to care for Slaves after the Cotton Market fell in that 2nd year.

But lets for get the Civil War. The African Americans want you to believe that they are "Entitled" because over 200 years ago their family may have been slaves. 200 frigging years ago and now they want and expect entitlement. And no matter about the civil war. It all comes down to MONEY. Why aren't the American Indians protesting in the streets and burning the Country down, advocating killing Police. What about Chinese Americans, Philippineo's, Vietnamese and on and on. Why is it always about them. They believe from birth that America is the bad guy, and they believe in Entitlement. Even though America gives them more entitlement than any Country in the world.

You wan to meet women in Virginia. Great place for that. I sure had my share when I was Young. But I would not come down now. They just had a riot at the Oceanfront while the Police were quick to respond, they still had over $300,000 worth of damage and small business's destroyed. Go back to the famous "GREEKFEAST" in 1989. A major riot that was on every new channel all over the country. Millions of dollars worth of damage. The National guard had to called out.
And guess what was the cause???????? NOTHING, they did it just for the heck of it. No, I would not come to the Tourist area of Virginia Beach. It is not the same anymore.

Instead visit all the Battlefields, museum's and please go to the Confederate Museum in Richmond. Talk to Virginians about their History, loved one's in in the War, etc. Learn about the People of this fine state. Good luck and have fun.

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

... But lets for get the Civil War. The African Americans want you to believe that they are "Entitled" because over 200 years ago their family may have been slaves. 200 frigging years ago and now they want and expect entitlement. And no matter about the civil war. It all comes down to MONEY. Why aren't the American Indians protesting in the streets and burning the Country down, advocating killing Police. What about Chinese Americans, Philippineo's, Vietnamese and on and on. Why is it always about them. They believe from birth that America is the bad guy, and they believe in Entitlement. Even though America gives them more entitlement than any Country in the world...And the clouds part to show the true sky... :rolleyes:

[Lost River]

...

Can you name me another country where huge groups of people defend monuments to a failed insurrection, erected generations after the conflict was ended in an unconditional surrender?

....



I know there is a joke in there somewhere about matrimonial anniversaries..:cool:

[Borderland]

Why is it presented as a dichotomy in the title?

In fact, why are the reasons behind the Civil War most often presented as dichotomies?

Slavery was enshrined as a state right in the constitution. And prior to 1865 - states had the ability to choose to pass laws abolishing slavery or not.

I am not attempting to defend slavery - I’m merely pointing out that the state’s right in question was a right to slavery and thus both parts - the defense of the institution of slavery and the assertion to a state’s right are linked and cannot be separated from one another, in a convenient way.

Ergo, anyone who argues it was one or the other has a fundamental misunderstanding of the link between the two.

That's how I see it looking at it objectively having no dog in the fight. Slavery was a bad thing and needed to end. Unfortunately, the entire economy in the south couldn't survive without it. That's like congress passing a law saying you can't grow corn in the midwest anymore. Figure out how to cope with that because corn is evil and we don't care how it impacts your economy. Midwestern states are going to say we have a right to grow corn because nothing in the constitution says we can't and we've been doing it since forever.

So yeah, it's a states rights issue unless congress or the SC says it isn't which happens all the time. The AWB and SSM are two examples of that. I have read at least one version of this "states rights" argument regarding slavery and it seems sound to me. Jim Webb (Born Fighting) puts the civil war into a cultural perspective pretty well and it's worth a read. I read it not because I'm a civil war buff but because of my ancestral link to the Scots-Irish and the south.

I'm not advocating that slavery was right, it needed to end. I also can understand how the southern states might have seen the actions of the northern states as aggressive.

[BehindBlueI's]

The African Americans want you to believe that they are "Entitled" because over 200 years ago their family may have been slaves. 200 frigging years ago and now they want and expect entitlement. And no matter about the civil war. It all comes down to MONEY. Why aren't the American Indians protesting in the streets and burning the Country down, advocating killing Police.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there and are, frankly, over the line. Consider this your in-thread warning. Race baiting and division isn't going to fly here.

[Wondering Beard]

Can you name me another country where huge groups of people defend monuments to a failed insurrection, erected generations after the conflict was ended in an unconditional surrender?

It doesn't fit all your parameters, but England has Guy Fawkes Day.

[blues]

It doesn't fit all your parameters, but England has Guy Fawkes Day.

Every day a Guy is Fawked in England. And, increasingly here as well.

[Borderland]

Every day a Guy is Fawked in England. And, increasingly here as well.

God save the Queen. You commoners can all get Fawked.

[Gearqueer]

Edit: thread drift

[BehindBlueI's]

You guys know you're killing me, right?

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?42829-George-Floyd-Cultural-Shifts-After-June-2020 for modern cultural commentary.

This thread for fighting about what's true in history.

[Zincwarrior]

Lol, I am actually getting a good laugh at all your nonsense No I do not live in the Ukraine or Russia etc. I live in Virginia Beach, born in Norfolk, from Parents born in Norfolk whose Grandparents were born in Norfolk and Camden County NC. Went to school at W&M, have visited almost every Battle Field in the state as well as many others. Have been a American History buff since high School and college many years ago.
Again, any one who actually thinks that the war was all about slavery IMO is illiterate. And not to insult you, but the thought of 500,000 men that gave their lives over slaves is so far out there it is incomprehensible. I take it you are African American?
Again, I do not want to discuss the Civil War with you. Discussing how Virginian's feel about their heritage to someone like you is a futile wastes of time. Your Nonsense about Lee etc is so far out there. I know most High School curriculum's to not go much into American History, and that is a shame. And you are a example of that illiteracy.

I highly suggest you do some research and start before the civil war. The Economy, the industrial North vs the Agricultural South. Study the reason why the South wanted to succeed. And it was not about slaves (and again both sides, the North and the South had slaves) What part of that do you not get?
By the way, sorry that you do not even understand about Slavery in all of America not just Virginia. You know nothing about the Export Tariffs, westward expansion and on and on. Start with Bruce Canton, and again Start well before the Civil War actually began. How about learning about how the Northern Soldiers felt about Slaves coming to New York? Tell us about the Riots by whites in NY over slaves entering into the city.
Please tell us why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Act in only the Southern States but not the Northern or border States. Lol, why, was he a racist? Please dying to know. Tell us why the Irish and Italians joined the Northern Armies. If you believe they did so because they hated slavery then, I would say you are even further lost than I believe you are.

We are tired of you tearing down our Monuments, our heritage. Perhaps tearing down the statutes of Martin Luther King, Author Ash would be a good revenge. But we do not do that. We will not lower ourselves the way BLM has. We will not try and burn down the city. Loot, hurt innocent people, advocate killing Police, disrupt political events and on and on.
And in no way will we HONOR a drug infested criminal that was nothing but a cheap thug. I find that so totally disgusting I can hardly speak about it. We had enough of Colin Kerpernick and his spitting on the American Flag and every thing good about this country. This is not about the Civil War, this is about BLM. And that is what your problem is. How about just leaving us alone?

If it wasn't about the slaves, then speeches by the VP of the CSA, and the declarations of each state appear to have been lying.

Lets do a word search on the Texas one. Its mentioned TWENTY ONE TIMES.
http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm

I like this part:

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

[blues]

You guys know you're killing me, right?

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?42829-George-Floyd-Cultural-Shifts-After-June-2020 for modern cultural commentary.

This thread for fighting about what's true in history.



https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

[Zincwarrior]

Why is it presented as a dichotomy in the title?

In fact, why are the reasons behind the Civil War most often presented as dichotomies?

Slavery was enshrined as a state right in the constitution. And prior to 1865 - states had the ability to choose to pass laws abolishing slavery or not.

I am not attempting to defend slavery - I’m merely pointing out that the state’s right in question was a right to slavery and thus both parts - the defense of the institution of slavery and the assertion to a state’s right are linked and cannot be separated from one another, in a convenient way.

Ergo, anyone who argues it was one or the other has a fundamental misunderstanding of the link between the two.

Southern States didn't babble about State's rights on the subject when they passed federal acts to over-ride state's rights to free slaves in their territory, thus allowing slave catchers to kidnap people in the North.

[trailrunner]

Trying to explain the sentiments to someone not from Virginia is not easy.

If you're a William and Mary graduate (as you say you are), it should not be hard. It's pretty weak sauce to blame your complete failure to win your argument because they the other person is not from 'round here.


[some borderline racist stuff snipped]

A lot of your so-called reasoning about the civil war seems to come from a current resentment of blacks -- and not from your research, reading, critical thinking, substantiating the elements of your argument, or refuting contrary evidence presented to you.

[0ddl0t]

I've read this a few times before I don't see how it changes the idea that slavery was the primary cause of the war.

It just shows it wasn't altruism which motivated the Union side. It wasn't a "war on slavery."

All the Confederate constitutions are quite clear they saw a threat to their slaveholding ways. You know the business aphorism "if you're not growing, you're dying"? With no new states to spread to, the plantation system was going to face more and more problems in surviving, and plantation owners were facing ever shrinking power in the Union.

The ever-shrinking power was the major undercurrent of succession. Not a single rebel state voted to elect Lincoln, and his popular vote numbers were next to nil (partly owing to him not even being on the ballot in many states) yet southerners were stuck with him a president. He certainly wasn't the first president who would have liked to free the slaves if given the chance, but he was the least popular one in the south.

Southern states were less concerned about losing the right to own slaves in the near future and more about the open defiance of federal law in the north by abolitionists. There was no federal law enforcement until after the war (the Secret Service enforced counterfeiting laws in 1865, the DOJ was created in 1870, and the predecessor to the FBI was created in 1908 and became the FBI in 1935) so slaveowners were forced to pay private investigators to attempt to recover slaves from basically sanctuary cities/states.

At the same time, protectionist trade policies forced southerns to buy inferior manufacturered goods from the north while also preventing them from selling their cotton as readily overseas until the north had met its needs for cotton. These aren't mentioned in the state declarations, but they are mentioned often in contemporary southern newspapers. These newspapers are probably the best window into the mindset of the population at the time and they are fascinating to me, with hyper polarized editorializing north vs south that makes today's "fake news" look tame.

Had Northern newspapers not incorrectly and repeatedly characterized the succession as the actions of a tiny minority of bad actors, support for the union would have evaporated. Instead, northerners initialliy believed they were *helping* their southern neighbors stamp out local rebellions and that victory would be swift & easy.

[Old Virginia]

If you're a William and Mary graduate (as you say you are), it should not be hard. It's pretty weak sauce to blame your complete failure to win your argument because they the other person is not from 'round here.


[some borderline racist stuff snipped]

A lot of your so-called reasoning about the civil war seems to come from a current resentment of blacks -- and not from your research, reading, critical thinking, substantiating the elements of your argument, or refuting contrary evidence presented to you.

Lol, so called reasoning as opposed to your facts? Get over it. I will not take the Racist bait any longer. I am done, How about you doing the same? And leave your judgements to yourself. I am a racist just like every one else no matter what the color. Except of you of course. And get off what fucking school I went to school, what fucking difference does that make?, some jerk making comments about my IP address, calling me from Russia Ukraine etc. Obvious a one way street on this forum. I simply replied to the attack. My mistake.
Not a racist, but do hate any individual that loots, burns down cities, advocates killing police. Black or White. and if that does not suite you then take a hike. Get in line with the so called Protesters.
Leave me, my family and friends alone.

Done.

[RevolverRob]

The "state's rights" argument is a centerpiece of a narrative that minimizes slavery in every way.

That's kind of my point though. By buying into and/or contributing to a set of arguments that draws it as a "state's rights" vs. "slavery" - we're contributing to the narrative the allows one side to minimize slavery.

Instead we can say, "The war was about slavery and state's rights - Because it was ultimately about the state's rights to determine if slavery was legal. The states who seceded sought to preserve the institution of slavery against what they thought were systematic undermining of that institution and their rights to determine if slavery was legal. They fought to preserve a system that treated humans as chattel to maintain their way of life, against what they perceived to be existential threats to their way of living and an institution that was theretofore legal."

The Confederates were both right and wrong. They were right because their legal grievances were correct, at the time, there were systematic attempts to undermine slavery. But they were wrong, because ultimately they sought to preserve a system of abuse and slavery, which had, by that time, already been well established as contrary to the broader social values of the United States and the bulk of the territories within it.

One thing that remains unclear to me, is whether the Confederacy actually understood that the expansion of the country (and thus free states and territories) was reflective of the sociocultural change that viewed ending slavery as the morally correct thing to do. The south enjoyed several decades of significant prosperity for some and like all powerful and rich people, they were loathe to surrender the means to which they had procured their wealth. I often get the distinct impression they viewed expansion of the country, period, as a threat to their way of life, and had no broader interest in how social values had shifted since the end of the Revolutionary War. In other words, the Antebellum South was so deeply rooted in the culture of slavery, they could not or would not actually accept that many viewed it as abhorrent and that the world had changed around them.

Instead, like many who cling to outdated social values, they viewed each advancement of the culture around them as a direct attack to their person, an attack to their self-identity, and an attack to their way of life.

[mtnbkr]

Instead, like many who cling to outdated social values, they viewed each advancement of the culture around them as a direct attack to their person, an attack to their self-identity, and an attack to their way of life.

That applies even to modern people who claim every change is the result of a "culture war" foisted upon them by Others.

Chris

[trailrunner]

And get off what fucking school I went to school, what fucking difference does that make?


You brought up the fact that you went to William and Mary a couple of posts ago as a way of legitimizing your arguments.

[RevolverRob]

That applies even to modern people who claim every change is the result of a "culture war" foisted upon them by Others.

Chris

It's almost like...people get comfortable in their way of life and are resistant to change? :eek: ;)

___

As an aside - for me the reason to study history - and the reason I studied it so voraciously and initially majored in it in college (later dropped to a minor, because I found the History Profs were exceptionally revisionist and did not appreciate cold assessment of the historical facts) - was because I view history as our greatest teacher to understanding our current selves. And importantly through that understanding, how we can see the defense of things in the past are reflective of both culture and human nature.

In other words, history, particularly written history, provides the deepest insight into ourselves that is available. No amount of psychology, no number of LSD trips, etc., none of that provides a clearer, more detailed, and consistent understanding of humans and their cultures, than the study of written history.

These days, the reason I focus on 'prehistory' (which I've always thought of as a stupid term) is primarily rooted in that it is a more difficult set of problems that I find more intellectually challenging and engaging. Plus, there is more money in it and better job prospects. :p Prehistorical studies do not provide a better or more complete picture than written histories do. But they often side-step the inherent bias of the fact that a human (and often the victor of the battle, be it real or cultural) wrote that history. Instead, prehistory is predicated on careful study of material evidence and, to be honest, application of some common sense (another reason why I like it). Still, despite side-stepping the bias, the picture presented is far more fragmentary and difficult to interpret.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Southern states were less concerned about losing the right to own slaves in the near future and more about the open defiance of federal law in the north by abolitionists

The resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act if that is what you are talking about, is exactly the kind of problem the Second Amendment is supposed to solve. Local governments and citizens taking up arms to oppose the slave catchers was a good thing, unless you are OK with immoral ownership of slaves.

To the poll question:

1. It was about slavery
2. The resistance to the idea is either cognitive dissonance to accepting that your valued ancestors were directly monsters or indirectly supporting such.
3. Nasty but another reason is implicit or explicit racism that views that period with a positive attitude.

[Joe in PNG]

RR, you are like the little brother I never had.

[blues]

RR, you are like the little brother I never had.

The one that would never shut up and you had to administer noogies to?


(I kid, I kid...mostly. ;))

[RevolverRob]

RR, you are like the little brother I never had.

I have no brothers, just two sisters. So, I'm happy to start referring to you as, "My brother Joe".

"My brother Joe lives mostly in New Guinea, but comes back to the states regularly."

"What's he like?"

"Very cool. Rational, down to Earth, dedicated to helping others. And he really likes playing bass guitar and building bass guitars."

"That sounds like a really cool brother. How are your parents?"

"Oh we have different parents. He's my adopted brother, in the sense that, I wanted a big brother and Joe wanted a little brother, so we adopted each other."

"That's weird."

"Wouldn't have it any other way."

[TGS]

There was no federal law enforcement until after the war

This is an untrue statement.

[Joe in PNG]

As for the ancestry thing, everyone is descended from people somewhere who did some pretty nasty things to other people- and very likely to another ancestor.

If one wants to believe in Purity of Blood and Breeding, then that's a fact that has to be glossed over. If your worth is based on who your ancestors all, then it's kind of hard to face the fact that they may not have been good people.

[Borderland]

I have no brothers, just two sisters. So, I'm happy to start referring to you as, "My brother Joe".

"My brother Joe lives mostly in New Guinea, but comes back to the states regularly."

"What's he like?"

"Very cool. Rational, down to Earth, dedicated to helping others. And he really likes playing bass guitar and building bass guitars."

"That sounds like a really cool brother. How are your parents?"

"Oh we have different parents. He's my adopted brother, in the sense that, I wanted a big brother and Joe wanted a little brother, so we adopted each other."

"That's weird."

"Wouldn't have it any other way."

You guys probably went to different high schools together or something. :D

[TGS]

and if that does not suite you then take a hike.

If you're self-admittedly at such odds with the forum, maybe it's you who needs to take a hike.


Leave me, my family and friends alone.

Done.

You came here with a chip on your shoulder and a desire to get in fights with people.

The forum did not seek you out.

[0ddl0t]

This is an untrue statement.

Ok, there was the postal inspection service and Marshall Service - neither of which would crack down on the underground railroad & sanctuary cities... The Marshall service could execute court orders, but the onus was still on the individuals to do the investigating to make their case in court.

[TGS]

And the US Customs Service, and the US Mint Police, and the Revenue-Marine.

Point being, what you wrote was untrue, and it has no reason for mention. The asinine point you were trying to make was based on a non-existence of federal LE, and that's not true.

[blues]

And the US Customs Service, and the US Mint Police, and the Revenue-Marine.

Point being, what you wrote was untrue, and it has no reason for mention. The asinine point you were trying to make was based on a non-existence of federal LE, and that's not true.

Proudly created in 1789...and sadly un-created in 2003.

[TGS]

Proudly created in 1789...and sadly un-created in 2003.

Fortunately our "rebranding" each time has made us more attractive, better, what have you.

Unfortunately it takes a crisis, preventable deaths of Americans, and a chain of written "we told you so" leading up to the tragedy for the teletubby's that control our agency to see the light.

[blues]

Fortunately our "rebranding" each time has made us more attractive, better, what have you.

Unfortunately it takes a crisis, preventable deaths of Americans, and a chain of written "we told you so" leading up to the tragedy for the teletubby's that control our agency to see the light.

In theory, the concept of merging various agencies under Homeland Security from their former departments made a lot of sense. And most likely, my personal perspective is skewed to some extent by the clash of cultures engendered in the process.

I left less than a year after the "new and better product" was brought to market. For the next few years I listened to the crying and gnashing of teeth of former colleagues who told me how prescient I was in pulling the plug when I did.

That said, many very fine agents from my legacy agency and from our sister agency with which we merged both remained, and were bolstered by new talent. And so it goes, as with most things over time.

[Baldanders]

I'm not sure if we need to hash this out much more.

Anyone else feel differently?

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

I'm not sure if we need to hash this out much more.

Anyone else feel differently?I'm sure it'll rise again...

[Joe in PNG]

I'm not sure if we need to hash this out much more.

Anyone else feel differently?

I doubt we're going to change too many views on this issue.

[blues]

I'm not sure if we need to hash this out much more.

Anyone else feel differently?

Nobody's making anyone participate.

[Half Moon]

Nobody's making anyone participate.

If we do, is there a trophy? :-P

[0ddl0t]

And the US Customs Service, and the US Mint Police, and the Revenue-Marine.

Point being, what you wrote was untrue, and it has no reason for mention. The asinine point you were trying to make was based on a non-existence of federal LE, and that's not true.

The point remains there was no federal law enforcement organization able to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed against citizens, only crimes against the government. Had something analogous to the FBI existed in 1860, I doubt there would have been a civil war.

[blues]

If we do, is there a trophy? :-P

Goes without saying.

You get half a cup...


https://www.daryllaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/participation-trophy.jpg

[blues]

The point remains there was no federal law enforcement organization able to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed against citizens, only crimes against the government. Had something analogous to the FBI existed in 1860, I doubt there would have been a civil war.

Seriously? I don't know how or where you draw your conclusions. (Maybe I don't want to know.)

[Hambo]

Goes without saying.

You get half a cup...


https://www.daryllaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/participation-trophy.jpg

I didn't post, but I did report one. Am I eligible for the trophy or not?

[blues]

I didn't post, but I did report one. Am I eligible for the trophy or not?

Hambo

We're working on the "snitch jacket". Unfortunately we ran out of cups to cover this specific situation.

But thank you for participating. Your jacket will be sent to you shortly. In true forum tradition, it will be delivered by "member's only".

[Joe in PNG]

Hambo

We're working on the "snitch jacket". Unfortunately we ran out of cups to cover this specific situation.

But thank you for participating. Your jacket will be sent to you shortly. In true forum tradition, it will be delivered by "member's only".

Is it embroidered?

[blues]

Is it embroidered?

It's "stitched up".

[Hambo]

Hambo

We're working on the "snitch jacket". Unfortunately we ran out of cups to cover this specific situation.

But thank you for participating. Your jacket will be sent to you shortly. In true forum tradition, it will be delivered by "member's only".

Bring it, bitches. It's well known that I sleep with a sharpened entrenching tool at my side.

[trailrunner]

The point remains there was no federal law enforcement organization able to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed against citizens, only crimes against the government. Had something analogous to the FBI existed in 1860, I doubt there would have been a civil war.

Huh?

And even if you are correct, what does it matter?

[Joe in PNG]

Huh?

And even if you are correct, what does it matter?

It's an argument technique. You argue a small, insignificant point, then pretend that being right on that tiny, unrelated point means you are right on the rest of it.

[blues]

Bring it, bitches. It's well known that I sleep with a sharpened entrenching tool at my side.

Hmmm, that doesn't auger well.

[Joe in PNG]

Well, that doesn't auger well.

It's true love. Don't judge!

[TiroFijo]

I did not read the entire thread, but let me ask:

How many monuments and memorials to great leaders and accomplishments of the past, in any country, would survive if they were judged by today's veeery high moral standards?

Not many, I guess we would have to rename with politically correct names about 3/4 of the world.

[Half Moon]

Goes without saying.

You get half a cup...


https://www.daryllaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/participation-trophy.jpg

*eyeballs half cup suspiciously*

It's hemlock, isn't it...

Not fooling me, this time, Athenians!

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

*eyeballs half cup suspiciously*

It's hemlock, isn't it...

Not fooling me, this time, Athenians!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcxbdZ1uGrs

[Half Moon]

I did not read the entire thread, but let me ask:

How many monuments and memorials to great leaders and accomplishments of the past, in any country, would survive if they were judged by today's veeery high moral standards?

Not many, I guess we would have to rename with politically correct names about 3/4 of the world.

I'll meet you halfway, it's always well to look at historical context and apply some degree of moral relativism when evaluating the past. That said there has to be a bright line somewhere. I'd say Hitler, Stalin. Pol Pot, the Conferacy, etc sit outside any gray zone no matter what filter you want to apply.

[Wondering Beard]

Bring it, bitches. It's well known that I sleep with a sharpened entrenching tool at my side.

blues.

See? I told told you it happened lying down.

[blues]

blues.

See? I told told you it happened lying down.

I won't stand for it, I tell ya!

[Wondering Beard]

I won't stand for it, I tell ya!

Well, you don't have to, after all aren't you typing this while sitting down? ;-)

[TiroFijo]

I'll meet you halfway, it's always well to look at historical context and apply some degree of moral relativism when evaluating the past. That said there has to be a bright line somewhere. I'd say Hitler, Stalin. Pol Pot, the Conferacy, etc sit outside any gray zone no matter what filter you want to apply.

Don't be shy...

Rename the US capital, Washington was a slave owner

Remove all statues of founding fathers that were slave owners

Same with universities, Rhodes and his ilk were no good after all

Churchill and so many other revered politicians barely so, not so much if you examine them with a fine-tooth comb

Columbus? Must go too

Nearly all the Kings of great nations in the past have been guilty of some crime against humanity, directly or indirectly

[blues]

Well, you don't have to, after all aren't you typing this while sitting down? ;-)

How do you know I don't have one of these? Are you spying on me?

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0011/1273/5803/products/adaptdeskstand-600x600_600x.jpg?v=1571610396

I won't take this lying down.

[Duelist]

It's an argument technique. You argue a small, insignificant point, then pretend that being right on that tiny, unrelated point means you are right on the rest of it.

Especially useful if you weren’t right on the small, insignificant point in the first place and refuse to acknowledge that. Ever.

[Baldanders]

I did not read the entire thread, but let me ask:

How many monuments and memorials to great leaders and accomplishments of the past, in any country, would survive if they were judged by today's veeery high moral standards?

Not many, I guess we would have to rename with politically correct names about 3/4 of the world.

Oh well, back in this I guess.

Earlier in the thread I pointed out no other country has such a plethora of monuments to a failed insurrection that ended in unconditional surrender.

Plus, the monuments mosty went up mid-20th Century as a response to civil rights protests.

The important message was "remember we won black folks. Don't get funny ideas about voting again or we will kill you."

The first "wave" in the 20s coincided with the Klan at the height of their power, with White folks joining up all over the land. (Hence all the Confederate monuments in the North. Totally bizarre.)

What greatness?

[Wondering Beard]

I won't stand for it, I tell ya!


How do you know I don't have one of these? Are you spying on me?

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0011/1273/5803/products/adaptdeskstand-600x600_600x.jpg?v=1571610396

I won't take this lying down.

If you won't stand for it or take it lying down, you can only but sit on it.

[blues]

If you won't stand for it or take it lying down, you can only but sit on it.

I'm jumping with joy!

[trailrunner]

Columbus? Must go too


https://www.nbc12.com/2020/06/09/christopher-columbus-statue-torn-down-thrown-lake-by-protesters/

[karandom]

I think its a pretty easy line. If you are a traitor to the United States and fought for a failed experiment to maintain the ownership to human beings you don't get a statue.

If you were an imperfect human who's primary contribution was something other than disloyalty and human enslavement you get to keep your statue.

This was mentioned earlier in the thread, but for those who missed it or choose to ignore it the Civil War was about slavery, full stop. Please note the lines from the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, in case there is any confusion:


Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Also direct quote from Mississippi's Succession Document


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

[Baldanders]

Still waiting for big impressive quotes from Confederate leaders decrying tariffs, or how they were afraid of chaos since they couldn't depend on a national police force to bring their property back.

Is it possible they don't exist?

[0ddl0t]

Huh?

And even if you are correct, what does it matter?

There was essentially no public enforcement of fugitive slave laws, so much of the North flauted the law. Why should the South have remained in a union where 1 side doesn't play by the rules? Had there been a federal agency tasked with the enforcement of federal laws like the fugitive slave law, the South would likely not have seceded upon Lincoln's election.

[TGS]

Kind of hard to arrest someone for being a slave in states where slavery didn't exist.

The northern states were "flouting" the laws. Right.

[TheNewbie]

Is this thread worth reading? How does it compare to the 48 hour biography of Grant I listened to?

[BehindBlueI's]

Is this thread worth reading? How does it compare to the 48 hour biography of Grant I listened to?

I can sum it up for you.

Pretty much everyone: The contemporary documents of the time written by the confederate leaders say "this is about slavery."

A few people: Ok, but it wasn't really.

Pretty much everyone: Evidence?

A few people: No.

[Half Moon]

Is this thread worth reading? How does it compare to the 48 hour biography of Grant I listened to?

As well compare a spark off flint to the noon-day sun, the lightning to the lightning bug, or your mighty tome to Marrisa Tomei. I ask you, sir, which of them has an Academy Award and which does not? In your heart I think you know the answer...

[TiroFijo]

I'm asking: since the USA was an union of originally independent states, was there any provision to leave for any reason?

[Half Moon]

I'm asking: since the USA was an union of originally independent states, was there any provision to leave for any reason?

Well the practical answer is that after about a million dead, between both sides, the answer was settled as, no. As a legal matter, different states at different times, including New York at one point, certainly felt it was a dissolvable pact. Though to quote John Fitzgerald Lee, Major, US Army, loyalist, and cousin of Robert E. Lee:


“There was no Virginia in my commission, only the United States.”

[Zincwarrior]

I did not read the entire thread, but let me ask:

How many monuments and memorials to great leaders and accomplishments of the past, in any country, would survive if they were judged by today's veeery high moral standards?

Not many, I guess we would have to rename with politically correct names about 3/4 of the world.

Alternately, how many monuments do governments have to traitors?

[Old Virginia]

The Civil War was two economies. Before the War and before Cotton was King and exported to Europe as rich commodity slavery involved just more than Virginia as many would like you to believe.

Read this in full. You might be able to figure out what slavery meant to the Northerners.

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/draft-riots

https://i.imgur.com/3rExlAC.jpg?2

NOTE*

Thousands of white workers – mainly Irish and Irish-Americans – started by attacking military and government buildings, and became violent only toward people who tried to stop them, including the insufficient numbers of policemen and soldiers the city’s leaders initially mustered to oppose them.

Note* and very important


They signed up to PRESERVE the UNION NOT abolish slavery.
At the time, Lincoln’s decision for emancipation sparked protests among workers in the city, as well as soldiers and officers in New York regiments who had signed up to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery.

[AKDoug]

Oh well, back in this I guess.

Earlier in the thread I pointed out no other country has such a plethora of monuments to a failed insurrection that ended in unconditional surrender.

Plus, the monuments mosty went up mid-20th Century as a response to civil rights protests.

The important message was "remember we won black folks. Don't get funny ideas about voting again or we will kill you."

The first "wave" in the 20s coincided with the Klan at the height of their power, with White folks joining up all over the land. (Hence all the Confederate monuments in the North. Totally bizarre.)

What greatness? No other country has ever treated the soldiers of the opposing army as veterans and given them pensions either. America is full of uniqueness and that's one thing that makes us great. I really don't care what other countries do. Otherwise I'm ambivalent about the statues, but I don't support changing names of military facilities just because an American fought for the Confederacy.

[TGS]

They signed up to PRESERVE the UNION NOT abolish slavery.

I don't think anyone here has debated such.

Must be fun to scream into the empty night, I guess.

[TheNewbie]

I can sum it up for you.

Pretty much everyone: The contemporary documents of the time written by the confederate leaders say "this is about slavery."

A few people: Ok, but it wasn't really.

Pretty much everyone: Evidence?

A few people: No.

All I needed to know. Thank you.

My take? Big government is bad but owning humans was worse. The south deserved to lose because they owned humans. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war.

[TheNewbie]

I can sum it up for you.

Pretty much everyone: The contemporary documents of the time written by the confederate leaders say "this is about slavery."

A few people: Ok, but it wasn't really.

Pretty much everyone: Evidence?

A few people: No.

All I needed to know. Thank you.

My take? Big government is bad but owning humans was worse. The south deserved to lose because they owned humans. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war. Whatever the original reasons for the North fighting the war were, it quickly morphed into freeing the slaves.

If the statutes are taken down, it should be by a vote of the people. Not all Confederates were evil.

[TiroFijo]

Alternately, how many monuments do governments have to traitors?

Well, they were loyal first and foremost to their native states... and, brute force aside, the southern states had a point about having the right to leave.

I hate slavery, but in this case "traitor", "loyal" and "patriot" are in the eye of the beholder.

Who said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism?

[Old Virginia]

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
Lincoln


https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-president-lincoln-reply-to-horace-greeley-slavery-and.html

[Zincwarrior]

Well, they were loyal first and foremost to their native states... and, brute force aside, the southern states had a point about having the right to leave.

I hate slavery, but in this case "traitor", "loyal" and "patriot" are in the eye of the beholder.

Who said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism?

Only if you win.

[TiroFijo]

Only if you win.

Of course winner writes history... always has, always will

As proof we are discussing this high moral issues while comfortably standing on ground that was taken by guile or force from native americans. Black lives matter but indian ones don't? Are all those idiots destroying Columbus monuments planning to return their own property to the original owners, pay rent, or what?

I wonder how much time for US political correctness to despise people like Custer and all who fought the indian wars or the government officials that duped and mistreated the indians.

Sherman was a war criminal by modern standards too, should we take down all his monuments, or winner gets a free pass?

The lists of monuments to highly questionable characters is endless, let the people in each town, county, state decide.

[BehindBlueI's]

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
Lincoln


https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-president-lincoln-reply-to-horace-greeley-slavery-and.html

Right. The Confederates see the writing on the wall that if they stay in the Union slavery will eventually be abolished legally. They leave. Lincoln and the Union doesn't let them leave. War ensues. Because the Confederates wish to protect the institution of slavery.

[Borderland]

Only if you win.

The odds didn't look too bad in the beginning. :D

[farscott]

You know something's wrong with your math (and your world view) when a whole person is only counted as 3/5.

I am sure you know that the three-fifths value was a compromise as the southern states would have more representatives than the northern states at the time of the writing of the Constitution if slaves were counted as "whole people" for the sake of representation in Congress, and the document would not be ratified by the northern states. Even the Founding Fathers had to compromise to get things done, and some of the compromises were poor in retrospect. Of course, the Founding Fathers settled for less than perfection, knowing good was what was to be had. The alternative was to stay under the Articles of Confederation. Alexander Hamilton or James Madison explain it much better than I could in The Federalist No. 54. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493430


THE next view which I shall take of the House of Representatives relates to the appointment of its members to the several States which is to be determined by the same rule with that of direct taxes. It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the appointment of taxes, will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal connection.

In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. "We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants. "This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain? "It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the proper guide. "This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives.

In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle, is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN. "After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property. But is it a just idea?

Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government. Upon this principle it is, that in several of the States, and particularly in the State of New York, one branch of the government is intended more especially to be the guardian of property, and is accordingly elected by that part of the society which is most interested in this object of government. In the federal Constitution, this policy does not prevail. The rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be paid to property in the choice of those hands. "For another reason, the votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each State, ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the States. States have not, like individuals, an influence over each other, arising from superior advantages of fortune. If the law allows an opulent citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice; and through this imperceptible channel the rights of property are conveyed into the public representation. A State possesses no such influence over other States. It is not probable that the richest State in the Confederacy will ever influence the choice of a single representative in any other State. Nor will the representatives of the larger and richer States possess any other advantage in the federal legislature, over the representatives of other States, than what may result from their superior number alone. As far, therefore, as their superior wealth and weight may justly entitle them to any advantage, it ought to be secured to them by a superior share of representation. The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from the existing Confederation, as well as from that of the United Netherlands, and other similar confederacies. In each of the latter, the efficacy of the federal resolutions depends on the subsequent and voluntary resolutions of the states composing the union. Hence the states, though possessing an equal vote in the public councils, have an unequal influence, corresponding with the unequal importance of these subsequent and voluntary resolutions. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States. They will depend merely on the majority of votes in the federal legislature, and consequently each vote, whether proceeding from a larger or smaller State, or a State more or less wealthy or powerful, will have an equal weight and efficacy: in the same manner as the votes individually given in a State legislature, by the representatives of unequal counties or other districts, have each a precise equality of value and effect; or if there be any difference in the case, it proceeds from the difference in the personal character of the individual representative, rather than from any regard to the extent of the district from which he comes. "Such is the reasoning which an advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet, on the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of representation which the convention have established. In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.

[Zincwarrior]

The odds didn't look too bad in the beginning. :D

Now imagine, if, instead of McDowell, the US had Grant, or even better Helmuth von Moltke the Elder in the first months of the ACW?

Traitors, look upon thine DOOM!:eek:
https://www.battlefields.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_crop_380x370/public/thumbnails/image/Ulysses%20S.%20Grant.jpg?itok=b7ruDRfp

[blues]

We'd already addressed this above, fwiw, farscott

[Borderland]

Of course winner writes history... always has, always will

As proof we are discussing this high moral issues while comfortably standing on ground that was taken by guile or force from native americans. Black lives matter but indian ones don't? Are all those idiots destroying Columbus monuments planning to return their own property to the original owners, pay rent, or what?

I wonder how much time for US political correctness to despise people like Custer and all who fought the indian wars or the government officials that duped and mistreated the indians.

Sherman was a war criminal by modern standards too, should we take down all his monuments, or winner gets a free pass?

The lists of monuments to highly questionable characters is endless, let the people in each town, county, state decide.

That's why I don't understand the entire BLM movement. All citizens in the US (blacks included) were given the right to vote in 1870. Native Americans weren't citizens until 1924. While living in the SW as a teenager I didn't see many blacks being regarded as second class citizens (there weren't that many) but I've seen plenty of it with native Americans and Hispanics.

I'm not buying the BLM thing. If people are truly concerned about injustice they need to look at all of it, not just the part that's convenient for them.

[farscott]

We'd already addressed this above, fwiw, @farscott (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=2197)

Yup, i missed it. Sorry for the long duplication.

[Zincwarrior]

That's why I don't understand the entire BLM movement. All citizens in the US (blacks included) were given the right to vote in 1870. Native Americans weren't citizens until 1924. While living in the SW as a teenager I didn't see many blacks being regarded as second class citizens (there weren't that many) but I've seen plenty of it with native Americans and Hispanics.

I'm not buying the BLM thing. If people are truly concerned about injustice they need to look at all of it, not just the part that's convenient for them.

As a reminder, Jim Crow did not legally end until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and even then had to be driven out by the courts. The 82nd Airborne had to escort school children to break separate but equal, and there were entire cities in the Northwest that were officially segregated or completely exclusionary.

[blues]

That's why I don't understand the entire BLM movement. All citizens in the US (blacks included) were given the right to vote in 1870. Native Americans weren't citizens until 1924. While living in the SW as a teenager I didn't see many blacks being regarded as second class citizens (there weren't that many) but I've seen plenty of it with native Americans and Hispanics.

I'm not buying the BLM thing. If people are truly concerned about injustice they need to look at all of it, not just the part that's convenient for them.

Let's not forget that women were denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

[Borderland]

As a reminder, Jim Crow did not legally end until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and even then had to be driven out by the courts. The 82nd Airborne had to escort school children to break separate but equal, and there were entire cities in the Northwest that were officially segregated or completely exclusionary.

We're making some headway no doubt. I saw some racist crap in AL when I was there in 68-69. So yeah, blacks were still being singled out even then, even tho they were in uniform. Pretty hard to watch any of it.

[Borderland]

Let's not forget that women were denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

And lets not forget their roll in prohibition and the temperance movement once they got the right to vote. :D

[blues]

And lets not forget their roll in prohibition and the temperance movement once they got the right to vote. :D

Hmmm...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Jeff Sessions on marijuana legalization. Should he be allowed to vote? He's a male, I think.

[Half Moon]

That's why I don't understand the entire BLM movement. All citizens in the US (blacks included) were given the right to vote in 1870. Native Americans weren't citizens until 1924. While living in the SW as a teenager I didn't see many blacks being regarded as second class citizens (there weren't that many) but I've seen plenty of it with native Americans and Hispanics.

I'm not buying the BLM thing. If people are truly concerned about injustice they need to look at all of it, not just the part that's convenient for them.

We need to remember the US is a large nation with multiple cultures. There is an assumed baseline of American values but there is also a fair amount of divergence around that baseline. Growing up largely in the west and southwest I didn't see a lot of race prejudice either. Once I started jobs that had me traveling a fair amount, I saw much larger amounts of race prejudice in other areas. Experiences in one region doesn't necessarily equate to the reality everywhere. Especially something for policy makers on both sides of the aisle to keep in mind.

[Borderland]

Jeff Sessions on marijuana legalization. Should he be allowed to vote? He's a male, I think.

The AG doesn't get to legislate, thank god. They just enforce federal law.

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

I wonder how much time for US political correctness to despise people like Custer and all who fought the indian wars or the government officials that duped and mistreated the indians.

My dad's side of the family was fairly active in the 1980s and 90s in gathering and distributing charitable donations for kids living in poverty on Indian reservations. The only bumper sticker my dad ever put on any of his cars read, "Custer had it coming".

[JHC]

Like I said, it is insanity to think 500 thousand men died to because of Slavery and obvious a serious lack of knowledge about the Civil War which is sad.
And to compare Virginians to Germany is repulsive. Especially for Civil war Generals. LEE NEVER FOUGHT to preserve Slavery. Ironically it was Lincoln HIMSELF that wanted LEE to head the UNION ARMY!
LEE turned him down and said he could not go against his family, friends or the State of Virginia which was his homeland. HE NEVER ONCE SAID HE WOULD NOT BECAUSE HE LOVED SLAVERY. What nonsense.

It really appears so many Americans were asleep during American History classes. There are many great books available today that go into great detail about the causes of the Civil war from before the beginning to the battles the people and the slaves. How about doing some actual learning instead of just listening to CNN.

For instance after the Civil War LeeIn August of 1865,r, Lee was invited to serve as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), where he and his family are buried. Since his death at age 63 on October 12, 1870, following a stroke, he has retained a place of distinction in most Southern states. He did not get tired for crimes like the German Nazi's at Nuremberg for God sake.

It is not insanity. All it takes is reading the declaration of independence of every Confederate state which mentions defending slavery. All it takes is reading Confederate VP Stephens Cornerstone speech where he says:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."


This "lost cause" malarkey came along later to salvage the conscience. Pure rationalization after the fact during Reconstruction. Economics! State rights! Yeah, the right to own slaves.

[Cheap Shot]

Let's not forget that women were denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

You say that like its a bad thing:confused:

First we them drive.

Then we let vote

Then we started counting their votes.......

And here we are:D

[mc1911]

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
Lincoln


https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-president-lincoln-reply-to-horace-greeley-slavery-and.html

Just looking at the argument on its face I would say that just because the Union wasn't fighting with the intent to destroy slavery doesn't mean the South wasn't fighting to preserve it.

[Spartan1980]

It is not insanity. All it takes is reading the declaration of independence of every Confederate state which mentions defending slavery. All it takes is reading Confederate VP Stephens Cornerstone speech where he says:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."


This "lost cause" malarkey came along later to salvage the conscience. Pure rationalization after the fact during Reconstruction. Economics! State rights! Yeah, the right to own slaves.

This is pretty much my understanding of it. The cliff notes version of what I was taught in school was that slavery was a contentious issue and came very close to preventing the formation of the union. But both the north and the south finally saw that the greater need was to form said union and that the north knew they had to have the south for its resources to produce war materials, it just wasn't an option if they were to beat the British. So they relented on the slavery thing and decided to fight that fight another day.

[JHC]

This is pretty much my understanding of it. The cliff notes version of what I was taught in school was that slavery was a contentious issue and came very close to preventing the formation of the union. But both the north and the south finally saw that the greater need was to form said union and that the north knew they had to have the south for its resources to produce war materials, it just wasn't an option if they were to beat the British. So they relented on the slavery thing and decided to fight that fight another day.

What strikes me as ironic AF is my HS history - taught in friggin' Wisconsin - taught The Lost Cause Myth right down the line. It took later reading of history long later to learn of the Cornerstone speech and all the rest. My primary history teacher was a young strong left leaning idealist. She loved the Lost Cause story and I have no idea why albeit it was the '70's. Was she swept up by The Band? "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"? How did that become of counter-culture's take on history? Because it was a negative slant against the blue meanies in Washington DC was my hunch.

[Joe in PNG]

What strikes me as ironic AF is my HS history - taught in friggin' Wisconsin - taught The Lost Cause Myth right down the line. It took later reading of history long later to learn of the Cornerstone speech and all the rest. My primary history teacher was a young strong left leaning idealist. She loved the Lost Cause story and I have no idea why albeit it was the '70's. Was she swept up by The Band? "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"? How did that become of counter-culture's take on history? Because it was a negative slant against the blue meanies in Washington DC was my hunch.

It's Wealthy Bourgeois Industrialist Republicans vs Poor Proletariat Farmer Democrats

[BJXDS]

So, was the Unions reasons for not wanting the Confederate states to succeed, "State Rights/Slavery" based on the moral issue, or did economics play a key role?

We will never really know for sure, and everyone has their opinion, but it sounds a lot like Gov Northam's argument of semantics about de funding the police. He doesn't look at as defunding but as reform and prioritize funding.

Large populations of white immigrants endured terrible conditions in Northern industrial complex's, which brought about the unions, and that has brought about a huge set of issues we are still dealing with today. The Police Unions come to mind.

It's all about Money, Power and Control, and Money has always provided Power and Control. So what is the answer Anarchy and wealth redistribution?

When this counrty was founded many peoples were wronged, but currently it is still the greatest nation on earth, and we need to find a way to keep it that way.

[whomever]

This is pretty much my understanding of it. The cliff notes version of what I was taught in school was that slavery was a contentious issue and came very close to preventing the formation of the union. But both the north and the south finally saw that the greater need was to form said union and that the north knew they had to have the south for its resources to produce war materials, it just wasn't an option if they were to beat the British. So they relented on the slavery thing and decided to fight that fight another day.

Not an area I'm an expert on, but fun fact: in 1770's Boston about 10% of the households owned slaves (it's mentioned in passing in Philbrick's 'Bunker Hill'). Philbrick doesn't go into the details, but I presume those were people with one or two as cooks or servants. But it makes me suspect that the northern attitudes about slavery might have shifted a lot in the century between, say, 1760 and 1860.

My sense is that maybe anti-slavery sentiment in the 1700's north was just starting to crystallize, while by the mid 1800's northern opinions had swung pretty hard against it, and so the compromise that was acceptable in 1790 was a lot less so in 1860, and you could read the tea leaves that slavery was going to end eventually.

[BehindBlueI's]

Not an area I'm an expert on, but fun fact: in 1770's Boston about 10% of the households owned slaves (it's mentioned in passing in Philbrick's 'Bunker Hill'). Philbrick doesn't go into the details, but I presume those were people with one or two as cooks or servants. But it makes me suspect that the northern attitudes about slavery might have shifted a lot in the century between, say, 1760 and 1860.

My sense is that maybe anti-slavery sentiment in the 1700's north was just starting to crystallize, while by the mid 1800's northern opinions had swung pretty hard against it, and so the compromise that was acceptable in 1790 was a lot less so in 1860, and you could read the tea leaves that slavery was going to end eventually.

Malaria explains a lot of it. You'll note documentation at the time about how Africans were better suited for working "in the tropical sun" then anyone else. White indentured servants and Indian slaves died frequently and early. It was well known that individuals had to be "seasoned" and those who survived the first year or so would survive from then on, but many would die during "seasoning" (exposure to Malaria). The line dividing free states and slave states is also the climate line where mosquitoes, the vector for malaria, can survive year round. Africans survive malaria at much higher rates due to the same genetic difference that leads to sickle cell anemia. Hence African slaves for hot weather work.

Absent that, African slaves made little sense. They were relatively expensive, were not acquainted with European methods of farming, and had every incentive to rebel or flee. European indentured servants were the opposite. The growing nation had tons of unsettled land* and no shortage of Europeans willing to come work for X years in exchange for a land grant on whatever the western frontier at the moment happened to be. They had no incentive to rebel or flee as they had a path to independence in front of them. They were, of course, familiar with European methods of farming and industry, and if they weren't they at least spoke the language and could be taught relatively easily. Expanding the frontiers made the nation stronger, it was a win for every side. If they lived.

Remember pre-America, Florida was considered a punishment assignment by the Spaniards.

*You might have to push a few Indians off, but they didn't consider that "settled".

[Caballoflaco]

Remember pre-air conditioning , Florida was considered a punishment assignment by everybody

Fixed.

I live 4 hours north of the coast and the difference in climate is dramatic. One day on Vacation in August a couple of years ago I decided to walk from the parking area at Perdido key state park in Florida east all the way to the end of they key and back. I didn’t estimate the distance well on my cellphone and ended up doing about 12 miles total on pretty much unwalked beach. My options were to either post-hole up to my knees in the wet sand or walk in the powdery dry stuff.

That long long walk gave me a lot of time to consider and experience first hand just how damned inhospitable that part of our country really was for the first few hundred years of our country’s existence.

[Joe in PNG]

Visiting Williamsburg and Jamestown during a serious summer heatwave a few years back likewise.

[blues]

There's a huge difference between the oppressive heat and humidity of the lowlands of S.C. and their upstate and the mountains of N.C.

I find S.C. among the toughest environments to endure during that season as compared with other areas often considered hot and humid.

Maybe that's why they fired the first shot.

[TGS]

Visiting Williamsburg and Jamestown during a serious summer heatwave a few years back likewise.

How's it compare to PNG?

[Joe in PNG]

How's it compare to PNG?

Pretty close to the coast- hot and muggy.

[Zincwarrior]

There's a huge difference between the oppressive heat and humidity of the lowlands of S.C. and their upstate and the mountains of N.C.

I find S.C. among the toughest environments to endure during that season as compared with other areas often considered hot and humid.

Maybe that's why they fired the first shot.

Hang out in Houston or New Orleans during the summer and tell me about oppressive... :eek:

[blues]

Hang out in Houston or New Orleans during the summer and tell me about oppressive... :eek:

I haven't done Houston but I have New Orleans. To me, SC is worse. I'm in no rush to do a comparison, however.

[Zincwarrior]

If its worse...Dog have mercy on their souls!

[JHC]

I haven't done Houston but I have New Orleans. To me, SC is worse. I'm in no rush to do a comparison, however.

You are correct IMO. Summer in Charleston SC chokes one. And the mosquitos! I've done it and Houston both. I hate to say it but I'd take Houston.

[ccmdfd]

There's a huge difference between the oppressive heat and humidity of the lowlands of S.C. and their upstate and the mountains of N.C.

I find S.C. among the toughest environments to endure during that season as compared with other areas often considered hot and humid.

Maybe that's why they fired the first shot.

The I-95 corridor is no fun, plenty of sun.

[blues]

The I-95 corridor is no fun, plenty of sun.

...broiled until done.

[AKDoug]

I don't visit that part of America except for December through March. Hell, I'm hard pressed to venture south to any of the Lower 48 except in those months. :D

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't visit that part of America except for December through March. Hell, I'm hard pressed to venture south to any of the Lower 48 except in those months. :D

One of the reasons I enjoy living in the Midwest is I get to bitch about the weather pretty much year round. It's too hot, it's too cold, it's too wet, it's too dry, it's too sunny, it's too cloudy, it's too windy, it's too humid, etc.

[hiro]

One of the reasons I enjoy living in the Midwest is I get to bitch about the weather pretty much year round. It's too hot, it's too cold, it's too wet, it's too dry, it's too sunny, it's too cloudy, it's too windy, it's too humid, etc.

Ever had your dna traced? I'd bet there's some English in there... ;)

[Spartan1980]

What strikes me as ironic AF is my HS history - taught in friggin' Wisconsin - taught The Lost Cause Myth right down the line. It took later reading of history long later to learn of the Cornerstone speech and all the rest. My primary history teacher was a young strong left leaning idealist. She loved the Lost Cause story and I have no idea why albeit it was the '70's. Was she swept up by The Band? "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"? How did that become of counter-culture's take on history? Because it was a negative slant against the blue meanies in Washington DC was my hunch.
Ha...My history teacher was the opposite. An old curmudgeon that had definitely hit retirement age that nobody wanted to attend his classes. He was a good teacher but just didn't have any fun with us students at all. On hindsight I think it safe to say we all are grateful for having endured his classes and appreciative of how he taught us. Now my english teacher was another story, a full on Beatles loving hippy that drove a VW Beetle, had the beard and all the global warming and Greenpeace stickers on his car. He was pretty cool though, he didn't try to indoctrinate us.


Not an area I'm an expert on, but fun fact: in 1770's Boston about 10% of the households owned slaves (it's mentioned in passing in Philbrick's 'Bunker Hill'). Philbrick doesn't go into the details, but I presume those were people with one or two as cooks or servants. But it makes me suspect that the northern attitudes about slavery might have shifted a lot in the century between, say, 1760 and 1860.

My sense is that maybe anti-slavery sentiment in the 1700's north was just starting to crystallize, while by the mid 1800's northern opinions had swung pretty hard against it, and so the compromise that was acceptable in 1790 was a lot less so in 1860, and you could read the tea leaves that slavery was going to end eventually.
I suspect that the mindset was different in the north from before the founding and that those that had slaves were just "milking it" while they could.


Malaria explains a lot of it. You'll note documentation at the time about how Africans were better suited for working "in the tropical sun" then anyone else. White indentured servants and Indian slaves died frequently and early. It was well known that individuals had to be "seasoned" and those who survived the first year or so would survive from then on, but many would die during "seasoning" (exposure to Malaria). The line dividing free states and slave states is also the climate line where mosquitoes, the vector for malaria, can survive year round. Africans survive malaria at much higher rates due to the same genetic difference that leads to sickle cell anemia. Hence African slaves for hot weather work.

Absent that, African slaves made little sense. They were relatively expensive, were not acquainted with European methods of farming, and had every incentive to rebel or flee. European indentured servants were the opposite. The growing nation had tons of unsettled land* and no shortage of Europeans willing to come work for X years in exchange for a land grant on whatever the western frontier at the moment happened to be. They had no incentive to rebel or flee as they had a path to independence in front of them. They were, of course, familiar with European methods of farming and industry, and if they weren't they at least spoke the language and could be taught relatively easily. Expanding the frontiers made the nation stronger, it was a win for every side. If they lived.

Remember pre-America, Florida was considered a punishment assignment by the Spaniards.

*You might have to push a few Indians off, but they didn't consider that "settled".
The breadth of knowledge on this forum never ceases to amaze.

You are correct IMO. Summer in Charleston SC chokes one. And the mosquitos! I've done it and Houston both. I hate to say it but I'd take Houston.
Wait...How's the traffic in Charleston? If it's less than Houston I think it would win out. The heat, humidity and traffic together make Houston just straight up inhospitable. A co-worker and I flew down there on business and when we deplaned, into the air conditioned terminal I'll add, he asked "Do you feel that? Man, you could just let the air water your yard down here." :)

[OlongJohnson]

The three Ms of Houston: mold, mosquitoes and money.

[holmes168]

Only in PF does a debate on the root cause of the Civil War turn into a referendum on who has the most crappy weather.

Turning back into the debate- slavery was the #1 cause of the Civil War, along with other minor causes. Saying this as someone who had family fight for the CSA. Slavery is an evil practice that goes well back into the history of mankind not just in American history but across the globe. Regardless- it is a stain on this country and we need to fight to end slavery everywhere, including modern day slavery.

At the same time- the sanitization of our history needs to stop. Keep the statues up, teach who Robert E. Lee was, educate today’s generation on past figures in our history. The cancel culture is killing our history- and is stifling debate.

The history of the world is complex and it is not pretty. Whether I convince you I’m right or you convince me- we cannot lose the freedom to have debate on any issue, no matter how much it may hurt. My main worry in this country in 2020 is the crucification of people who may have a difference of opinion.

Oh- and Ft Benning, Georgia is the worst place for climate in the world.

[trailrunner]

At the same time- the sanitization of our history needs to stop. Keep the statues up, teach who Robert E. Lee was, educate today’s generation on past figures in our history. The cancel culture is killing our history- and is stifling debate.


I agree that we should never erase history, but we can teach who Robert E. Lee was without a statue honoring him. Likewise, taking down a statue is not erasing history.

[blues]

https://youtu.be/MIksMft1vWg

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree that we should never erase history, but we can teach who Robert E. Lee was without a statue honoring him. Likewise, taking down a statue is not erasing history.

I agree with this, although I also understand the counter-arguments. Perhaps a compromise that makes nobody happy and move those sorts of statues to more museum like settings then public squares. Less celebration of, more education about? Tourism dollars protected, maybe even increased.

I'd be much more upset about confederate markers and statues at Gettysburg being destroyed then I would be about a general's statue in the town square, personally. The difference in context is important to me.

[Wondering Beard]

https://youtu.be/MIksMft1vWg

Year Zero folks come in all sorts of guises.

[blues]

Year Zero folks come in all sorts of guises.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61nsxG5L7OL._AC_SX425_.jpg

How right you are.

[Tamara]

And lets not forget their roll in prohibition and the temperance movement once they got the right to vote. :D

I hate to necropost, but I thought surely someone would point out the pants-on-head problem with this post, and yet here we are...

See, here in the Berenstain universe, the 18th Amendment came before the 19th.

[Borderland]

I hate to necropost, but I thought surely someone would point out the pants-on-head problem with this post, and yet here we are...

See, here in the Berenstain universe, the 18th Amendment came before the 19th.

I stand corrected. Prohibition (18) came 7 months before women got the right to vote (19). Both were the result of the Suffrage movement.

To be clear the post was in jest and I think most here saw that. Probably a bad call on my part and I apologize to anyone who may have taken offense.

My feeling is every citizen should have the right to vote and I don't think I've ever posted anything to the contrary. As a matter of fact I've posted about people not taking the responsibility to vote.

The 18th amendment was a mistake and was repealed.

[0ddl0t]

But we don't really teach about Robert E. Lee - at best we give names & dates without any nuance. How many graduating high schoolers know that the Union punished R.E.L. by turning his home into a graveyard (Arlington National Cemetery)?

[Tamara]

And the emancipation proclamation 2 years in did not free any slaves in union territory (nor did the union army control any rebel territory) - it wasn't until the ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 that all union slaves were freed -- a full 8 months after Lee's surrender.

President Lincoln did not have the power to abolish slavery in the U.S. by executive fiat. Nor, as a legal or practical matter, did he have the power to abolish slavery in the unoccupied areas of the breakaway Confederation.

But he did have the power to abolish slavery in the foreign territory currently occupied by the United States Army, which he did.

Which is why the argument that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves in the North is a spurious one.

[0ddl0t]

But he did have the power to abolish slavery in the foreign territory currently occupied by the United States Army, which he did.

Which is why the argument that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves in the North is a spurious one.

Except he didn't. Slavery remained legal in the Confederate state of Tennessee & parts of Louisiana precisely because they were occupied by the Union Army. It remained legal there until the adoption of the 13th Amendment in December 1865 - 6 months after slaves in Texas were freed on Juneteenth.

Lincoln certainly did not have the constitutional power to end slavery by executive fiat, but he did anyway. I'd argue the uncompensated freeing of slaves by the *federal* government violated the 5th amendment (states were not generally bound by the limits of the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th).


ETA the text of the proclamation:


A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

“That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.”

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

[Redhat]

I had not heard this before, from Walter Williams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_serzVQbU

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Lincoln certainly did not have the constitutional power to end slavery by executive fiat, but he did anyway. I'd argue the uncompensated freeing of slaves by the *federal* government violated the 5th amendment (states were not generally bound by the limits of the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th).

I'd argue that owning slaves was a violation of basic humanity, so who gives a shit if they weren't compensated. That the Constitution allowed slavery was a compromise to fundamental evil. As far as the BOR, wah, wah. The Southern states had laws that banned printing, discussion of and distributing antislavery materials in public and in churches before the Civil War. So much for selective outrage on the Bill of Rights. That some state refused to abide by the Fugitive Slave laws and individuals and local law enforcement acted against the slave catchers - can you say something about the the states now, county sheriffs, etc. refusing to and saying they will refuse to comply with antigun laws?

Get over the Civil War, nitpicking for the Lost Cause is getting old. You can't play the BOR to defend that horror show of slavery.

[RJ]

I think the best thing to come out of this thread is to see Ms. Tamara posting here. :)

[0ddl0t]

I'd argue that owning slaves was a violation of basic humanity, so who gives a shit if they weren't compensated. That the Constitution allowed slavery was a compromise to fundamental evil.
I don't think it is fair to judge yesterday's actions by the today's standards. Slavery existed in Africa and America long before Columbus, so I have no reason to feel guilt or shame over it today.



As far as the BOR, wah, wah. The Southern states had laws that banned printing, discussion of and distributing antislavery materials in public and in churches before the Civil War. So much for selective outrage on the Bill of Rights.
Again, states were not generally bound by the BOR until the passage of the 14th amendment.


That some state refused to abide by the Fugitive Slave laws and individuals and local law enforcement acted against the slave catchers - can you say something about the the states now, county sheriffs, etc. refusing to and saying they will refuse to comply with antigun laws?
I think it is legal and just for law enforcement to ignore unconstitutional law. Gun control is very clearly unconstitutional (remember, nearly 1 in 3 black men are barred from owning firearms). Slave laws before 1865 are more like modern immigration law - perfectly constitutional, but perhaps immoral.


Get over the Civil War, nitpicking for the Lost Cause is getting old. You can't play the BOR to defend that horror show of slavery.
I'm not defending slavery, just pointing out the nuances lost to the literally black & white history lessons taught to kids today.

The Lost Cause may be overemphasized by some, but it is a part of the civil war. Unlike the European Union, we had no civil "Brexit" and were instead left with the dubious precedent of diverse regions unable to divorce themselves without the permission of their distant overlords. It is slavery of a different kind.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Perhaps you like to engage in trivial nitpicking on the Internet. I can take away from:


I don't think it is fair to judge yesterday's actions by the today's standards. Slavery existed in Africa and America long before Columbus, so I have no reason to feel guilt or shame over it today.

,,,,

The Lost Cause may be overemphasized by some, but it is a part of the civil war. Unlike the European Union, we had no civil "Brexit" and were instead left with the dubious precedent of diverse regions unable to divorce themselves without the permission of their distant overlords. It is slavery of a different kind.

Yeah, that's it, distant overlords - the underground snake people. Divorce should have been allowed to protect the horror of slavery which we don't feel shame about today. I get it.

Should some feel shame about the the Jim Crow laws of segregation which existed and enforced by those poor states until modern times? Certainly in my life time. No shame attached to that?

What a crock.

[0ddl0t]

Perhaps you like to engage in trivial nitpicking on the Internet.
You mean that isn't what it's for?



Yeah, that's it, distant overlords - the underground snake people. Divorce should have been allowed to protect the horror of slavery which we don't feel shame about today. I get it.
Or, the north won for good reasons but did so in the wrong way.



Should some feel shame about the the Jim Crow laws of segregation which existed and enforced by those poor states until modern times? Certainly in my life time. No shame attached to that?
Were you involved with or did you benefit from jim crow laws? If not, why would you feel shame for someone else's doing?

Me? I've done enough dumb stuff on my own to take on any additional shame from long dead people just because they looked similar to me.

[Wise_A]

You mean that isn't what it's for?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/c85d4aa8f9e17b70b49ce08a880db791/tenor.gif?itemid=15493167

[DMF13]

First, it was the War of Northern Aggression, hard to get the conversation started when you start with the wrong description.Your description is the one that is wrong.

Fort Sumter.

It was property of the US government, which the Confederacy first attempted to take by starving the men there, including a first act of war, firing on the resupply ship the Star of the West on January 9, 1861. Yet, rather than seeking war in January the US did not respond with force to that attack. Then the Confederates outright attacked Fort Sumter itself, on April 12, 1861.

In early April 1861, Lincoln sent word to South Carolina Governer Francis Pickens the US would resupply Fort Sumter with necessary provisions only, but would not send troops and ammunition, unless attacked. Essentially giving the South a choice, the Confederates could let the men eat, and maintain peace, or the Confederates could attack, and choose to start a war.

The Confederate cabinet met in Montgomery, AL and decided to attack Fort Sumter. Confederate Secretary of State Toombs told them that decision, "will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornets' nest. . . . Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

It's hard to have a real discussion if you're either ignorant of, or dishonest about, who really was the aggressor, and started the war.

[TGS]

Oh damn he a mad boi.

[Wise_A]

I have to admit, it is sorta funny, in a high-brow way that's completely unacceptable on this forum.

"You fired first, you started it!"
"No, you fired first in Kansas!"

If you guys don't knock it off, I'm going to have to ask you to settle this with canes at the capital.

[0ddl0t]

I agree that "War of Northern Aggression" is inaccurate, but mostly because the Confederates impetuously decided to invade the North rather than fight a successful defensive war of attrition (like the American Revolution).


Fort Sumter.

It was property of the US government,
It was property of The People - people who no longer wanted it entrusted to their former public servants. The US government surrendered all other property around Charleston and were given ample opportunity to do the same with Sumter.

Were the founding fathers supposed to allow the British to maintain a military presence in the colonies?

[trailrunner]

...

I'm just wondering what point are you trying to make? We already played the "I'll win this argument by citing trivia" round.

[Zincwarrior]

I have to admit, it is sorta funny, in a high-brow way that's completely unacceptable on this forum.

"You fired first, you started it!"
"No, you fired first in Kansas!"

If you guys don't knock it off, I'm going to have to ask you to settle this with canes at the capital.

I see what you did there!

[41magfan]

September 18, 1858 - Lincoln/Douglas Debate in Charleston IL (https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm)

"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife.

So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]

I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject."




August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greeley from Lincoln;

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."