Va. Gov. FORCED to say slavery was cause of the Civil War

reply to post by BobAthome


Out of politeness I will say this...

I'm done with "cryptic" posts today.

Nothing against you, or these posts, but I am too drained to play games. Usually I'd be all for it.

Maybe another time, friend.

On the news about this, I saw noone holding a gun to the guv's head. He did what he did because he's a politician, pandering to everyone to hold on to power. He's a money-grubbing right wing pol. Did you really expect anything different?

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Except for the "money grubbing" part, I agree. (only because I do not know his habits)

He did what he did to save a bit of face because he could never win this battle.

When the race card is used in the media against a white man, the white man looses more often than he wins.

reply to post by TheCoffinman


Isn't there already a thread about this? The one called "White Guilt Awareness".

CNN does seem to be throwing around the race card a bit more liberally these days, no pun intended. It's starting to sound like a skit from the blue collar comedy tour:

If you opposed the bank bailouts, you might be a racist...

If you think the government taxes you too much, you might be a racist...

If you're opposed to Cap and Trade, you might be a racist...

If you're against the health care bill, you might be a racist...

If you think illegal aliens should be deported, you might be a racist...

If you want to see Obama's vaulted birth certificate, you might be a racist...

If you support the Tea Party movement, you might be a racist...

If you're in a militia, you might be a racist...

All they need is Larry the Cable Guy to close it with "Muuuvin' forwurd!"

I don't know. I figured when Obama was elected the race card would be pulled out when needed. I assumed they would save it for the illegal alien amnesty pitch for maximum impact. But it seems that after the health care backlash, they are using it more and more often. I would think they would be concerned about overplaying the race card, and diminishing it's effectiveness. But then again, maybe not. When the time comes for the amnesty debate, they will just say racist 4 or 5 times an hour until it sinks in.

The divide that haunts us is one of spite and pride.

Everyone sees what they are looking for. But there is always more than each of us wants to admit.

It is true that the statement "Slavery caused the Civil War" is a vast overly simplified characterization of American history.

I would be much more comfortable saying that the Civil War represents the culmination of all the social ills which we had inherited from our European forefathers, most notably among them, human slavery along with the institutionalized baggage some of which still haunts us today.

Their is no denying that the meme associating the American Civil War with slavery was a necessary political spin. The overtly dedicated support of the Union (as a nation) was available only once the noblest effort became "The Cause"; before that it was just a question of some states determining their state's sovereignty was inviolable; that they could ignore duly legislated laws which they found unacceptable. Needless to say the Feds disagreed. THAT war was the American Civil War, which became the perfect opportunity to rid our nation of one of the vilest abuses imaginable, human slavery.

To argue the merits of denying one perspective over another is simply to reject the notion that that was the past and this is the present. It keeps us separate from one another, and gives no social benefit other than to provoke grief and angst, even if only in memory.

Politicians and ideological zealots would want us to dwell on the memory, which is malleable and responsive to their craft.

But I ramble.....



[edit on 7-4-2010 by Maxmars]

Well said Sir,,, oh course i too must ramle on to meet board limits,, hate limits grumble,grumble

Originally posted by Alxandro
As wrong as slavery was, it's still makes up a huge part of American History and the American culture.
As a result the US has benefited by not having to succumb to playing the game of soccer, instead we have MLB, the NFL and the NBA.
Granted, sports is nothing but a form of entertainmant but it is what it is, PLUS it's a huge money maker too.

So do us all a favor once and for all, Get over it!

At least now the rest of the world is playing and enjoying the game of basketball too.

You are telling us to get over people lying about what the Civil War was fought for, and instead be happy that black people are free because if they were still slaves, we wouldn't have any other pro sport besides soccer?

And they call us racist for thinking the Civil War was about States Rights and not Slavery...

Originally posted by AliBruh

You are telling us to get over people lying about what the Civil War was fought for, and instead be happy that black people are free because if they were still slaves, we wouldn't have any other pro sport besides soccer?

And they call us racist for thinking the Civil War was about States Rights and not Slavery...

Do you honestly think the Civil War was all about slavery?
That makes no sense.
Why would an entire group of folks from the South that, as people love to repeat over and over, "hated blacks" go to war and fight on the count of blacks?

That makes no sense and it's twisted logic and people need to quit sucking on that convenient teet of false history.
It would be like a gentleman of yesteryear fighting for woman that he hated in the first place.
Sure they hated blacks but they hated their fat government even more.

Next thing you'll probably tell me is that the KKK was founded by Republicans

It sucks that Racism is trying to rewrite history. Damn Hate.

Second Line

It is a disgrace to all those brave boys in gray who died for states rights and freedom from a tyrannical government.

It is just like pissing on their grave...

Originally posted by Maxmars
The divide that haunts us is one of spite and pride.
.

I would be much more comfortable saying that the Civil War represents the culmination of all the social ills which we had inherited from our European forefathers, most notably among them, human slavery along with the institutionalized baggage some of which still haunts us today.

Their is no denying that the meme associating the American Civil War with slavery was a necessary political spin.

And it was not only spin, but fact.

The fight over States' Rights was about slavery, unquestionably.

The overtly dedicated support of the Union (as a nation) was available only once the noblest effort became "The Cause"; before that it was just a question of some states determining their state's sovereignty was inviolable; that they could ignore duly legislated laws which they found unacceptable. Needless to say the Feds disagreed.

And which particular rights did some states so vehemently want, which others so vehemently did not want them to have? Slavery. States rights to do what?

Did the slaves in those states have any say in what their respective state legislature voted for? Of course not.


Nobody goes to war over a principle unless the principle has a specific and immediate application.

It is foolish to ignore all the political history and conflicts prior to the U.S. civil war. In historical fact, all of the most vituperative were about slavery and nothing but. What particular division was so raw and irreconcilable which could cause people to go to war? Slavery, and nothing but.

Why was it so important, prior to the Civil war over the question of whether new states would be 'slave states' or 'free states' (prohibiting slavery)?

Because if sufficient free states were admitted, these free states would not have political elites whose economic power derived from slavery and thus the moral outrage would take precedence. These states would vote to prohibit slavery. With a sufficient number of non-slave states a Constitutional Amendment would pass to ban slavery.



[edit on 8-4-2010 by mbkennel]

reply to post by TheCoffinman


Slavery was core reason to the Confederate states leaving:
sunsite.utk.edu...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. 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.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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.

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

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

Texas Declaration of Secession

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an 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.

Alabama succession speech:

I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.

Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.

If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!

americancivilwar.com...

Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. Each of the States has an extended Gulf coast, and must look with equal solicitude to its protection now, and the acquisition of the entire control of the Gulf of Mexico in due time. No two States of this confederacy are so identified in interest, and whose destinies are so closely interwoven with each other. Nature, sympathy and unity of interest make them almost one. Recognizing these facts, but still confident in her own powers to maintain a separate existence, Louisiana regards with great concern the vote of the people of Texas on the ratification of the ordinance of secession, adopted by your honorable body on the 1st of the present month. She is confident a people who so nobly and gallantly achieved their liberties under such unparalleled difficulties will not falter in maintaining them now. The Mexican yoke could not have been more galling to "the army of heroes" of '36 than the Black republican rule would be to the survivors and sons of that army at the present day.

americancivilwar.com...

Im sick of the apologist sugar coating what the confederacy stood for back then. While I will agree that there were other minor reasons, slavery was the core issue at hand here and Southern states were the last states with slavery in the country. Let the excuses come around.

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
IT WASNT ABOUT SLAVERY...

Enlighten us here what else it was about? Ignoring the declarations made, ignoring the convenient move to leave the Union a month after Lincoln won.

my point is this: southerners cant celebrate their history without feeling ashamed to do so and that is wrong. i GAURENTEE they're not celebrating the insitution of slavery...

Don't kid yourself, this pressure is simply one thing - a pre-cursor to REPARATIONS....and to set the record straight on this, Slavery was certainly the issue that set the war off - because during the 1860 election, Lincoln campaigned against allowing the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed, meaning that new territories in the West. states would not be allowed to be "slave states" . This was a huge STATE's RIGHTS issue for the Southern States - and 7 states seceded from the Union before Lincoln even took the oath of office. Both Lincoln and his predecessor, James Buchanon, viewed secession as rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation stated the abolishing of slavery in the Southern States as one of the Goals of the war.

Originally posted by warpcrafter
Absolutely. If the war had not happened, they still would have stopped using slaves just because technology was reducing the need for masses of laborers. It was mostly as matter of the southern states having a hissy fit over the industrial superiority of the north. Which was amply demonstrated, I might add.

..................................Read your history books, not the progressive nonsense., real history... Slavery would have stopped, absolutely...in fact A.Lincoln was planning to send all freed slaves back to Africa. No slaves for sure. By the way, he freed them as an after thought and only because he thought they would turn and fight for the North..at the very end of the war....Yes the North had industrial superiority, of course, Now, why would that be? Look at the geography, and let me walk you through this logically,.. where else would agriculture be dominant for the cash crops during that epoch? The South....The North also happened to have a strong Federalist government which forced the South to pay enormous and economically impossible tariffs on import for their needs and they were forced to sell their agricultural produce. primarily tobacco and cotton, extremely low to the Northern textiles and export ware houses, or be forced to pay a prohibitive export tax. Hissy fit? or understandable anger at having economic "weapons" used against a region of the country that was, in reality, supplying an enormous amount of wealth and production to the new nation by their own, supposedly representative government. By the way the industrial revolution was started based on the wealth the agriculture producers accumulated, the wealth from the industrial North didn't really start till after the North was able to carpet bag the South....Find out FACTS before you write half truths....

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm just curious...why do you care so much?

IMO...slavery would of been a much better reason for the Civil War than what it was really fought for.

But to be clear...it was a FACTOR in the war...maybe not over the morality of it...but it was a FACTOR.

It was a factor on paper, after the fact.

Are you honestly saying that slavery would have been a better explaination for the Civil War than federalist vs constitutionalist objectives, and the obvious powerplay it was for unlawful Federal expansion?

I would assume then you're ignoring the fact the 13th Amendment was never ratified. Meaning that if the Civil War was indeed about slavery, they failed greatly.

Tricking a populace into thinking they were freed slaves, sparking movements such as Civil Rights (that also ignored the fact their rights were never passed into law) which should have been demanding their constitutional rights as MEN.

And not non-existent paper rights that don't exist in law.

Slavery was just the distraction for the masses, much as health care is today.

Get people to think what they're doing is right, and to benefit people. And pull a bait and switch. With a tiny ignored provision. Taking everything over.

So to sit there and say it would have been a better excuse is ridiculous. Because even if you say it was, it wasn't.

It STILL ignored the fact Blacks were HUMAN. And furthermore it never passed. Legally slaves still exist, especially under the unratified 13th Amendment.

The only thing granting them 'civil rights', is people and society enforcing it. Not a piece of paper saying it's so. Because really, it isn't.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm just curious...why do you care so much?

IMO...slavery would of been a much better reason for the Civil War than what it was really fought for.

But to be clear...it was a FACTOR in the war...maybe not over the morality of it...but it was a FACTOR.

Probably because he is sick of the race card being played every other day on every other subject.
Another typical pro socialist, pro government comment from OutKast.

I thought illegal wars were designed to expand the interests of corrupt governments and money changers, as they exploit disposable human labor in the form of soldiers and slaves.

Abraham Lincoln's "Bank War"
www.google.com...

Someday we may look back on a second American Civil War, and again it will not have been fought to a protect the wellbeing of a dishonest government, or criminal taxation schemes, or a crooked Federal Reserve, or a monolithic Illuminati banking empire, but for the emancipation of illegal immigrants and the enslavement of taxpayers.

F.T.G.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by seasoul]