If the confederacy would have WON!!

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Procession101

 

Actually, we all lost in the war of Northern Aggression.

Your first sentence shows your ignorance, as does your plea to read the history books, even as you admit that the books are biased.

And as was said before, slavery was an issue . . . but it was not the driving force of the war.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Well at least we finally have a Confederate apologist admitting slavery played a part, that's a step in the right direction! Now if we can get them to admit they lost the war, we can get somewhere.

The former slaves surely were better off after the war, despite the terrorism of the KKK. The federalists finally saw the United States they worked and fought for. Liberals were quite happy with the outcome, as were abolitionists.

I do not believe however, that Radical Reconstruction was needed at all! The Confederacy was broken and defeated, there was absolutely no honor in pillaging and humiliating her after.

I will say though that the idiotic idea of Southern Pride did play it's part there, and you have Booth to thank for killing President Lincoln, the one man that probably could have stopped it.

reply to post by Intelearthling


Yes Blacks served in the confederate army during the civil war. Mostly as Yeoman, Support staff, cooks and musicians

And MUCH fewer numbers than the blacks who joined the Union.

Often plantation owners brought their slaves with them.

For those that willingly joined the confederacy...it is no mystery why.

Here it is summed up nicely..

Why would blacks support, and possibly want to fight for, the Confederacy?

One is money. The pay rate for the laborers was greater than that of the white soldier's pay rate. The black laborers were paid 30 dollars a month while the Confederate soldiers made only 11 dollars.

By volunteering their service to the South these blacks earned enough money for themselves and their families back home. Blacks, both free and slave, were able to make more money by trading whiskey, food, horses and other possessions they might steal through their foraging missions.

There is a story of a servant who was captured by the Yankees, stole two horses, and got back to his Confederate line. When he got back he sold one horse for fifty dollars and kept the other one for himself.

"The quest for freedom also played a great role in black Confederate decisions". With good service to the master or to the Southern cause, there was the hope of being manumitted after the war. Slaves also knew the army life offered them a chance for adventure and an opportunity to get away from the drudgery of plantation work. Like many of the white men who volunteered and fought in the war because of strong regional pride, the local attachment blacks felt prompted them to come to the aide of the Confederacy.


Blacks placed their lives in danger for a country and its cause; a cause which many Americans would not expect blacks to support. Slaves and free blacks joined for different reasons. The Louisiana free blacks stated in a letter written to the New Orleans' Daily Delta:

"The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana."

Prosperous free blacks realized that a Union victory would bring about destruction to their economy, the basis of their livelihood, which gave them their special status.

"Free blacks knew where their loyalties lay when the war started because they stood to lose the status they enjoyed as free people". Any well-to-do freeman probably prized his wealth and standing, and deplored anyone who would endanger it. The slaves who felt compelled to volunteer for the South did so because they hoped it would improve their status after the war. They knew if the North won they would probably be freed, but if the South won, they would have to show support during the war if they had hopes of being freed.

www.stonewallbrigade.com...

Did free blacks own slaves? Yes...not common, but did happen in certain regions.

Did both slaves and free blacks serve in the Confederacy? Yes, in relatively small numbers compared to the north. For the reasons above...for most it was a win/win even if the confederacy lost or won.

Does any of that imply that the war was not about slavery? No. Not at all. Of course it was about slavery...both sides of the battle declared that loudly.

reply to post by Procession101

The difference betweeen this thread and a holocaust thread?
People are exercising their rights to free and open discussion on this thread:
Civil war historians don't go to jail for proving their points with references and facts.
..........................................................................................................

yes the south lost the war slavery was an issue and guess what?

NOW WE ARE ALL DEBT SLAVES BECAUSE THE SOUTH'S LOSS WAS A DIRECT PRECURSER TO THE ILLEGAL FED...duh



[edit on 8-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Danbones]

Reply to post by ProjectJimmy

As I said and others have said, it played a part as tea played a part in the War of Independence.

It is not an admission, and those who see it as the sole reason, or even the driving reason are mistaken. It was the tip of the iceberg for the underlying cause, which was states rights, and the non-adherence to the Constitution, as stated by Texas.

The South did surrender, but we all lost that war. Not just the South. That was the beginning of the decline of rights for all.

As for the slaves being better off? Not by a long shot for at least half a century, if not more.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Seems you all over looked Texas's key words . .

[I]The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact.[/I]


Someone was not obeying the Constitution.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You are referring to the "Fugitive Slave Clause"

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

This was superceded by the 13th Amendment.

If anything you have well proven the point that the war was about slavery.


[edit on 8-7-2010 by maybereal11]

Reply to post by maybereal11

Negative. It was about following the Constitution.

If I get into a contract with you to mow your your grass and trim your rose bushes, but I fail to trim the bushes . . . would you nullify the contract because I did not trim the bushes, or because I did not honor the contract?

Like I said. Slavery was a reason, but all you Yankees gloss over the underlying issue.

If I am given a chocolate cake with strawberry icing, but I do not like icing, and am allergic to chocolate. . . would you say I refused the cake because it had too much icing?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by maybereal11


13th Amendment doesn't apply.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 21, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. It was then declared in the proclamation of Secretary of State William H. Seward on December 18. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.

In case anyone needs a hand that means it was post war. So, Texas was legally correct.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


No "we" did not all loose the American Civil War. I'm not an American first of all, so I am not held to your system. Secondly, I know many Americans whom would much rather live in the current system than the Confederate one, in fact I am married to one.

And no, my wife and the Americans like her are not idiots, they understand the ideologies at play, she is not a "sheep" or "asleep" or any of the other things you like to call people who believe in the current system. She would fight, tooth and nail to keep the Confederacy from coming back.

Believe it or not, there are people that disagree with you when presented with the same facts. So no, not everyone lost the American Civil War, your ideology lost, and the ideology of people like my wife won.

I'm not even going to get into how insane and racist you saying that the slaves being better off under the Confederacy is, that's just not worth response.

reply to post by madhadder545


I agree it was about state rights.

But it's also very clear that slavery DIRECTLY violated the foundation our government was founded on.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by maybereal11

 

13th Amendment doesn't apply.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 21, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. It was then declared in the proclamation of Secretary of State William H. Seward on December 18. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.

In case anyone needs a hand that means it was post war. So, Texas was legally correct.

Yes, Texas was legally correct in stating the bit about....

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated....

the FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE of the constitution.

They didn't want to return fleeing slaves to the south.

So by thier logic...once certain states start passing laws that "deliberately, directly or indirectly violate the constitution...they can leave the union entire?

If they were championing states rights...shouldn't they have been okay with given states excercising thiers?

Texas wasn't accusing the federal gov of passing laws that didn't seem to jive with the fugitive slave clause...but it was the federal gov they chose to seceede from...

Because the Federal Gov was tolerating states rights? In the form of allowing Maine, Vermont et al decide for themselves whether they wanted to be part of the institution of slavery.

See how convoluted the logic is? Texas seceeding from the union because the Fed Gov. allowed states to choose for themselves the part they would play in slavery?

Once the southern states seceeded, the war was not about that clause, but rather the act of secession.

The south chose it's destiny here.

While you are thinking about the idea of Texas demanding that the northern states rights be trampled by the federal government...and then seceeding because the government didn't come in and demand that those states obey the "Fugitive Slave Clause"..

think about this...AZ...if the law they passed is determined to be unconstitutional...do we have the right to kick them out of the union?

In the "States Rights Debate"...texas was NOT on the side of the states and explicitly declared the Federal Gov responsible for not overturning local state laws that allowed northern citizens the right not to send fleeing slaves back to the south.

Hypocracy. Bad logic. Unpremised arguments.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Well at least we finally have a Confederate apologist admitting slavery played a part, that's a step in the right direction! Now if we can get them to admit they lost the war, we can get somewhere.

Now if you could get a Yankee that admitted that they couldn't compete with the south's slave labor we'd be getting somewhere. The Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression wasn't about the slaves, in their human rights avenue. That didn't happen until WAY later. It was about selling products that the North had to pay for work/unit. Freeing the slaves though, nice spin.

I will say though that the idiotic idea of Southern Pride did play it's part there...

What about now?

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

No "we" did not all loose the American Civil War. I'm not an American first of all, so I am not held to your system.

I meant we as American's, obviously.

Secondly, I know many Americans whom would much rather live in the current system than the Confederate one, in fact I am married to one.

I am sad to know that many Americans. including your significant other are sheeple.

And no, my wife and the Americans like her are not idiots, they understand the ideologies at play, she is not a "sheep" or "asleep" or any of the other things you like to call people who believe in the current system.

Obviously she and the others are if they think that bigger, more tyrannical and over-bearing governments are better.

She would fight, tooth and nail to keep the Confederacy from coming back.

So she loves the situation we are in.

Believe it or not, there are people that disagree with you when presented with the same facts. So no, not everyone lost the American Civil War, your ideology lost, and the ideology of people like my wife won.

You have far gone beyond proving my point, thanks. Tyranny won, plain and simple.

We (Americans) all lost, and that is fact. Prove to me that States did not lose their rights.

I can show you one case right now (on the front page right now), that will prove what you say as false. The AZ Immigration Bill.

Should I go on? How about legalization of marijuana? The list goes on and on. That is not what the founding fathers and the Constitution intended.

I'm not even going to get into how insane and racist you saying that the slaves being better off under the Confederacy is, that's just not worth response.

Typical knee-jerk reaction.

Do some research. Blacks were treated worse than before, they were poor. homeless, and most went to work for the same masters they were freed from, and were paid much less (when you add in the now needed cost of living.)

reply to post by maybereal11


States can make any laws that they want, as long as it does not violate the Constitution. The laws the North made violated the Constitution.

The Federal Government allowed the states to Continue the unconstitutional laws, and even added onto them with unfair tariffs.

The Federal government was complicit in the ignoring of the Constitution, so the South left.

It is not rocket science. Even us "dumb rednecks" understand it.

reply to post by intrepid


If some Yankees can't see the hypocrisy of espousing justice and equality while smugly intimating that all Southerners are somewhat less than they are, I don't think they'll readily admit to any wrongdoing on their part.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Well at least we finally have a Confederate apologist admitting slavery played a part, that's a step in the right direction! Now if we can get them to admit they lost the war, we can get somewhere.

Now if you could get a Yankee that admitted that they couldn't compete with the south's slave labor we'd be getting somewhere. The Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression wasn't about the slaves, in their human rights avenue. That didn't happen until WAY later. It was about selling products that the North had to pay for work/unit. Freeing the slaves though, nice spin.

I will say though that the idiotic idea of Southern Pride did play it's part there...

What about now?

You make an excellent point here, there were completely self-serving reasons the Union wanted to end slavery as well, and as I have mentioned before there were great cultural considerations to be taken into account here. The industrialized north has always had an elitist view of itself especially in relation to the agrarian south. There was a large clash of philosophy here, liberal versus conservative, scientific versus romanticist.

I do completely agree that there were deep ulterior motives for the emancipation, first and foremost it was an incredible economic weapon in the cultural war between the two civilizations.

I do believe there was some sense of moral justification too, there are lots of incidents that give backing to this, the Rescue of Joshua Glover for one and the widespread support in the north for the Underground Railroad before the outbreak of war. Remember also that the northern states did independently renounce slavery at different points depending on the state, so there were moral movements well before the war.

This crap again?

The slave power, that is the political/monetary power of Confederates by virtue of their slave labor was and is immoral.

Anyone who wields power through wealth built on slave labor is breaking the fundamental concept of Free Will in the Constitution.

To wit:

"Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Slavery was always illegal. Well, since 1791, anyway.

reply to post by __rich__

I don't think that legally slaves were considered citizens under the constitution.

The idea that the slave trade was a southern thing is just plain WRONG

(also to the guy who brought up the Holocaust a few posts back...)

"The following passages are from Dr. Raphael's book Jews and Judaism in the United States a Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), pp. 14, 23-25.
Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael on
Jews in the Slave Trade
www.blacksandjews.com...
"In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated."...

..."This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent."

Dr. Raphael discusses the central role of the Jews in the New World commerce and the African slave trade (pp. 23-25)"


Now all of America are debt slaves to the foregn owned federal reserve and the private banks that own it...
NOTHING HAS CHANGED...




[edit on 8-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Ah yes, "sheeple" forgot that one thank you! It really just does not make sense to you does it? There are people that disagree with you not because of ignorance, or fear or anything of the sort, but because they actually, truly do agree with people like President Obama, on policy and with people like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison on what the role of the state versus federal governments should be.

She believes that a strong federal government should trump the governments of states. I've met many other people like her as well, smart, educated and reasonable people whom believe fully in central government.

I know it will sound cliche, but I, personally prefer a parliamentary-minister system to your congressional-presidential one, but that is a debate for another day.

So do you really believe that a person cannot be reasonable if they disagree with you? Is that why you feel that you have to call them names, and insinuate that they are ignorant or cowardice?

In the end the Federalists won in the Civil War, and those that would agree with them now, have inherited that victory in today's United States Federal System.

reply to post by maybereal11

Yes, Texas was legally correct in stating the bit about....

So texas was legally correct that several states were violating the constitution and that the federal government was not doing anything to stop them. I'm glad we can agree on that point.

So by thier logic...once certain states start passing laws that "deliberately, directly or indirectly violate the constitution...they can leave the union entire?

No, that isn't the logic at all. Once certain states violate the constitution in a way that affects other states, then affected states have the right to leave the Union if the federal government fails to act.

See Lincoln claimed that the constitution was a perpetual compact. The states agreed to all abide by a certain set of rules. The federal government was the administrator of the compact. They were given certain powers to ensure that everybody upheld their end of the agreement. When the states previously named failed to follow the fugitive slave clause they violated the compact. As the administrating/executive power the federal government was required to enforce the compact.

When the federal government failed to enforce the rules of the compact they were also in violation of their duties under the compact. This means that any states negatively affected had the right to with draw from the compact.

Since Texas was not in violation of the compact they had every right to request the other states abide as well. When they refused the federal government was then required to enforce the rules. The feds refused to enforce the rules. This means that Texas was no longer beholden to the terms of the contract.

There is no twisted logic. It is simply the rule of law. Well, it was the excepted rule. Licoln declared that a compact between states could not be dissolved. For some reason he decided maintaining an unwilling union erased a common law belief that dated back to at least biblical times.

See how convoluted the logic is? Texas seceeding from the union because the Fed Gov. allowed states to choose for themselves the part they would play in slavery?

They had given up the right to make that choice when they ratified the constitution. They had made a commitment to abide by certain agreements. No where in the world are you allowed to chose which clauses of a contract you are willing to accept after you sign the contract. If you want to abolish a clause, or change it in anyway you must get the contract amended. You can't suddenly say, I morally object to sub section xyz of clause abc so I'm going to ignore it.

Texas was not asking for the right to do anything unconstitutional. They were asking for the right to excercise their constitutional rights without interference from other states. There is no hypocrisy in that.

think about this...AZ...if the law they passed is determined to be unconstitutional...do we have the right to kick them out of the union?

Not if they come in to compliance with applicable constitutional mandates.

In the "States Rights Debate"...texas was NOT on the side of the states and explicitly declared the Federal Gov responsible for not overturning local state laws that allowed northern citizens the right not to send fleeing slaves back to the south.

They did not ask for any state's rights to be trampled. They asked the federal government to uphold its duty as executor of the constitution. The states were in breach of the compact/contract. The federal government failed to pull them in to compliance. That means Texas was freed from the union due to the breach by states and failure of the executor to fully uphold their duties.

There was no right to violate the fugitive slave clause. That right was signed away. So, Texas was not asking the government to trample any rights. (Is that simple enough.)


[edit on 8-7-2010 by MikeNice81]

Originally posted by Danbones

I don't think that legally slaves were considered citizens under the constitution.

The idea that the slave trade was a southern thing is just plain WRONG



[edit on 8-7-2010 by Danbones]

What about the children of slaves born in the USA who became slaves, themselves?

Would they have not been citizens?

Also, the Dec. of Independence says something interesting:


"...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...etc..."

"