Ted Nugent wonders if U.S. would be better 'had the South won the Civil War'

For all who are throwing out Slavery as "the" primary if not the only reason for it's beginning as if it is somehow without a doubt fact - I say poppycock.

As a person who has studied this time period in American history at the Master's level I can tell you one thing for sure about it's causation...

That you can't get more than a few serious students of history together in a room without it becoming a shout fest this including the professors with Doctoral degrees in the field. No one agrees completely.

There is no definitive agreed upon document in the study of the period that is regarded by even the learned in the field as the definitive work or the absolute answer to the reasons why the war occurred.

Slavery was an issue, sure it was but it certainly wasn't the only or even the most important reason the States choose to secede from the Union. The issue is a most complicated one and since before the war was over many books and works of study have been completed on the causes.

If you are a serious student of history you know that original source material is worth a crap ton more than the books and studies done in the past.

I can tell you one thing in my own research for why the average Southerner who was more than likely a poor non-land owning, white male fought for the South's cause in reading their correspondence and letters - slavery was almost never a topic of discussion.

History is greatly distorted when polished by the victors to suit an agenda.

reply to post by Golf66


All you need to do is read the reasons the states gave for their secession.

They believed Slavery to be key to Gods plan and that "a blow at slavery is a blow at civilization".

Just read what they actually said.... Is all there.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Golf66

 

All you need to do is read the reasons the states gave for their secession.

They believed Slavery to be key to Gods plan and that "a blow at slavery is a blow at civilization".

Just read what they actually said.... Is all there.

Yes, because every aspect of the most complicated period in American history can be found in 1 series of documents written by a tiny portion of people who didn't really represent the South.
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, bro. It seems to be the basis of all belief these days, anyway. The truth be damned.

reply to post by habitforming
word games, really ??
so, what's the point here ? of course slavery was mentioned, it was the business of the day and according to the agreement consented to by all parties in the Constitution, the rights of the States were being violated.

you could reasonably say ... slavery was one issue that led to the secessions and i would agree.
but, to claim Lincolns intent was to free the slaves IS absolute BS.

for fun, let's just say it was ... then please answer these 3 questions.
1. why didn't he work to end slavery in his own state of Illinois, he was a Congressman ?
www.lib.niu.edu...
2. why wait until AFTER the secessions ?
3. why did he request (in writing) the support of State governors regarding an amendment that would have Constitutionally and legally enshrined slavery?

www.lewrockwell.com...
Lincoln's slavery forever amendment read as follows:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

need more ??
i understand these truths are not taught in school anymore, however, they are historical record should you choose to learn.

reply to post by habitforming
what an infantile response but thanks for ignoring a direct question.

reply to post by mbkennel

PS: The South shot first.

it's not like they didn't try to negotiate and obtain a stand-down agreement first.
so, if i invade your home and refuse to leave, you wouldn't shoot/attack ?

reply to post by mbkennel

it was perceived (correctly) that they would inevitably pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery in the United States. This because it was viewed quite widely as plainly and obviously evil and unless the economics depended on slaves, virtually all other states would inevitably vote against slavery.

?? Lincoln authored an amendment and actively promoted making slavery Congressionally untouchable and unrevokable.
how do you figure it would be inevitably banned ?
and if it's currently banned, why is there still so much of it today ?
didn't say it was legal but it certainly exists. ppl "buy" other ppl online every day.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by habitforming

 

word games, really ??
so, what's the point here ? of course slavery was mentioned, it was the business of the day and according to the agreement consented to by all parties in the Constitution, the rights of the States were being violated.

you could reasonably say ... slavery was one issue that led to the secessions and i would agree.
but, to claim Lincolns intent was to free the slaves IS absolute BS.

for fun, let's just say it was ... then please answer these 3 questions.
1. why didn't he work to end slavery in his own state of Illinois, he was a Congressman ?
www.lib.niu.edu...
2. why wait until AFTER the secessions ?
3. why did he request (in writing) the support of State governors regarding an amendment that would have Constitutionally and legally enshrined slavery?

www.lewrockwell.com...
Lincoln's slavery forever amendment read as follows:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

need more ??
i understand these truths are not taught in school anymore, however, they are historical record should you choose to learn.

reply to post by habitforming

 

what an infantile response but thanks for ignoring a direct question.

That is the longest "you are right" I have ever gotten.
Thank you for admitting that I was right but I never claimed anything about Lincoln.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
that's north enough ... if you would like some online references, use the u2u, be happy to share.
look, you do understand i'm no fan of slavery, right?
however, it WAS the business of the day, it played an integral part of everyone's lives, even the northerners who profited off of them and their efforts.

quite likely, the biggest argument of the day was the "labor" methods to be employed out west.
it was Lincoln's election that motivated the secessions.
(SCs was being drafted prior to the votes being counted)
the southern states were well aware of Lincolns loyalties to the Bankers, his friendship and correspondence with Marx and his intent to fail in upholding the Constitutional principles agreed upon.

this was common knowledge back then and a for a few decades after, but, i think it's time the empty holes were filled in with the "context" so slyly removed.

reply to post by JBA2848

Texas territory was not using slave labor they were acting as settlers and gold miners.

it's statements like the above that drive the perpetual case of delusion in this nation.

yes, parts of TX did utilize slave labor ... quite a few parts to be honest.

www.ask.com...
After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, European Americans greatly increased the enslaved population in the Republic, and later the State of Texas as they encouraged settlement and developed more acres under cultivation in cotton and other commodities. The cotton industry flourished in East Texas, where enslaved labor became most widely used. The central part of the state was dominated by subsistence farmers. Free and runaway blacks had great difficulty finding jobs in Texas. Many worked in other parts of the state as cowboys herding cattle or migrated for better opportunities in the Midwest, California, or southward to Mexico.

By the 1800s, most slaves in Texas had been brought by slaveholders from the United States. A small number of slaves were imported illegally from the West Indies or Africa. In the 1830s, the British consul estimated that approximately 500 slaves had been illegally imported into Texas. By 1836, there were approximately 5,000 slaves in Texas.
Exportation in the slave-owning areas of the state surpassed that of the non-slave-owning areas.
In 1860 almost 25% of all white families in Texas owned at least one slave. Texas ranked 10th in total slave population and 9th in percentage of slave population (30% of all residents).

reply to post by Golf66

If you are a serious student of history you know that original source material is worth a crap ton more than the books and studies done in the past.

hear, hear, i second that opinion
and here's a good place to start ... www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

btw folks, it is Fort SumTer ... if your sources didn't get that right, look harder.

reply to post by habitforming

That is the longest "you are right" I have ever gotten.
Thank you for admitting that I was right but I never claimed anything about Lincoln

ya think so do ya ?? okie dokie then.
you sure did claim Lincolns intent was to free the slaves but you'd be wrong.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by habitforming

 

That is the longest "you are right" I have ever gotten.
Thank you for admitting that I was right but I never claimed anything about Lincoln

ya think so do ya ?? okie dokie then.
you sure did claim Lincolns intent was to free the slaves but you'd be wrong.

Where is that post?
If the only way to win an argument is to lie about what other people say then you do not have a very good argument.
Quote me.

What I did say was that slavery was an important aspect to each Southern State's reason for secession. You agreed with me on that. Then you argued with something I never said.

Tell me what I am missing.

There is no denying it ... he is ignorant!

Today people are out of touch of what slavery was really like. The social climate of slavery would appall 99.9 percent of Americans.

I find it interesting that people can't even remember why Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first Gulf War yet remember back to the days of American apartheid.

If you would tell people that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil by slant drilling they only deny it! ... yet this news is a blip lost in history

most Americans can not even imagine what it was like during slavery and Ted is one of the ignoramuses!

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Seriously? I said "if one believes" Do you understand what that means? It means if somebody other than myself, meaning Ted Nugent or anyone else making such statements. I offered no personal opinion on why I think the civil war happened or professed to exclaim any facts, only alluded to what I believe other's may think. Please try to understand a post before replying to it.

If you really think what you stated is the only reason the civil war occurred then I think you are the person who needs to do some research.

Crack a book sometime why don't you?

Sure, westward expansion and labor laws had a role in it but if you are trying to come here and tell me that is the reason for the civil war, even a large reason... well you look very foolish doing so. That is a very small part of it. If you are going to lecture people on history maybe you should master more than the cliff notes.

Perhaps you should spend less time lecturing people on the internet and a little more time understanding words that you read and historical facts before assuming a stance such as the one you have brought to this forum.

Not about States Rights at all huh? I wonder what the people of South Carolina circa 1860 would have to say about that... no wait I don't wonder, here is what they wrote when seceding from the union

The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States...Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue....

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...

Funny, I didn't read anything about westward expansion in the South Carolina Congressional delegations statement of succession.


Learn your history before you go around trying to call people incorrect. Thanks.

Originally posted by Honor93

btw folks, it is Fort SumTer ... if your sources didn't get that right, look harder.

edit on 9-7-2012 by Honor93 because: typo

Ha! My mind was in South Carolina but my heart was in New Mexico. Figured someone would call me on that (was too late to edit when I realized it)

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

well seeing as how the south enforced segregation and institutionalized racism well into the 60s exactly when do u think racism/slavery would have ended had the south won the war?

yeah knowing a little bit about history helps?

Well... I said

"If one thinks..."

Now what is it you think that means? Do you think I am talking about my own views or possible views of other people? hmmm

Yea, understanding the English language helps...

reply to post by habitforming
ok, so you didn't use those words specifically, big deal.
i didn't quote you when i made the comment, why would i now?

yes, you keep saying that slavery was the main concern of the southern states.
well yes, it was the business of the day in northern states too, so why wouldn't it concern them?
[wrong as it was] it was a Constitutionally protected activity.
the same Constitution Lincoln violated by invading Ft Sumter.

what is your hang-up with the slavery issue anyway?
it's not like anyone can say if the business of slavery would have prevailed or not, it was phasing out anyway. more and more states were becoming "free states" and none of us know what the outcome might have been.
what we can agree on is the fact that some of the worst days of our history are the direct result of the North's victory.

all (well most) agree it was bad business, even Ted doesn't mention it.
what you seem to dismiss is the fact that the CW was the result of continuous breaches of the Constitutional agreement made between all, not just slavery.

it was not as cut and dry as you seem to imply.
there were many issues and yes, slavery was one of them, no one has said it wasn't.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
it wasn't directed at you
is why i used the general reply

i noticed it in a few links so i thought i'd mention it to those who aren't aware that both are important battlegrounds in the CW.
However, the beginning, the first shot, occurred in SCarolina, Ft Sumter.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by habitforming

 

ok, so you didn't use those words specifically, big deal.

I did not say anything even remotely close.

i didn't quote you when i made the comment, why would i now?

And you should have because you are trying to put words in my mouth and it will not work when I never wrote anything even close to them.

yes, you keep saying that slavery was the main concern of the southern states.

I NEVER SAID THAT ONCE.
Jesus you follow me from threat to thread just failing to read.

well yes, it was the business of the day in northern states too, so why wouldn't it concern them?
[wrong as it was] it was a Constitutionally protected activity.
the same Constitution Lincoln violated by invading Ft Sumter.

what is your hang-up with the slavery issue anyway?
it's not like anyone can say if the business of slavery would have prevailed or not, it was phasing out anyway. more and more states were becoming "free states" and none of us know what the outcome might have been.
what we can agree on is the fact that some of the worst days of our history are the direct result of the North's victory.

all (well most) agree it was bad business, even Ted doesn't mention it.
what you seem to dismiss is the fact that the CW was the result of continuous breaches of the Constitutional agreement made between all, not just slavery.

it was not as cut and dry as you seem to imply.
there were many issues and yes, slavery was one of them, no one has said it wasn't.

You have your argument all by yourself. I never said any of that so arguing with me about why I said it is pretty pointless. Trying pinning something on me that I actually wrote for a change.

reply to post by habitforming

Trying pinning something on me that I actually wrote for a change.

ok, here ya go ...

Can you name any one of the Southern States that did not mention their right to practice slavery in its declaration of secession?

Slavery was a huge part of the Civil War

Nothing says that louder than fighting to keep slavery legal

cite one single state that did not cite slavery in their declaration

All 8 mention slavery

What I did say was that slavery was an important aspect to each Southern State's reason for secession.

i said --> "yes, you keep saying that slavery was the main concern of the southern states."
you said

I NEVER SAID THAT ONCE.

no, not word for word but see any quoted post above for a plethora of examples (in this thread alone).

Jesus you follow me from threat to thread just failing to read.

first, i am not Jesus.
secondly, i don't follow anyone around (especially here) and your "stalking" syle technique is rather boring to be honest.

the one fact we should be able to agree upon is that some of the worst days of our history have been the direct result of the North's victory. and there's no denying that one.

reply to post by Honor93


I am not sure if you cannot read or what. I kept responding to people that were saying slavery had NOTHING to do with it and reminding them it had a lot to do with it.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS THE MAIN REASON THOUGH.
I NEVER EVEN SUGGESTED THAT.

You have yet to quote anything from me that would get me to understand why you think I said something I did not.