A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

ummm, maybe because it's required.

a better question would be why would you quote ONLY the misrepresentation of the inscription ??

It was an oversight on my part, I only saw this part posted on another forum.

It wasn't intentional, I apologize.

Originally posted by Honor93
first, not all slaves were black.

I never said "all slaves were black". I advise that you learn to actually read my posts before posting.

got news for ya, NY & Maryland (not so southern states)

There were some states that legalized slaves in the north, yes, many northerners were sympathetic to slavery, but that didn't change that there were states that held abolitionist laws and abolitionist laws through their state governments. Your post above is pointless.

yes, slaves who fled state boundaries were criminals,

Not in some of those Northern states. Some states held abolitionist views and some states didn't. "States rights" goes both ways. Apparently you're only concerned about the states rights of southern states, but it's a two way street buddy. Regardless, the confederates were foolish enough to try their luck with Lincoln later on and they ended up losing. Thanks to the decisions of the confederates, slavery was abolished in the United States by the 1860's. Had it not been for the civil war, I'm not sure how long we would have had to wait before slavery would be abolished in all states. I'd hang my bets on another 50 years or so. To think that Lincoln assured these folks that the institution of slavery would be left alone under his administration, yet they didn't listen.

do you folks realize that slavery had been practiced on this continent for nearly 300yrs BEFORE the Constitution

This thread is not about the history of global slavery, it is about the civil war and the motivation of the confederate states. We're talking about slavery in the United States. Just to add one more thing to this, just because other cultures were practicing slavery didn't justify the institution being practiced in the United States. Two wrongs don't make a right, we are taught this as children.

In an interview with The New York Times April 30, 1906, 84-year-old Jonathan Dillon recalled that he was working for M.W. Galt and Co. on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, where he was repairing Lincoln’s watch. The owner of the shop announced that the first shot of the Civil War had been fired. Dillon reported that he unscrewed the dial of the watch, and with a sharp instrument wrote on the metal beneath: “The first gun is fired. Slavery is dead. Thank God we have a President who at least will try.” He then signed and dated the inscription and closed the dial. Dillon told The New York Times in 1906 that to his knowledge, no one ever saw the inscription.

I guess he didn't know what he was doing
americanhistory.si.edu...

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

no dear, those were the direct effects of Reconstruction.
you know, the government hand in making everything alright

yes, atrocities happened for many, many more years.
however, these behaviors were the RESULT of the Norths victory, not a reason for the battle.

Really? so it wasn't because of the racism that had existed in the south for so long?.. Oh yeah, let's shift the blame and place it on the north now... Criminals now-a-days do the same thing, blaming others for the crimes the criminals themselves have committed...

Originally posted by Honor93
so please, explain to me again how the Feds implemented this great equality and freedom you claim they fought for.

The civil war did not result in "equality" for all Americans, it just resulted in the abolition of slavery. To this day we have not achieved true equality, only society can achieve this, it isn't something government can make happen. Blacks were freedom from enslavement following the civil war by the Federal government, but Lincoln only did this to gain support for his war against the confederacy. Racial segregation? You can thank the Brown v. board of education for that, or the supreme court. Interracial marriage? Again the supreme court through loving v. Virginia.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

apology accepted, just felt the need to point it out considering the ongoing conversation.
no harm, no foul

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

apology accepted, just felt the need to point it out considering the ongoing conversation.
no harm, no foul

I only posted it because I found it interesting in light of the topic, I aint taking sides in this issue, the guy in Lincolns tomb is near by.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


Really? so it wasn't because of the racism that had existed in the south for so long?.. Oh yeah, let's shift the blame and place it on the north now... Criminals now-a-days do the same thing, blaming others for the crimes the criminals themselves have committed...

So... You're saying you think the civil war was fought to end racism?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Yes there were some white people in the north who were also racist, but the most racism occurred in the south.

How are you quantifying this racism? How do you come to the conclusion racism 'occurred' more in the South?

Are you familiar with how Irish and Italian (to name just a few marginalized minorities) in the north were treated?

reply to post by Southern Guardian
don't play word games with me SG. you should know better by now, you lack the skills.

not all blacks born in the South were slaves, so what's your point ?
quite a few of them were land-owners themselves with their own slaves.
again, what's your point?

btw, are you even aware that the first American to own another human was a black man?
more historical facts you'll claim are re-written but are more like written-out.

oh, the fact that 2 Northern states held more slaves than 4 Southern states combined is pointlessss ??? why?? dare i ask?

the abolitionists didn't even hold a majority of "free states".
do you even realize that the 8 seceding states constituted a majority of total states at that time?

do yourself a favor, try to remember a criminal here, is a criminal there, always has been.
states do not "de-criminalize" someone (except illegal immigrants) just because they crossed their border. this argument truly is pointless.

No, IF States Rights were a two way street, that is how it would be.
however, that's not what we have today, even though that's what we agreed upon, way back when.

geez man, thanks to Lincoln and the following Feds, we had Federally sanctioned separatism.
how was that even close to "freedom" ??

It was not Lincoln's DUTY to protect the Union at all costs, that was his decision
(and a bad one at that)
It was his DUTY to defend the Republican governments of the sovereign states.
He Failed miserably.

who said anything about global slavery?
the US has always been part of a continent and when the CW occurred, territory was still being explored/settled. however, from E to W and N to S, slavery was everywhere.

for you to think or insinuate that slavery began after the US was formed is laughable at best.
slavery was practiced in this American territory long BEFORE it became the US and that's my point.

who said anything about 2 wrongs or a right ?
yes, slavery is wrong
yes, Lincolns invasion was wrong
yes, the Northern victory has brought the US much suffering along the way
yes, imho, the south had very valid points and reasons to secede the Union
yes, Ft Sumter could be considered an act of treason by a President
yes, the States had the right and still have the right, they just have to exert it.

so, how many more wrongs will it take before we get it right ??

reply to post by Stormdancer777

well ok, the last posting might not have been intentional, but this one was so let's include the validation part, shall we ??
from your link ...

After being contacted by Dillon’s great-great-grandson, Doug Stiles of Waukegan, Ill., the museum agreed to remove the dial to see if the watchmaker’s message was inside.
The museum did find a message inscribed on the brass underside of the movement. The wording was slightly different from Dillon’s own recollection. The actual engraving says:
Jonathan Dillon
April 13-1861
Fort Sumpter [sic] was attacked
by the rebels on the above
date J Dillon
April 13-1861
Washington
thank God we have a government
Jonth Dillon

Other markings of one or more watchmakers also appear on the watch.

but none of them say what you've posted twice.
please, save the apology for when you actually mean it

also, from your same link, i'm wondering how many of you realize that 7 states seceded BEFORE Lincoln was inaugurated in 1861.
considering the States actions of secession were performed before Lincoln was "officially" the POTUS, he had -0- authority to invade them as there was NO Union to preserve, technically.

In January 1861, South Carolina seceded from the Union, and was followed by the secession of six more states before Lincoln’s March 1861 inauguration.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

no dear, those were the direct effects of Reconstruction.
you know, the government hand in making everything alright

yes, atrocities happened for many, many more years.
however, these behaviors were the RESULT of the Norths victory, not a reason for the battle.

Really? so it wasn't because of the racism that had existed in the south for so long?.. Oh yeah, let's shift the blame and place it on the north now... Criminals now-a-days do the same thing, blaming others for the crimes the criminals themselves have committed...

really ??? no seriously, really ??
racism is its own demon.
racism, whether or not slavery was operational, is an individual ailment, not a regional one.

and no, before Reconstruction, things weren't nearly as bad as you'd like to believe.
yes, racism was alive and well but that had just as much or more leverage in the North as it did in the South.
[why ?? because so many light-toned black folk were "blending in" with the white society around them and becoming more racist than their racist hosts - again, listen to some real audio tales of the times, while they're still available]

one trip to Maryland today and you can still visit upwards of 4 dozen plantations.
www.ask.com...lantations_in_Maryland

As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

Letter to Joshua Speed

Indeed wriiten in 1855 by A. Lincoln


Seems that if my memory serves me correct from my youthful collegiate days Slavery was always at the forefront of the conflict. Just my two cents at least.

Originally posted by Honor93
you lack the skills.

ok then, apparently I don't have your skills in this debate.

not all blacks born in the South were slaves, so what's your point?

So because there were a minority of blacks who were not slaves, this justifies slavery? Is this what you're saying? Or what's your point? I fail to see what the small population of freed blacks have to do with the rights of Northern or southern states? Can you fill in the blanks for me?

btw, are you even aware that the first American to own another human was a black man?

And this justifies the slavery laws of southern states, how? Again, two wrongs don't make a right. You continiously try to excuse these slavery laws for the fact that northers and non-whites did it as well, do you seriously think this justifies the slavery laws in those states in any way?

No, IF States Rights were a two way street, that is how it would be.

No it wouldn't. If a state decided to make slavery illigal and granted all residents free from slavery during those times, southern states needed to respect them in the same manner that their slavery laws were respected prior to the 1860's. States rights is a two way street. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

geez man, thanks to Lincoln and the following Feds, we had Federally sanctioned separatism.

The states sanctioned seperatism, the Federal government respected the rights of those states to sanction seperatism, and respected the rights of states to allow equal liberties regardless of race. Eventually the supreme court weighed in on the issue by the mid 20th century.

It was not Lincoln's DUTY to protect the Union at all costs, that was his decision
He Failed miserably.

Your opinion, Lincoln had no intention of seeing the Union break apart at the beginning of his presidency and he made a stand on it. He had every intention of keeping the Union intact, and he did just that. He lead the North to a victory in the civil war, and the South was kicked to the curb, they also lost their precious slaves in the process. It seems to me that the Confederate states failed miserably, and we have history to prove this. All that's left are confederate apologists such as yourself here whining about how unfair the war was from more than 150 years ago.

Maybe it's time you get over it?

who said anything about global slavery?
the US has always been part of a continent

At this point you are splitting hairs. North America is not the United States of America. We are not discussing global slavery here.

yes, Lincolns invasion was wrong

So was America's invasion of Mexican land, so was the colonialists treatment of native Americans, so was napoleon's invasion of sovereign European nations, so was Austrio-Hungarian empire's attack on her European neighbours in world war 1, I can go on, I really can.

Whining about how "unfair" the civil war was is no different from whining about how unfair many other wars were many many years ago. The truth is, history is not "fair", the victor of war doesn't have to be "fair", life isn't "fair", the South lost, so get over it.

reply to post by Honor93

but none of them say what you've posted twice.

Well then I have lost my mind.

You are reading to much into my post, I am not implying anything.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
apparently not or we wouldn't still be discussing your errors.
who is justifying slavery ?? you?

Can you fill in the blanks for me?

nope, not til you take your blinders off.

who's justifying anything ?
just pointing out the fact that without him, slavery in the US might have been non-existant.
as it was not "legal" before-hand. (didn't say it wasn't practiced, but it wasn't legal til then)

WHY are you trying so hard to make justification part of this discussion?

like i said, you don't have the skills to debate such a point.
for example ... without the first "slave", there is no reason to believe we'd have any at all.
secondly ... without Northern Aggression, national slavery would have ended with the stroke of a pen, rather the regional joke they got via a war.
lastly ... they were in the middle of a war, so what rights were they being denied at that point?

Reconstruction after the war brought the massive strife and decades of aggression.
they (southerners of all colors) didn't experience much of that before the war.

oh no, not at all, 1 man, and 1 man alone brought us Federal separatism.
with one act of defiance, he propelled States rights (yes, them again) to a Federal standard even worse. Homer Plessy is his name, are you familiar?

ummm, the USSC had to be re-addressed at a later date as Homer's plight made it all the way to their desk first.
will address the rest of this laters.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Honor93

 

but none of them say what you've posted twice.

Well then I have lost my mind.

You are reading to much into my post, I am not implying anything.

edit on 123131p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

no, but the truth would be nice
not what an 84yr old man thinks he remembers.
yes, he was there.
however, not only did i doubt his recollection, it's proven incorrect in the same story.
you could allude to the truth but that wouldn't serve the agenda of the day would it ?

reply to post by Southern Guardian
from the remainder of this post ... you really think that's my opinion ?

well, not quite.
my opinion is more along this line ...
Lincoln had no Union to preserve.
Lincoln had no authority to invade any territory within the Union.
Lincoln also had no authority or reason to invade sovereign territory outside of the Union.
Lincolns advance was given ample opportunity to retreat peacefully, they chose not.
Lincolns continued antics throughout the conflict earned him his punishment for treason.
Lincoln, imho gets the right ppl excited for all the wrong reasons.

hmmmm, Confederate states failing ??
which ones, cause i didn't know we still had Confederate states.

i'll get over it when the rest of the country gets the whole story.
cause without that, they can never understand, let alone exert, their unalienable rights

in 1860, not much west of the Mississippi were US states.
so, what's your point here?

you brought up "global slavery", not i.

never once did i say the civil war was "unfair" ... quote it.
like i said, you simply don't have the skills bro, give it up.

yeah, tolerance, ya gotta love it

I believed in the south and beleive allot of propaganda was put in place in regards to slavery.. I beleive many slaves were happy and many masters were good masters.. does not mean slavery was ok.. just that blacks were not as bad off as the propaganda made it seem...the souther style of living is def superiour to the way of the north..and had the south won I believe slavery would have ended on her own accord...and blacks would have been freed when they were ready to be freed.. you see the state they are in now...they need uplifting ..they are in this state because it was not there time to be freed...they needed to do it on there own....Abraham lincoln was a good president not saying he did this deliberately but because of his actions it increased federal power beyond the limits of what the constitution allowed....now people that are going to call me racist take heed..I have African ancestory in my blood....

Originally posted by Honor93

 

apparently not or we wouldn't still be discussing your errors.
who is justifying slavery

You are, by making excuses that non-whites also did it, some northern states did it and that other countries did it. Two wrongs don't make a right, regardless of whether the southern states had the right prior to the civil war to practice slavery, it doesn't mean it was a right and justified institution.

just pointing out the fact that without him, slavery in the US might have been non-existant.

So now you're blaming blacks for the fact they were put to slavery, just as in another thread you blamed blacks for racial segregation. They should blame themselves right? How about blaming people for their own actions? This isn't your style apparently, blame those two black individuals, it's all their fault.

you don't have the skills to debate such a point.

Here we go with these skills of yours apparently that I lack. Why don't you stick to this debate as opposed to comparing what personal skills you supposedly have over me and whether or not I should be debating with you because I lack these skills. We're all adults here so why don't you act like one.

without the first "slave", there is no reason to believe we'd have any at all.

This is your own opinion, that this black man is all to blame for slavery. Fact is, the institution of slavery was ugly, it stripped the liberties and rights of many Americans, women were raped by their slave masters, men had their backs slashed. Nobody forced those slave owners to do what they did, nobody forced people to support the institution. Putting blame on a black man for all this is really pathetic, I really can't say any more than that. I don't know why or how you think otherwise, I would not want to see what kind of environment you were brought up in to have this kind of mentality.

national slavery would have ended with the stroke of a pen

A stroke of a pen wasn't going to end slavery. The only options were either force or war, or to leave states to make the decisions for themselves. Unfortunately for you, it was not the latter.

oh no, not at all, 1 man, and 1 man alone brought us Federal separatism.

So in your conclusion, we should blame one black man of the injustices of slavery, and one black man for the injustices of racial segregation. It's all their fault, they forced those slave owners, those individuals, to rape, to physically abuse, to strip the rights away of millions of Americans. It's all their fault, right? That appears to sum up your entire argument here, why didn't you just say that? It would have spared me all this time wasted on bothering with you.

Originally posted by Honor93
my opinion is more along this line ...
Lincoln had no Union to preserve.

He did have a Union to preserve, the Confederate states declared independence a mere month or so following his election win. Lincoln was not interested in coming into office to a divided Union.

Lincoln had no authority to invade any territory within the Union.

Well you're alittle late to try to stop him from doing what you thought was wrong. Lincoln had no intention of coming into office to a divided Union, and likewise he lead union forces in ending southern resistence. The South lost the war, that's that. Whether you personally think that what Lincoln did was unfair is irrelevant, he lead Union forces to victory more than 150 years ago. You can't do anything about it, history doesn't need to be "fair" in your eyes.

Confederate states failing ??
which ones, cause i didn't know we still had Confederate states.

No we don't, thanks to Lincoln and his Union forces. You said Lincoln "failed miserably", yet he won the war and the Confederate states at that time failed to gain their sovereignty. Whether or not you feel the Union is "broken" now or then is irrelevant, the Union is still here 150 years on. There may be another civil war in the future but who knows.

i'll get over it when the rest of the country gets the whole story.

You mean when history is written to your liking? I don't think that is going to happen, you certainly aren't doing anything about it yapping on about how the North was unfair on this forum.