Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 17
100
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Honor93
 


Can you read?

Nearly the entire grievance listed by this guy is all about issues related to slavery, which he gives a rather one-sided account of. Even the quote you provide includes a handy summary: five out of six issues are directly related to slavery.

So what were you trying to say?
i read just fine but your comprehension appears less than functional.

yes, slavery was involved, it was the "labor system" of the south.
kinda like "right to work" states are now. what's your point?

so, is slavery today any better or worse than it was then ??
at the very least, all workers were provided sustenance for their efforts.
do all workers have that today ??

how 'bout the oh, so horrid abuses ... beatings - yep, have seen it happen ... sexual assault - yep, more than i'd care to admit ... murder - sure do, read any headlines lately ... unequal pay/benefits - haha, pick an industry ... so, ok, what am i missing ??

no one, including me, has indicated that slavery wasn't an issue.
why are you so afraid to discuss ANY of the other issues ???

forget that the Constitution had been violated by the Northern states for 40 continuous years, that'd be irrelevant

forget that the addition of CA was not done in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
forget that the passage of UnConstitutional state ordinances wasn't being addressed.
forget that the Democratic convention was intentionally fractured and dismissed without a nominee.
forget that the Northern Republicans were hell bent on assaulting/attacking/murdering innocent people throughout border towns without reprocussions or punishment.

nah, you're right, their only concern was slavery, i concede




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
If slavery can be put aside as an inefficient and expensive way for taxable consumers to live, the best reason for the North to gain control the South is National Security. England or any other European power could have used the South against the North or visa versa.

Each state should have been a separte county from the start. Most signators of the Constitution thought that they were getting into something like the United Nations, not an all powerful central government. The Anti-Federalists predicted and warned against all of the centralization of power and alienation of representation that has happened since 1789.

The Civil War kept the North American continent under the minimum number of controllers, and put everyone into debt.

History is written by the winners, art and culture are commisioned by the winners also.


Each State WAS a separate country from the start. That's kind of the definition of STATE.

They were the United STATES of America. Countries that agreed to be bound by a set of rules that would be governed by a constitutional republic.

Of COURSE they had the right to secession. EVERY group of people have the right of secession.

That is the basic premise of the declaration of independence.

They still are a group of separate countries, and just because they have made it more difficult and not part of the public awareness that they can secede, does NOT mean that they can't.

Jaden

It is the right, it is the duty of people to throw off such government and to form one that will better fulfill these needs...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
so, is slavery today any better or worse than it was then ??


Indisputably, freedom, as people really live it today is better than slavery as practiced then. And freedom then was better than slavery then, too. That's why the underground railroad led north, not south.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest otherwise, to be quite frank. Merely noting that free persons have some of the same problems as slaves does nothing to establish equivalence.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 




no one, including me, has indicated that slavery wasn't an issue.
why are you so afraid to discuss ANY of the other issues ???


Well, since you asked....



forget that the Constitution had been violated by the Northern states for 40 continuous years, that'd be irrelevant


By which you mean the fugitive SLAVE clause of article four.



forget that the addition of CA was not done in a manner consistent with the Constitution.


It was unprecedented to recognize a self-organized territory as a state, but not unconstitutional.



forget that the passage of UnConstitutional state ordinances wasn't being addressed.


Again, that refers to the Fugitive SLAVE clause of article four.



forget that the Democratic convention was intentionally fractured and dismissed without a nominee.


What has this got to do with secession? I can see that the fracture of the democrat party helped Lincoln win the Electoral College, but I can't see a fractured national party as a cause for secession. Would you explain?



forget that the Northern Republicans were hell bent on assaulting/attacking/murdering innocent people throughout border towns without reprocussions or punishment.


To what do you refer here?










posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Lincoln was not on the ballot in many of the southern states.


And why do you think that was?


Well, it's interesting... it seems that in those days, ballots were actually brought to the polling station by voters themselves. The ballots were distributed to voters by the parties. The republicans largely did not campaign in the south in the 1860 elections, focusing instead on getting a "sweep" of all the "free" states.

franklinsopus.org...

Cheers.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Indisputably, freedom, as people really live it today is better than slavery as practiced then. And freedom then was better than slavery then, too. That's why the underground railroad led north, not south.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest otherwise, to be quite frank. Merely noting that free persons have some of the same problems as slaves does nothing to establish equivalence.


I had to reply to this...

Do you really think that you are free?
Because you are not. Not at all.

The only freedom that you have is the freedom to choose your foreman, because your master is the mother corporation known as the United States of America Inc.

Why do you think that the 13th Amendment outlawed BOTH slavery and involuntary servitude?

The 13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

link to 13th Amendment

Seems strange doesn't it?
Why in the world would our esteemed representatives not outlaw only slavery OR only involuntary servitude.
They are both the same thing... Right? It seems a bit redundant.

Like all law, this was done for a very specific purpose.

The framers of both the 13th and 14th Amendments wanted to make 100% certain that voluntary servitude was wholly legitimate and constitutionally acceptable.

Because voluntary servitude is the essence of citizenship, and you will soon see that a citizen is no different than a subject.

Do you remember this segment of the quote from the OP-

It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.


Prior to the establishment of both the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Organic Act of 1871, free people of America were sovereign State Citizens with inalienable rights guaranteed by each state's constitution.
The states were united under a federalized constitution that expressly forbid and denied this central entity the ability to GOVERN State Citizens.

The first ten amendments to the constitution were written as limitations on this central authority and NOT guaranteed rights, while Article 1 section 8 listed the strictly limited powers granted to this central authority.
Powers that were granted by the people.

The government was under the authority of the people.
The war between the states flipped the script.
The people now live under the authority of the government.

Prior to the Organic Act of 1871, we had a centralized government with limited power.
After the Organic Act, the District of Columbia became a city-state independent of America with a constitution virtually identical to the original Constitution for the united States.

The Organic Act established DC as a municipal corporation with its constitution as a charter listing limited privileges granted to the newly dubbed citizens of USA inc.
Subjects that voluntarily submitted to servitude under a central federal authority.

The Constitution ceased to be a document that limited government power.
Each State Citizen's rights were no longer inalienable by State Constitution.

They became jurisdictional privileges granted by the new US Constitution.

For proof of this, look at the legal terms incorporation and reverse incorporation.

The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to everyone, making both newly freed slaves and prior sovereign citizens property under the jurisdiction of a Central Government.

This is the very thing that the original constitution was written to avoid.

The 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

link to 14th amendment

The new Federal Government made the slaves think that they were free while making everybody slaves.
edit on 13/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: minor stuff



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges


Do you really think that you are free?
Because you are not. Not at all.



I'm just as free as it's possible to be in the world today, with the exception that I can't smoke in bars anymore. (my state government took that liberty away)


I think that this interpretation of history that you present is really inadequate to establish that people aren't free. I think it's wrong, but that's really beside the point.

What might convince me is some evidence that previously existing rights have been removed or infringed in practice.

I'd be interested in knowing which freedoms have been denied me.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 



I think that this interpretation of history that you present is really inadequate to establish that people aren't free. I think it's wrong, but that's really beside the point.

What might convince me is some evidence that previously existing rights have been removed or infringed in practice.

I'd be interested in knowing which freedoms have been denied me.


How in the world can you think that the information that I presented is inadequate?

I quoted, word for word, the USA inc. constitution.

I explained exactly why the changes were made. Changes that superficially appear unimportant, but nothing in law is unimportant.
Words have very specific meaning, legally, and if you don't know the meaning... tough squat.

Do you want to know what rights you lost?

Considering that your rights were inalienable as granted by your state's constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, you could literally do anything that wanted unless your behavior infringed upon someone else.


-A crime existed if and only if a victim existed, and then the victim had to prove in a court of law that the accused had violated their god given rights.

-Statutes governing behavior did not exist because a jury had the ultimate say in deciding if rights were violated.

-Juries were not given instructions because they could vote however they wished.
IN SPITE OF THE LAW (you can still do this, just don't let a judge know that you know this).
A jury trial was designed to be the last safeguard against tyranny, a jury was not simply meant to follow the orders of a judge when deciding guilt or innocence.

-Senators were elected by each state's house of representatives because the original purpose of the senate was to limit abuse of power by Congress. Senators originally represented the needs of their state, not individuals, because they were not elected by popular vote.

-We had NO income tax.

-Money had value as defined by a unit of silver. The dollar was based on silver, not debt by issue of bonds. This is why we have an astronomical national debt.

-It was illegal for representatives of the federal government to accept gifts per the original 13th Amendment.

-War could only be declared by an act of congress. Police actions did not exist.

-When you owned a piece of land... You actually owned the piece of land. You were not a tenant of the property making you subject to the codes chartered by local municipal corporations.

-YOU WERE A SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL. YOU WERE A SELF-GOVERNING INDIVIDUAL.


Something tells me that you have been in a dominant/submissive relationship with the USA Inc. for so long that you might be enjoying it.
edit on 13/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 
Indisputably ?? that's a pretty strong opinion without any backup, don't ya think?

freedom, as people live it today is a far cry from the "freedom" for which our ancestors fought. including those "slaves" of the day.

i would presume you know nothing of the underground or you wouldn't have made such a generalized, non-truthful comment.

fyi ... escaping NY slaves often traveled South into PA. Maryland slaves often traveled E toward Deleware or W toward Ohio. many from Kentucky traveled W & NW toward Illinois and others traveled E toward Iowa.

point is ... North wasn't the primary travel direction for all. try looking at a map of the times.

If you are referring to GA, AL, LA, FL ... well yeah, they had to travel North 2/3 states before a free state was within reach and some were closer if they traveled more W or E ... it would depend on their starting point.

ever lived in one of the "underground railroad" homes, in any state ??
which direction did the tunnels lead ??
from the ones i've lived in, in PA, most headed East or West.

there were a few with N/S tunnels that enabled easier passage through the Cumberland Gap region but their final destination was not N or S cause both neighboring states were slave states.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 
FSA ?? from 1850 to 1860, you get 40 yrs outta that ??
oooook


CA was not established via previously practiced Constitutionally accepted precedence.

hmmmm, a criminal is a criminal is a criminal, how 'bout we decide to free all the prisoners cause they might not be a criminal in Your state ??


and no, 35 & 40 yrs of abuses does not add up to that single cause.

if you read the reference materials posted, you wouldn't need an explanation.
it's all part of history, maybe you just haven't learned it yet ??



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 
from the opening paragraph of your link ...

franklinsopus.org...
In this case, “lie” is too harsh, so I will instead examine, “A misunderstanding that has been told often enough to become the truth.” This misunderstanding is the traditional view that “In the presidential election of 1860, Lincoln was not on the ballot in the South.”
-- snip --
In reality, no candidate was “on the ballot” in any of the states (either North or South) because balloting as we know it today did not exist.
-- snip --
Instead of entering a booth to select from a list of candidates, voters brought their ballots with them. So, voters anywhere in the Union could have cast their ballots for any candidate. If someone in Maine wanted to vote for John Breckinridge, they could. And, if someone in Louisiana wanted to vote for Lincoln, they could. (South Carolina represented the only exception, for in the Palmetto State the legislature cast the state’s electoral votes and therefore individual South Carolinians did not vote for any candidate.) So, Lincoln’s failure to win any popular votes in many of the southern states stems from the Republicans’ decision to neither campaign nor distribute Republican ballots in those states not to the decision of southern election officials.
while your "cliff notes" style statement is somewhat correct, it's certainly not complete.

from same link ...

First, the contention that southern states kept Lincoln’s name off the ballot is often tied to an attempt to “blame” the Civil War on the South.
-- snip --
The “blame” argument itself is somewhat trite. There’s clearly enough blame to go around on both sides. Instead, it helps us to better understand the South’s reaction to Lincoln’s election.
it does seem as though you and a few others are insistent upon blaming someone or something, why is that ??



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I suppose I should have said the underground railroad led towards free states, and not slave states. Thank you for the information.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
FSA ?? from 1850 to 1860, you get 40 yrs outta that ??
oooook


I wasn't referring to the Fugitive Slave Act, but to the Fugitive Slave Clause of article four of the United States constitution.
en.wikipedia.org...
presumably this is the part of the constitution you claim the Northern State Legislatures had violated.


Originally posted by Honor93
CA was not established via previously practiced Constitutionally accepted precedence.


I call BS on this claim. California was admitted to the US by act of congress, just like all of the states after the thirteen original colonies. This is in conformity with the constitution... also in article four...



New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.






Originally posted by Honor93
hmmmm, a criminal is a criminal is a criminal, how 'bout we decide to free all the prisoners cause they might not be a criminal in Your state ??



No comment.


Originally posted by Honor93
and no, 35 & 40 yrs of abuses does not add up to that single cause.


Please name the abuses that were not directly related to Slavery, and you might have an interesting argument there.


Originally posted by Honor93
if you read the reference materials posted, you wouldn't need an explanation.
it's all part of history, maybe you just haven't learned it yet ??


Well, let's not make this personal.
edit on 7/13/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
it does seem as though you and a few others are insistent upon blaming someone or something, why is that ??


I'm interested in understanding the causes that motivated the North and the South during the civil war. I have come to the conclusion that the South fought to preserve and extend the institution of chattel slavery. When I say this I am not talking about the individual soldiers, but rather the political leadership that directed secession and the war.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Honor93
 


I suppose I should have said the underground railroad led towards free states, and not slave states. Thank you for the information.
i would have agreed with that and probably pointed out that direction of "free states" was entirely dependant on your starting point.
many NY slaves traveled N and S to escape their situations.
point is, there was no "one size fits all" description for ANY part of the civil war experience.

believe me, i have no desire to repeat said history ... and, i can't think of anyone who does.
however, the best way to avoid repeating it is to understand it.

all of it, not just the parts that feed our frenzy, whatever that may be.
individual and state sovereignty is the side on which i stand.

it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with slavery.
i wouldn't have been for it then and i'm not for it now.
(for some reason, i just had the weirdest musical flashback ... anyone else remember ... domo-lau-regato MrRoboto, domo ... i am a free man, i am not a number !!)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

yes, that is one of the parts but nearly 100yrs after it was consciously agreed upon, nothing changed. there should have been "negotiations" regarding an amendment long before 1860, wouldn't you agree ??

while i perceive their (Congress') lack of action a total failure, i do not blame Lincoln directly for either the secessions or the war.

do you want the truth ?
i blame the POLITICIANS and media on all sides, {not just one or two of them but the whole dang bunch} especially now that i am aware of a more complete story.

the politicians were entrusted with tasks they clearly failed to perform.
not just from one year or even one generation, but 100 yr perpetual failure.
that's my opinion, right or wrong, it's where i believe the blame belongs.

why would you want to separate slavery from any of the problems of the day ??
i thought you were of the opinion, everything revolved around slavery ??
sorry, not following you at all there.

history is personal, perhaps you are not taking it personal enough?

are you familiar with the battles in Kansas or Missouri ??
7 years BEFORE the civil war.
yes, it was Pro vs Anti slavery opponents, that was the battle of the day.
(try to keep in mind, many of the aggressions were begun via Abolitionists, not slave owners)
www.legendsofamerica.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 





I have come to the conclusion that the South fought to preserve and extend the institution of chattel slavery. When I say this I am not talking about the individual soldiers, but rather the political leadership that directed secession and the war.


I do not understand how you have come to this conclusion.

Because you have posted absolutely no source material substantiating your claim.
And you absolutely refuse to make any effort to validate your belief.


You have been shown numerous historically accurate documents...

Documents that explicitly state the reasons for secession, and these reasons pertain to recognized constitutional law.
Your continual focus on the institution of slavery is a red herring intended to draw attention away from the actual issues.

Slavery did not need to be preserved.
The institution of slavery was practiced by constitutional guarantee in BOTH Union and Confederate States.

Your refusal to recognize the beliefs and values of the era in question limit your ability to grasp the significant repercussions of this historic epoch.

Again, there was no need to preserve an institution guaranteed by constitutional decree that was continually upheld in courts through common law stare decisis.
I have explained to you in excruciating detail the intent of the original constitution and its role in mediating behavior between the States.

The accurate and accepted truth is that 14 different abolitionist states passed personal liberty laws that were in direct violation of the binding agreement known as the original Constitution for the united States of America.

Instead of declaring war upon the abolitionist states in order to force them to comply with mutually agreed upon constitutional compact, the confederate states seceded in the same spirit as our founding fathers.
However unlike our founding fathers, the formation of the Union was a voluntary act and not an act of imperial terrorism.

The reason that the Federal Government could not force the abolitionist states to comply with Article 4 section 2 clause 3 of the Constitution is because the States themselves granted authority to the Central Government.
By not holding true to this constitutional compact, the abolitionist states rendered the original Constitution for the united States non-binding.

The confederate states seceded because the original Constitution was no longer valid.

This concept is difficult for you to understand because it runs contrary to everything that you have been taught about our all powerful federal government.

I explained to you the nature of US citizenship and the reasons that we are now subordinate to a central government rather than the central government being subordinate to State Citizens.

You have seen the wording of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which clearly show that the bill of rights is no longer a list of limitations placed upon the federal government, but yet are now privileges and immunities granted to citizens who are subject thereof to the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

Honor 93 provided you with a link that explained the reasons for South Carolina's secession, reasons explaining the degree to which the abolitionist states enjoyed sharing the wealth of the southern states through burdensome tariffs and taxes while also violating constitutional guarantees supporting this institution and undermining Southern political clout.

This is because the true goal of the abolitionists was NOT promotion of the well being of slaves.

The true goal of the abolitionist states was the establishment of sectional superiority through a powerful central government with the authority to remove individual rights and liberties.

You have been trained by Northern schoolteachers while learning their version of the war through Northern textbooks.

You seem to want to make this a debate about slavery and to quote Honor93-

no one, including me, has indicated that slavery wasn't an issue.
why are you so afraid to discuss ANY of the other issues ???


I am not here to defend the institution of slavery.
I am trying to open your eyes to the fact that the original Constitution for the united States of America was written to ensure that the Federal Government of the US would not evolve into a tyrannical central government, but that exact thing has happened.

And it happened because of the abolitionists' actions.
Tyranny was their true intent.
You have been shown undeniable evidence, to deny this truth is willful ignorance.
edit on 14/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: little stuff



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 
kudos and thank you for the indepth explanations, as i've learned a few more things along the way.
i forgot about the 13th and it's impact regarding voluntary servitude.
thanks for the detailed explanation and reminder.

when i was younger, i used believe it didn't make a difference, we were all equally screwed.
when i got to be a young adult, i realized how bad we were screwing ourselves.
now that i'm an older adult, i thoroughly understand that cliche (it's so Not) "if i only knew then what i know now" ... and how deeply it applies.

it's vewry vewry difficult to step off the wagon train and take a moment to see where it's really headed.
however, those who have been brave enough to do so, see the light ahead of the tunnel.
once that tunnel-vision is locked in, a peripheral view is no longer possible.

thanks again for your contributions, they are beyond eloquent and quite informative



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

if what you said is true, then begin your adventure with source documents.
{many posted throughout the thread}
you appear to be lacking enough information to form any conclusion.

please read all of what kyviecaldges said ... read it over and over, til it sinks in.

it is the complete history you should know.
as there are 3 sides to every story, no conclusion should be formed until all sides are considered in full.

curious question for you --> do you know which Northern state had the greatest number of black slave owners?
i think you really should give this a read ... americancivilwar.com...

ETA: before you skip over the above link, here's an excerpt regarding slave magnates of LA.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

and with regard to SCarolina ...

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

so, while i do not dispute your theory for a conclusion, i submit that those "slave owners of the South" most interested in maintaining the status quo were also, black folk, themselves.




edit on 14-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Slavery did not need to be preserved.


Not according to those southern delegates and elites, they made it clear for their motivations of secession, that of the african slave. Lincoln's opponents, most whom were in the South, made it clear that the institution of slavery would not be protected under a Lincoln administration. The vast majority of historians agree on this fact, there are plenty of references out there, simply ignoring them and claiming otherwise does not change anything.

I say good for those men and women back in those times who risked their lives, their livelyhoods, to help run away slaves start a new life. There were folks, not just northerners but a minority of southern white men and women, who made efforts, who took risks, in order to free black slaves. In the end the slave owners, and their southern political sympathizers, decided to try their luck with secession, and they lost dearly for it.

The civil war settled the question of the "right to secession", it settled the question of the institution of slavery as a "right" of state governments. Whether or not you think the Confederate States were in their "right" to secede and preserve the institution is irrelevant, the victors, Lincoln and his Northern Union forces, settled that argument by force. The worst thing about all this is that had the South not packed up their toys after Lincoln's election win, things would have faired far better for them. What's left of them are their sympathizers more than 150 years after, complaining about how unfair the war was on the internet.


This is because the true goal of the abolitionists was NOT promotion of the well being of slaves.


How exactly would you know that every abolitionist had a core agenda other than that of the well being of the slaves? There were over a million pro-abolitionists during those times, so how can you account for each and every one of them holding a core agenda other than to free men and women of color? I'm fairly certain you can't accout for every one of those people back in those times anymore than I can account for every southerner supporting slavery. I'm sure you know better than to make those kinds of generalizations.

Confederate sympathizers talk about how people unfairly generalize the southerners at the time as all pro-slavery, yet they turn around and generalize all northerners and abolitionists.






top topics



 
100
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join