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

page: 2
100
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
What we need is literal factual history, and a press that prospers only in the dissemination of those actual facts. From thence we can proceed to flog one another over what was and wasn't proper,. moral, or just.


You mean an actor reciting Stonewall Jackson's speech with dramatic, sweeping camera angles and sentimental violin music in the background in a $60 million Hollywood blockbuster film doesn't constitute "literal, factual history?"

Tell me it ain't so.




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Great speech! There is more to the Civil War than just slavery. Many people whom have not studied at great depth usually miss the other causes. It is not so neat and tidy. As for President, Abraham Lincoln, being a tyrant? To each their own, and he could be a tyrant to some and a hero to others. A matter of opinion. If I can recall, you have gone on about this subject once before? If you think Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant or that the South was unduly treated? More power to you. It sure is great we can discuss converging matters of opinion so freely. I did not live then, and I take it you did not either.

I am privy to Lincoln arresting dissenters, journalists, suspending Habeas Corpus, and enacting other potential violations of the Constitution. It remains a sore spot for many. However, there was a rebellion going on, and open warfare. It would not be good for the North to have insurrection spreading into the Northern States as the armies were trying to suppress rebellion in the South. I hope you can see that. As for who, what, where, when, and why? It is not necessary, because as soon as the first shots were fired all the semantics went out the _ Families were decimated, Southern towns were burned to the ground, atrocities were committed, and almost a million soldiers lost their lives. It happened, but I am glad it ended.

Furthermore, if Lincoln was such a tyrant? Why were the majority of the Confederate leadership pardoned, and granted restoration of citizenship after the war? A tyrant would have executed the whole lot of them and anyone that looked like them. The country was in a state of emergency and drastic measures were taken. That is the crux of the matter. Personally, I thought he handled it well in response to the dire circumstances before him. Of course, only my opinion, and feel free to disagree if you so wish.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Well, the "clear cut" arguments concerning the Civil War is what I have a problem with. First, those who claim that slavery was not the biggest cause of the Civil War are simply re-writing history. I'm not saying that it was the only cause, but it was right there at the forefront. To say that it was not is to ignore the countless political compromises and all of the drama concerning new states joining the Union. You would also be ignoring the political parties disappearing and being created that were largely based on the issue of slavery. The Republican Party, for example. Second, the Civil War may have cemented the power of the federal government but to say that since the end of the Civil War the federal government has been in total control is nonsense. More federal control came as a result of the income tax, Senators becoming popularly elected, the federal reserve and the federal response during the Depression than came as a result of the Civil War. Of course, all of these things did not happen until the 1900s.

Finally, to those that quote Lincoln: for every quote to be found that "supports" slavery or otherwise slights slaves or former slaves one can be found that says the opposite. Its not clear cut concerning blacks when it comes to Lincoln.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Polaris2
Well, the "clear cut" arguments concerning the Civil War is what I have a problem with. First, those who claim that slavery was not the biggest cause of the Civil War are simply re-writing history. I'm not saying that it was the only cause, but it was right there at the forefront. To say that it was not is to ignore the countless political compromises and all of the drama concerning new states joining the Union. You would also be ignoring the political parties disappearing and being created that were largely based on the issue of slavery. The Republican Party, for example. Second, the Civil War may have cemented the power of the federal government but to say that since the end of the Civil War the federal government has been in total control is nonsense. More federal control came as a result of the income tax, Senators becoming popularly elected, the federal reserve and the federal response during the Depression than came as a result of the Civil War. Of course, all of these things did not happen until the 1900s.

Finally, to those that quote Lincoln: for every quote to be found that "supports" slavery or otherwise slights slaves or former slaves one can be found that says the opposite. Its not clear cut concerning blacks when it comes to Lincoln.



“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

Charles Dickens, 1862

“It is stated in books and papers that Southern children read and study that all the blood shedding and destruction of property of that conflict was because the South rebelled without cause against the best government the world ever saw; that although Southern soldiers were heroes in the field, skillfully massed and led, they and their leaders were rebels and traitors who fought to overthrow the Union, and to preserve human slavery, and that their defeat was necessary for free government and the welfare of the human family. As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge, and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes.”
Colonel Richard Henry Lee, C.S.A.

“I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender.”
William Mack Lee (Robert E. Lee’s black servant)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
reply to post by xstealth
 


Furthermore, if Lincoln was such a tyrant? Why were the majority of the Confederate leadership pardoned, and granted restoration of citizenship after the war? A tyrant would have executed the whole lot of them and anyone that looked like them. The country was in a state of emergency and drastic measures were taken. That is the crux of the matter. Personally, I thought he handled it well in response to the dire circumstances before him. Of course, only my opinion, and feel free to disagree if you so wish.


Because he didn't want public trials after the war, because he was worried about the consequences of himself in court.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Thing is, this is true of every war. The winner writes the history. Had the south won, we'd all have slaves and would learn confederate history.

That quote is nothing but someone seeing the inevitable end coming, and whining about losing.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Polaris2
 




Finally, to those that quote Lincoln: for every quote to be found that "supports" slavery or otherwise slights slaves or former slaves one can be found that says the opposite. Its not clear cut concerning blacks when it comes to Lincoln.


With Lincoln you have to look at the context, Lincoln the man or Lincoln the President

Lincoln the man wrote:



In 1855, Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed, a personal friend and slave owner in Kentucky: You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. ... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. . . . How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. 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 take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy


Lincoln the President wrote:


On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty" --that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President--and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.


It wasn't until later in the war that Lincoln the President became the Lincoln the abolitionist.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalWabbit
 


One of the biggest reasons the north pushed the 'free the slaves' agenda was to keep England out of the war, they were supplying the confederacy with some supplies.

The north knew they wouldn't send troops to fight for the institution of slavery, so they heavily pushed this agenda as a political move to keep England at bay. If slavery was never mentioned by the north, it's possible Englands involvement in the Civil war might have been MUCH more than it was.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


quote
"it's possible Englands involvement in the Civil war might have been MUCH more than it was."
unquote

England could have sent every soldier it had,,,and they still would have lost.
And any soldier worth his rank, will tell u why.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
This is one of my FAV memes ... "the Civil War wasn't about slavery."

Anytime someone repeats it they drop it with a reverential hush and bombshell like drama as though it was the first time it had been proffered, as opposed to simply being a tired old meme.

The Civil War was indeed about a variety of issues - the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Recovery Laws, the Walker Tariff - all of which were directly related to slavery!



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Castillo
This is one of my FAV memes ... "the Civil War wasn't about slavery."

Anytime someone repeats it they drop it with a reverential hush and bombshell like drama as though it was the first time it had been proffered, as opposed to simply being a tired old meme.

The Civil War was indeed about a variety of issues - the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Recovery Laws, the Walker Tariff - all of which were directly related to slavery!


The civil war happened for one reason, and one reason alone-to keep the south from seceding. All other factors, including slavery, lead to this. But had the south not tried to secede, the war doesnt happen.

So, no, the civil war was not about slavery.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Castillo
This is one of my FAV memes ... "the Civil War wasn't about slavery."

Anytime someone repeats it they drop it with a reverential hush and bombshell like drama as though it was the first time it had been proffered, as opposed to simply being a tired old meme.

The Civil War was indeed about a variety of issues - the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Recovery Laws, the Walker Tariff - all of which were directly related to slavery!


The civil war happened for one reason, and one reason alone-to keep the south from seceding. All other factors, including slavery, lead to this. But had the south not tried to secede, the war doesnt happen.

So, no, the civil war was not about slavery.


the South tried to secede to protect the institution of slavery from an increasingly hostile north

So, yes, the Civil War was about slavery.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Castillo

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Castillo
This is one of my FAV memes ... "the Civil War wasn't about slavery."

Anytime someone repeats it they drop it with a reverential hush and bombshell like drama as though it was the first time it had been proffered, as opposed to simply being a tired old meme.

The Civil War was indeed about a variety of issues - the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Recovery Laws, the Walker Tariff - all of which were directly related to slavery!


The civil war happened for one reason, and one reason alone-to keep the south from seceding. All other factors, including slavery, lead to this. But had the south not tried to secede, the war doesnt happen.

So, no, the civil war was not about slavery.


the South tried to secede to protect the institution of slavery from an increasingly hostile north

So, yes, the Civil War was about slavery.




Thats right along the lines of saying a cough causes a cold.

Lincoln himself said that he would gladly keep slavery if there was a way to do it without the south seceding. Slavery was a catalyst, not the cause.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
"Lincoln himself said that he would gladly keep slavery if there was a way to do it without the south seceding."

And that is the Civil War in a nutshell.

how does an American,, newly created American,,living at that period of History,,
reconcile,,
"For ALL MEN are EQUAL before GOD,
AND have inalieable God given, RIGHT
to pursue ,
LIFE,
LIBERTY and
HAPPYNESS,,
as each American,, see's fit.
each American,, not some. each.
and not be against the ownership papers,,
, of another human being, freely ,traded at Market.?
or being part of the "Collateral of an Estate."

difficult decisions both spiritually and financially,,

Spirit won ,,in my opinion.
and a person could have ownership papers on not just Negro,, there were, Asians,,Indians, Mexicans,,
but the thing was,, a person could legally own in a Court of Law. a Person.
regardless of color.
edit on 9-7-2012 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Castillo

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Castillo
This is one of my FAV memes ... "the Civil War wasn't about slavery."

Anytime someone repeats it they drop it with a reverential hush and bombshell like drama as though it was the first time it had been proffered, as opposed to simply being a tired old meme.

The Civil War was indeed about a variety of issues - the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Recovery Laws, the Walker Tariff - all of which were directly related to slavery!


The civil war happened for one reason, and one reason alone-to keep the south from seceding. All other factors, including slavery, lead to this. But had the south not tried to secede, the war doesnt happen.

So, no, the civil war was not about slavery.


the South tried to secede to protect the institution of slavery from an increasingly hostile north

So, yes, the Civil War was about slavery.




Thats right along the lines of saying a cough causes a cold.

Lincoln himself said that he would gladly keep slavery if there was a way to do it without the south seceding. Slavery was a catalyst, not the cause.


the cold was slavery; the cough was the Civil War

the Civil War had nothing to do with Lincoln; the War was destined before the 1860 election - it had to do with congressional action, specifically the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Import Tariff, the latter which was strangling the south's economy - both were tied directly to punitive interests advanced by abolitionist northern congressmen



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Castillo
 


people were chatteled. period.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Castillo
 



So, now, there you go, pointing out that slavery was not the cause of the war.

Again, it was a catalyst. Not the cause. Period.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Castillo
 


seriously u did not know this:

chat·tel
   /ˈtʃætl/ Show Spelled[chat-l]
noun
1.
Law . a movable article of personal property.
2.
any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land.
3.
a slave.


people were chatteled. period.

property,, moving ,,movable ,,property,, like ur cow. for instance,
clear enough??



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






top topics



 
100
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join