Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17which "law"
reply to post by Honor93
i would tend to disagree ... equality under the law would have prevented the need for secession, the desire to fight and possibly averted the war entirely.
Your right, if the southern states had considered granting African people greater equality under the law, there would have been no need for secession or war. Good point.
are you referencing, exactly ?
Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17uh no ... pick one or a bunch of them, it doesn't matter to me ... however, laws are laws and there weren't many that the South were evading.
reply to post by Honor93
All of them.
African slaves were being excluded from the entire Bill of RightsAlmost ... ALL slaves were being excluded from the BoR.
The abolition movement was pretty much exclusively a northern thingare you sure about that ??
www.libraryindex.com...
The evangelical Protestant sects were in the forefront of the agitation against slavery. The Methodists took a strong stand during the first decades of the nineteenth century against the continuance of slavery by making it sinful for church members to hold slaves;
but in 1836 Southern Methodists counterattacked by insisting that the General Conference of the Church pronounce slavery a blessing and not a curse. Despite bitter opposition from abolitionist ministers, the Conference circulated a pastoral letter advising against further discussion of slavery, and denouncing abolitionist activity by Northern ministers. In 1844, the issue finally divided the Methodist Church into a Northern and Southern Church. A similar fate awaited the Baptists when, in 1845, the Southern Baptists seceded to form independent organizations for home and foreign missions. The dispute lasted longer in the Presbyterian Church, which underwent final disruption only shortly before the Civil War. Religious disunity cast an ominous shadow over the future of political union. In a nation deeply committed to moral verities, it was not unreasonable to wonder whether a people divided by opposing convictions on the morality of slavery could long remain united.
Now 99% of americans are suffering under unfair rules and taxation not just the southern states. .
It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do - to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men—not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.
But I have found no compelling evidence to suggest slavery did not play a major role in the conflictnor will you.
) Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. This is done, not in hostility to others; not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit, but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our duty to transmit unshorn to our children.
Originally posted by Bildo
Originally posted by FreeAmericanInhabitant
reply to post by Bildo
Hey Bildo care you PM me about the UCC-1 stuff? i would like to talk with ya, also be sure to check out the site i posted earlier, its got some really good info on it!
This is only my 2nd post so im not sure how to send PM's sorryedit on 7-12-2012 by FreeAmericanInhabitant because: im a ATS newb LOL
I PM'd you. Go to "My ATS" in the top bar of the page. Yuo'll see a message from me. You can also click on my name to the left of this post and that will take you to my page. As you can see, no one is interested in getting out from under Corp US jurisdiction which would solve ALL of their problems.
Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by MrInquisitive
When the sun is in your eyes it can be very hard to see. Slavery was a nightmare, when I was little I would thank God or luck that I wasn't born a slave.
However, slavery was decreasing in the border states Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky like it had all but dissapeared in the northern states, for moral reasons backed up by economic forces. And the soil in the Deep South was getting used up from constant cotton planting, so the South would have had to change. Technology was constantly increasing its economic ability. Slavery was going away, just like jobs are going away today.
If slavery was the whole issue then why didn't we free the Poles after World War Two, or beat the Russians when we had the A-Bomb and they didn't, or start the Civil War in 1850, or wait to start the Civil War until the North was sure to win? Because war comes from the top down and it only happens when the top gets a benefit.
In 1861 the South could have won. Where would the slaves be then? In a few more decades the North would have won for sure or slavery would have been gone. The leaders who started the Civil War look to be grabbing at their last chance to kill alot of God -Fearing, independant, free thinking americans and estabish a central power base before the problem went away, one way or another.
