The truth about slavery and the civil war.

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
reply to post by The Old American

 

Well after the war he was giving speeches on racial equality so...

Uh, no. He, Lincoln, was dead before the war ended. Ever hear of John Wilkes Booth and Ford theater? Perhaps you are thinking of the animatronic Lincoln at Disneyland...

Originally posted by Labrynth2012
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

A little more historical notation here:

There was an ORIGINAL 13th Amendment to the Constitution. That Amendment made it clear that LAWYERS were NOT to hold public office or serve the PUBLIC trust. They act like it never existed, however, it did.

Truth be told .... If Lawyers were never allowed to serve in office, we would not be in the position we are in today.
The Founders knew that lawyers would screw the system up and indeed they have. Look at legislation written today. Not even a 3rd grader could understand the laws the way they are written and they are written by lawyers, law students and paralegals. They are not written by anyone with COMMON SENSE who understands the COMMON LAW.

Finally, the SLAVES were taken out of the hands of the SLAVE OWNERS and given to the GOVERNMENT of the United States. They became CONTROLLED by the Federal Government and their rights given to them by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment only applies to SLAVES and their descendents, NOT to the free and unbonded whites, native americans and other immigrants. So really, if you want to know this TRUTHFULLY, today's blacks are descendents of SLAVES and are ENSLAVED by the Federal Government. They just don't realize it yet. This SOCIALISM that they are wanting and supporting only further ENSLAVES THEM !

I'm going to make a generalized statement and follow it with examples. Blacks today do not act like human beings. They feel entitled and use racism to justify their behavior. Watch Hard Core Pawn on TruTv some time. The majority of people who give the Gold's a hard time are blacks. Yes, there are some white's that do it too, but watch the attitudes, listen to the language used and the behaviors. These are the people who support OBAMA. These are the people who feel that they are owed something. If anyone owes anyone anything, they owe white america an apology for their lack of morals and un ethical behaviors. Also, statistics show that there is more black on black violence in America than ever in our history. The few blacks who have good moral and ethical standards are out numbered by those who don't.

Obama's mission in his 1st and 2nd term in office is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Taking from Whites and giving to blacks in what is tantamount to Civil War Reparations over Slavery. I believe this attitude is wrong.

I am not racist, but I am an honest hard working American who believes that anyone can get to be at any independent level of wealth if they work hard enough for it. If they treat people like they want to be treated, with kindness and respect. We can all be equal in the eyes of God, but what sets us apart is the way we treat each other.

Actually, you are manifestly racist, and quite ignorant and spreading "untruths" (I'm being most generous here with this term). I'll address your racism at the end; first, though, I am going to deal with your false statements.

First, where is this "original" 13th Amendment that forbade lawyers from holding office or serving in the government? [crickets chirping]

Second, the E.P. did not put the southern slaves under the control of the North. It freed them. Period.

Third the 14 Amendment gave equal protection under the law to ALL people, not just former slaves.

Fourth, the rest of what you have to say after that is just pure poppycock, which is indeed racist and mendacious to the extreme.

Your own statement: "Blacks today do not act like human beings." Hmm, sounds like racism, smells like racism, and tastes like racism. Yep, you're racist alright.

Originally posted by roguetechie
It's not just the civil war that is the subject of broad stroked revisionist history. The entire history of slavery in the America's is in fact represented as something totally different than what it actually was.

For example in both my junior high school and high school we were forced to watch a mini series called "Roots" that purports to tell the story of the average slave in the americas. In the opening scenes of this mini series it shows the crew of the slave ship tromping the jungle and bashing africans on the head so they can load them on the ship and sell them to southerners. While this may have in fact happened a few times over the history of slavery in North America the vast majority of slaves were acquired in a much different way.

The reality is that the vast majority of slaves were in fact bought by the slave traders in slave markets across africa and the middle east. Yes that's right virginia most slaves were SOLD to the traders by other BLACK PEOPLE!!!

But in junior high and high school history classes they omit this interesting little tidbit instead going with the much more sensational and white guilt inducing Bash them over the head and throw them on the ships narrative.

I wonder why this is....?

Also if you REALLY want to score some bonus points you should do a little comparative research into the treatment of slaves in North America versus the treatment of the slaves that were unfortunate enough to have to stay in Africa. I assure you what you will find is well worth the read if you can stomach it, and very enlightening.

First off, Roots was about a particular person's ancestors -- not some generic description of all African slaves brought to the US.

And no, you're wrong. Southerners didn't buy their slaves from Africans. They bought them from Caucasian -- British and American/Colonial -- slave traders who ran slave ships. The slaves were first captured by other Africans and then sold to European/Colonial and Arab slave traders who then sold them to the slave traders with ships, who then shipped them across the Atlantic in the most horrific conditions and then sold them in the American colonies and for a short time the United states. Imported slaves were outlawed around 1809; after that slaves came from offspring of slaves already in the US.

To try to claim the entire slave trade was run by black Africans is the height of ignorance and/or mendacity. Yes, they were a part of the system, but a whole lot of white people were involved and made a fortune off of this despicable system. Moreover, you seem to be trying to shift the blame away from the final owners of the slaves, who used them for economic and political power.

SHAMEFUL. Absolutely shameful of you trying peddle your slavery excuses and blaming it all on Africans. But again, I am never actually shocked by slavery apologists and the racist fellow travelers.

Thank you, mendacious slavery apologist, for playing. Buh-bye.

reply to post by Honor93

There's no point in addressing your inanity, so I am not going bother for the most part.

But let's just take one of your pointless points: slavery in New York state. Yes, there had been slavery in New York for a long time, mostly when it was British colony. Slavery ended there around 1800. After that NY was a free state. So what does NY's prior history have to do with the playing out of secession by the Southern states and the US Civil War? Not much. Was there still racism in NY state at the time of the Civil War. Sure. So what? It was by then a free state and stayed with the Union and fought in the Civil War.

Your attempts to portray NY's prior slavery history as being hypocritical or whatever is just pointless and pathetic. You could also claim that all the colonists and, later, Americans of British descent had ancestors involved in human sacrifice. Again, so what? We are talking about the institution and politics of slavery as it was in the mid 19th century, when NY had long since abolished slavery. You just don't seem able to get this.

And were there a few native American and possibly a few European slaves in the ante-bellum US? Maybe. Perhaps. But so what? Really, so what? There was slavery and that was ended through the conflict of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. What point are you trying to make. You seem to be trying to make it that slavery wasn't a racist thing, when in fact the VAST majority of slaves in the US in any case were of African descent.

You're trying to make some kind of point that has no point. You're other points are just about as pointless, hence they don't merit my effort to refute them. Your inanity is unparalleled.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


His last speech was given a few days before the war officially ended, which included points on racial equality. Shouldn't have technically have said after, but it was close enough.

Don't know why you're getting all snarky over a technicality...

showcase.netins.net...

reply to post by MrInquisitive

here, fixed this for ya ...

First off, Roots was a fictional story about a particular person's imagined ancestors ...

it was an awarding-winning plagiarism of Courlander's The African.

ncccha.blogspot.com...
In 1993, a year after Haley's death, literary detective Philip Nobile did his best to blow the whistle on what he calls "one of the great literary hoaxes of modern times." In February of that year, he published "Uncovering Roots" in the influential alternative publication, the Village Voice. The article brought to a larger public the story of the Courlander suit and the Mills' genealogy. Nobile also revealed that Haley's editor at Playboy magazine, the very white and Jewish Murray Fisher, did much of the book's writing.

In the British Isles, the Nobile expose was a big story. It got serious coverage in all the major newspapers, and the BBC later made a documentary. The American cultural establishment, however, continued to turn its back on the story.

and southerners, bought many of their slaves from the Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Carribean Islanders and African traders.
perhaps a non-fictional book like Amistad would help clear the fog from your brain.

Moreover, you seem to be trying to shift the blame away from the final owners of the slaves, who used them for economic and political power

in the South, those "owners" were more often than not, black men who had previously been slaves, themselves.
history doesn't lie but you sure are getting good at it.
next, you'll be claiming there is no such thing as black cowboys

reply to post by MrInquisitive

New York a free state by 1800 ??
for who ? the traders ?

perhaps you should check with the Historical Society

www.slaveryinnewyork.org...
Slavery in New York, the first of two exhibitions, spans the period from the 1600s to 1827, when slavery was legally abolished in New York State.

so, less than 35yrs later Civil War ensued but you're right, their 200+yr history played no part in it, whatsoever

yadda, yadda, yadda ... just remember, those "schools" that were burned and demolished ... yea those, they were SOUTHERN schools, remember that.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

A captured Confederate soldier in Tennessee was asked by a Union captain why they were fighting. He answered "because y'all are down here". For the vast majority of Southern troops this is why they were fighting - not to preserve slavery as only 6% of Southerners owned slaves.

You are obviously well educated and have a wealth of knowledge on the subject but fail to mention the devastation wreaked upon the South and the continuing plundering and domination of the reconstruction era. The South paid for their sins, in blood and money. 1 in 6 adult men were killed or wounded, the economy was wrecked, their labor (slaves) were gone and what little industry that existed before the war was laid waste. Yes, they lost the war, big time. Is that not enough suffering or do they deserve all the derision we can heap upon them still?

Modern politics are still a holdover from 150 years ago and are an integral part to understanding where we are and where we might be headed. Unless we can see the war from both sides we can never heal the wounds that still echo today in our 2 party system.

I understand the reason the typical, poor southerner fought for his country and countrymen -- and it is just as per the anecdote you provided. But who was responsible for the Southern states seceding? The wealthy control the establishment of the South and hence the legislatures. It was they who seceeded from the Union, and no doubt they tried to portray it to the average white southern man that it was a matter of states rights, when in fact it was about the slave-based economy.

And yes, the South paid dearly for their sins (I never claimed otherwise, and many in the North also paid dearly to bring the insurrectionists to heel), but it has also been taking it out on the former slaves since then. And clearly a significant segment of the South has yet to get over this; Vicksburg, MISS. didn't celebrate Independence day for a century (it had surrendered to Grant on July 4th, 1863.). I understand there are still tender feelings, predominantly on the side of the South, but when Southern apologists attempt to rewrite history, I call shenanigans (a polite term for it) on it.

They bring derision on themselves when they bring this matter up again and try to sweep the inconvenient facts under the rug. I am posting to a thread that is based on fallacious premises. I didn't start a thread lambasting the South, and I would never think of doing so. But I'm not going to let the Southern apologist echo chamber ring harmoniously either.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

yeah, and those Northern Antagonists won't ever quit ...no matter how many times they are proven wrong, again and again and yet again.
not so long as State Sovereignty exists.

that was goal of abolitionists, to abolish sovereignty and the battle is ongoing.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

yeah, and those Northern Antagonists won't ever quit ...no matter how many times they are proven wrong, again and again and yet again.
not so long as State Sovereignty exists.

that was goal of abolitionists, to abolish sovereignty and the battle is ongoing.

Northern antagonists, huh? Last time I checked, I didn't start this farcical thread with its fallacious ahistorical claims. And yeah, the abolitionists true goal was always just overriding states' rights; it clearly wasn't about abolition... But you are right, racist Southerners want their old system back. And to be clear, I do not think that all southerners or even a majority of them feel this way, but there is certainly a vocal minority that does.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
reply to post by The Old American

 

Well after the war he was giving speeches on racial equality so...

Uh, no. He, Lincoln, was dead before the war ended. Ever hear of John Wilkes Booth and Ford theater? Perhaps you are thinking of the animatronic Lincoln at Disneyland...

ever hear of the date April 9, 1865 ... the day General Lee surrendered ?

that was 6 days BEFORE Lincoln was shot ... you really need to brush up on your history

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

New York a free state by 1800 ??
for who ? the traders ?

perhaps you should check with the Historical Society

www.slaveryinnewyork.org...
Slavery in New York, the first of two exhibitions, spans the period from the 1600s to 1827, when slavery was legally abolished in New York State.

so, less than 35yrs later Civil War ensued but you're right, their 200+yr history played no part in it, whatsoever

yadda, yadda, yadda ... just remember, those "schools" that were burned and demolished ... yea those, they were SOUTHERN schools, remember that.

Ok, so tell me: what does NY's prior slave history have to do with the US Civil War or the causes leading up to it? You keep on bringing it up as some kind of trump card, but you fail to explain its relevance. Had there been business interests that likely had to do with slavery in New York? Highly likely. Again, so what? The importation of slaves to the US ended in 1807 (or thereabouts) and slavery was abolished in New York in 1827, so slave-holding business interests had to have sold their slaves off before then. New York was no longer directly involved in slavery. Did cloth manufacturers buy cotton from the slave-holding South? Yeah. Again, so what? There was interstate commerce among all the states, I imagine.

Had some or most of the Northern states been complicit in slavery in the past? Yes, but again, so what? They no longer were by 1860. But you keep on bringing up this historical trivia as somehow crucial in undermining the abolition movement and/or the preservation of the Union, but you fail to explain how.

The Northern states lead the abolition movement and the Northern states for moral, political and economic reasons wanted to restrict slavery to the current slave states and not allow any more. The Southern states saw the political growth and success of the paleo-Republian party, including the election of Lincoln, as a threat, so they seceded (although some seceded prior to the 1860 election) from the Union. The Union read them the riot act and the South raised arms against the Union. The Union won and ended the issue of slavery for all in the Union for ever more (or at least until the Constitution is amended on the subject).

reply to post by MrInquisitive

but there is certainly a vocal minority that does.

won't dispute that one bit but i will tell you that i am not one of them.

most of the Southerners i know don't have any fondness of yesteryear, slavery or all the political wrangling since.

that doesn't mean they will ignore the truth, the whole story or the persistency to layer lies with more lies.

it is sad to realize that after all these years, we are still inundated with lies ... more than ever.
the biggest of all being abolishing slavery.

reply to post by Honor93


Man, you're claiming the primary owners of slaves in the South were blacks??????? Give us a break. You're the Southern slavery apologist version of a Holocaust denier. I don't dispute there were some black freedmen who in turn owned slaves, but they were by no means the majority of slave owners, nor were they predominantly -- if at all -- in the South.

You clearly live in Bizarro-World Dixie. Were the leaders of the KKK also predominantly black, and were all the lynchings of blacks in the late 19th century and the first third of the 20th century conducted by blacks? Were the Jim Crow laws instigated by blacks? Was segregation instigated by blacks?

I can't believe your B.S., i.e. bad scholarship..

reply to post by Honor93


I'll acknowledge that you evidently are right concerning Alex Haley's "Roots". Touche. And I'll add: thank you for correcting me on this.

You're other rejoinders I am not too impressed by. Got my date for slavery abolished in New York state a bit wrong, but I have yet to see how it changes the discussion of this thread, i.e. that the cause of the Civil War did indeed center around slavery -- not abolition, but about limiting additional slave states and not forcing states to adhere to the Fugitive Slave Act. Were other economic and political factors involved? Yes, but they mostly still in some way were inextricably connected to the slave economy and the politics of slavery, i.e. the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution.

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

His last speech was given a few days before the war officially ended, which included points on racial equality. Shouldn't have technically have said after, but it was close enough.

Don't know why you're getting all snarky over a technicality...

showcase.netins.net...

Actually he died about a week after Lee surrendered the Army of Virginia at Appomattox . It was about another month before the South surrendered, which officially ended the war, although there were a few holdouts in Texas and the Indian territories that surrendered as late as June, 1865..

My point in bringing it up was to correct you on your statement; to say that he gave anti-slavery speeches after the war does nothing for the cause of fighting Southern revisionist Civil War history. Sorry for the snarky jibe about animatronic Lincoln; I just couldn't help myself.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
reply to post by The Old American

 

Well after the war he was giving speeches on racial equality so...

Uh, no. He, Lincoln, was dead before the war ended. Ever hear of John Wilkes Booth and Ford theater? Perhaps you are thinking of the animatronic Lincoln at Disneyland...

ever hear of the date April 9, 1865 ... the day General Lee surrendered ?

that was 6 days BEFORE Lincoln was shot ... you really need to brush up on your history

No, you maroon, you need to brush up on yours. Lee's surrender did not mark the end of the war, only the surrender of the Army of North Virginia; the Confederate states and most of the rest of their forces didn't surrender until about a month later. That would be when the war ended. And keep in mind that I was replying to a statement that Lincoln was making anti-slavery speeches after the war was over. I checked my facts before making my statement, you obviously did not. Deny ignorance -- as they like to say around here.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

i have previously explained its relevance, in this thread and many others. if you really want to know, use the search engine provided

i keep mentioning it simply because the entire Southern region is blamed for what occurred regularly in the NORTH.
it was a labor industry ... the South profited from it, the North, used it mostly to comfort themselves, that's the biggest difference.

New York had the biggest, most recognized, weekly slave sale in the country.
this is not news.

even after Amendment 13, slavery did not end ... does Belle Moore ring a bell ? www.thecrimereport.org...

in case you've never read these ... bibliographies: docsouth.unc.edu... ... you might want to.
skunk Hollow: palisadesny.com...
and if you're really interested about the history behind it all, you might want to give this a read ... www.gutenberg.org...

the Northern States didn't lead any such thing, the Churches did.
it may have begun in the North but it certainly wasn't exclusively a Northern thing.
and, there was no imaginary morality to it ... it was purely about 'control'.

btw, got any proof for who fired the first shots at Ft Sumpter ??
nah, don't bother, i know you don't and so should you.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by Honor93

 

Man, you're claiming the primary owners of slaves in the South were blacks??????? Give us a break. You're the Southern slavery apologist version of a Holocaust denier. I don't dispute there were some black freedmen who in turn owned slaves, but they were by no means the majority of slave owners, nor were they predominantly -- if at all -- in the South.

You clearly live in Bizarro-World Dixie. Were the leaders of the KKK also predominantly black, and were all the lynchings of blacks in the late 19th century and the first third of the 20th century conducted by blacks? Were the Jim Crow laws instigated by blacks? Was segregation instigated by blacks?

I can't believe your B.S., i.e. bad scholarship..

no, i stated some of the largest holders of black slaves were black freemen and that's a fact.

actually, see my previous links, they were.
as a matter of fact, black slave owners had some of the largest holdings of slaves in the entire South.

like i said, it was a way of life ... for every free man, regardless of color.
and to top that off, the native Indians held African slaves long before Columbus arrived.
like hundreds of years earlier

geeeez, can't keep your centuries straight eh ?
ok then ... back to the classroom you go ... and don't spread that Northern nonsense south of Dixie or you'll be set straight again

fyi, there was no American slavery until ONE black man demanded it in a court of law or is that news to you ?
there was no federally supported and formal segregation until ONE light-skinned black man forced it to be.
both of these are factually correct statements, need a link ?

reply to post by MrInquisitive

you're welcome.
i'm not here to argue.

learning is a process and one of which someone with the moniker MrInquisitive shouldn't be parading around as MrKnowItAll, unless you do.
clearly, you have much to learn.

so, you're saying that 30yrs worth of subverting, ignoring and breaking established laws was OK ??

aren't you considering that there may have been a better way to achieve the "cough" stated "cough" goal of abolishing slavery ??

abolishing slavery certainly wasn't Lincoln's goal when he ordered the attack of a Sovereign State ... nor was it at all, until he was on the verge of losing the battle.

where was the 'morality' of it when he only freed the Confederate slaves ???