The truth about slavery and the civil war.

reply to post by randomname

the way they are re-writing history, lincoln is the white martin luther king jr.

While he did say racist things before the war, after the war he WAS saying Martin Luther King Jr. type things. His last speech he spoke on racial equality and allowing black people to vote.

He even reportedly bowed to a black man who bowed at him



Was Lincoln racist? Probably. But nearly everyone was back then. Maybe he said whatever to get elected. Maybe he changed over time.

if any politician said the exact same things in that excerpt of lincoln, the msm would go ballistic.

Ummm this is because it is 2012 and racism is not tolerated (other than on Fox).

i just have one things to say....

we all are allready slaves if we workd... just modern slave,,, without violent

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Glad you mentioned that.
Francis Scott Key's grandson was imprisoned in Fort. McHenry and wrote the book American Bastille.
Lincoln commited many unconstitutional acts - first declaring war without Congress.

On April 15, he called for Congress to return to session — but only on July 15, months after Ft. Sumter .

On April 19, he declared a naval blockade of the South.

On April 21, he instructed the U.S. Navy to buy five warships — an appropriations act needing congressional approval.

On April 27, he began the unprecedented act of suspending the constitutional right of habeas corpus.

On May 3, he called up thousands more troops — for three-year hitches — another act the law did not authorize the president to commit.

thenewamerican.com...

Now comes the movie to romanticize him and make him the hero of the Union.
The unlearning continues.......

Yeah, and he was considered such an evil, despicable president that he is in the top tier of presidents, along with George Washington and FDR.

If he did such illegal and unconstitutional things, why wasn't he impeached and how on earth did he win a second term? And refresh my memory: just where is the James Buchanan Memorial in Washington D.C.?

As for taking actions in April, but not convening Congress until July, the Southern insurrectionists -- who by all rights should have been hung after the war for treason -- initiated hostilities against the Union in April, so the Commander in Chief's hand was forced. Back then the economy was much more agriculturally based, and in case you didn't know: April through June tends to be planting season, so congress, which included many land owners, could not be reconvened till after that. In any case, the President didn't have to declare war, he was solely dealing with scurrilous insurrectionists, and it was his constitutional duty to execute this responsibility for congress, just as he would wage a war should congress declare one.

As far as constitutional excesses/overreaches go, what were the totals in expenditures Lincoln authorized without congress's approval compared to the cost of the Louisiana purchase by Thomas Jefferson, which he did without congressional approval? Moreover, Jefferson was the father of the old, pro-slavery Democratic party. But I guess such actions are ok if a slave-owning president does it.

You Southern Sympathizers/slavery apologists floor and disgust me, and creep me out.

And if your unhappy that yet another movie is being made about Lincoln and portraying him in a positive light, then go finance your own movie about Jefferson Davis*. And good luck with that.

*Be sure to include the anecdote about him disguising himself in his wife's clothes in an attempt to elude Union cavalry.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


I misused tariffs and should have said that the North didn't want the South to be importing goods cheaply from abroad rather than buying them from Northern manufacturers.

As for my "bizarro-world geography" as you say here's a list by short tons of the top US ports today (I couldn't find one for antebellum US)

1 Port of South Louisiana 224,187,320
2 Port of Houston, Texas 202,047,327
3 Port of Beaumont, Texas 91,697,948
4 Port of Long Beach, California 80,066,130
5 Port of Corpus Christi, Texas 78,924,757
6 Port of New Orleans, Louisiana 78,085,209
7 Port of Huntington-Tristate, West Virginia 77,307,514
8 Port of Texas City, Texas 68,282,902
9 Port of Baton Rouge, Louisiana 57,082,823
10 Port of Mobile, Alabama 56,211,796
11 Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana 54,768,322
12 Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana 54,404,720
13 Port of Los Angeles, California 51,931,
13 Port of Los Angeles, California 51,931,730
14 Hampton Roads, Virginia 48,446,410
15 Port of Tampa, Florida 48,289,134
en.wikipedia.org...

Ports in California, Washington and Oregon hardly mattered at the time.

You should know that many northern ports are only operable due to dredging operations - NY, Philly, Baltimore. Something done long after the war.

You do raise some very good points in all the various posts in this thread.

Contrary to what you might think I'm not a "Southern sympathizer". I sympathize with both sides in this conflict.
I just grow weary of the single cause explanation of the war and imposition of modern morality on people from 150 years ago. Sure slavery was a moral wrong - it was known then but how could it be ended without disastrously affecting the economy of the South? Slavery was on the way out, mechanical harvesting methods would have ended it well before the turn of the century and free soil states would have ensured it's end.

Originally posted by TheStar
i just have one things to say....

we all are allready slaves if we workd... just modern slave,,, without violent

reply to post by MrInquisitive


There were no trial for secession after the war because they knew they would lose the cases.

Yet Jefferson Davis was imprisoned in chains mind you for 2 years after the war and never charged.

If it was such an open and shut case and in your view the half-million American dead were due to his actions, why not try him?

Adding extra emoticons doesn't replace rational argument.

I just want an open, balanced view of history which means seeing both sides of the argument.
Lincoln saved the Union but at what cost?
These are things rarely mentioned in media or education today.
Sherman's grand march to the sea is taught in every school - so burning down cities and plundering farms is somehow morally superior to slavery?
I'm done with this thread btw.
Cheers,
ATA

Even Lincoln himself said that the war wasn`t about slavery.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or 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 this Union,

reply to post by Tardacus


So Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, and the Union was being threatened because of a disagreement about the future of slavery more than anything else...the two are not exclusive.

Lincoln was a moderate, and was known for his ability to play to all sides. That quote is from a letter to Horace Greeley, who was a major abolition activist and criticized Lincoln for not being aggressive enough in emancipation.

Lincoln was a great politician, and knew that by staying as close to center as possible he'd have the best chance of being reelected and re-building the country after the war.

reply to post by ShotGunRum


I see you parsed your articles of secession to just show the slavery angle and the slavery angle only. If you had continued, we would have seen the other reasons as well. From the Georgia Declaration of Causes:

The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

sunsite.utk.edu...

reply to post by Asktheanimals


What in the of Sam Hill does the Port of Houston have to do with shipping in the 1860's? I believe Galveston was the main Texan port back then. Don't think the Port of Houston started up until near the beginning of the 20th century. And what does current tonnage at any port have to do with the tonnage during the ante bellum period? My list of ports was just a cursory list, off the top of my head, of ones in Union states/territory that I knew were running back then. I provided them to refute your claim that the North was lacking ports and was dependent on the South for importation of goods. Furthermore, I realize that back then Norfolk/Hampton Roads, Charleston, Mobile and New Orleans were major ports, and that N.O. was important to Mississippi river traffic up to Chicago and such, i.e. the Midwest, but you were claiming that the North was wanting in ports back then, and that was clearly not the case. As for the need for dredging for some of them, this may be the case for modern-era ships, but was not for those of the mid 1800's.

You say you're not a Southern sympathizer/apologist. I'll take you at your word, but given the a-historical statements in your prior post, I hope you can see why I mistook you for one.

And I realize I likely sound very haughty in some/most/all of my posts in this thread, but I have had it up to HERE with GOP/Teabagger/conservative/CSA sympathizers and all their delusional propaganda and demented talking points with regard to current politics, and I am even less tolerant of their revisionist history of the Civil War and slavery apologias. The Civil War had everything to do with slavery. Was it all about abolishing slavery from the start? No, but it was all about slavery in one way or another; just look at South Carolina's preamble to its declaration of secession. Don't let Civil War "truthers" tell you otherwise. In fact, read them the Riot Act, if they try to -- which is what I am doing in my posts in this thread.

The institution of slavery in the US was abhorrent, and the insurrectionists committed high treason, and initiated the conflict with the terrorist attack upon Fort Sumpter. The entire army of the CSA should have been treated as illegal combatants and punished accordingly, i.e. indefinite detention, rendition and waterboarding. The secessionist leaders should have been rounded up and hung after the requisite military tribunals. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly against the US's current war on terrorism or has major double standards and/or cognitive dissonance. [warning: EXTREME IRONY ALERT]

reply to post by ShotGunRum

*shrug*

You can lead a horse to water... but you can't make them see the rocks below that define the top appearance of the river.

reply to post by NavyDoc


The second and third sentences of Georgia declaration of secession are:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Georgia's declaration of secession

I guess that because they're at the very beginning of the declaration, they aren't very important...

And, by the way, when the term "property" is used, it means slaves -- human beings owned as chattel by other humans.

All those other grievances lower down are just a whiny laundry list written by lawyers in order to prop-up their immoral demand that the rest of the United States respect their rights to own slaves and to return runaway slaves. Not impressed. I really love the part where there are complaints about the federal government paying for light houses and buoys, and protecting domestic shipbuilding interests against foreign ones. The nerve of those feds!!! Guess it should have been laissez faire -- and if England and other foreign countries undermined our shipping industry as well as our navy, oh well.

And let's say that the Northern interest were getting sweet deals at the expense of the South. How did this happen, given the fact that the slave-owning states got extra representation in the House of Representatives relative to the free states?

You secessionist sympathizers and slavery apologists would be a hoot, if it weren't for the fact that you're defending a disgusting practice and are creepy in the extreme to boot. That and your mendacity and prevarication know no bounds.

And let's just parse the first three sentences of what you quoted:

"The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all."

So the North couldn't control both branches of the legislature, so what's the problem, Johnny Reb? And the second second seems to suggest that divided government will fail or result in the overthrow of the government. Didn't know the US government failed in the 1800's. Knew there was a dismal attempt at overthrowing it, but that is what failed BIG TIME. And the material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Fed, but the South not all? Hmm, where have I heard that one before? Oh yeah, from the GOP and the Teabaggers this past election cycle. Go figure. Seems the Southern politicians were cut from the same mendacious cloth back then as they are now. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

The material prosperity of the South was not at all dependent on the federal government? Uh, who, through military force, annexed Texas? Last time I checked, it was the federal government. Uh, who bought the territory that became Louisiana, Arkansas and the Oklahoma territory? Think it was the federal government again. And who drove the native Americans out of the southern states, in order to give the land to the white settlers? Think it was the US Army (last time I checked). Also guess the lighthouses, buoys and US shipbuilding interests didn't help the South at all. Also guess the US navy didn't protect the Gulf coast from predation by privateers or foreign navies. Also guess US military bases in the Southern states and government contracts for agricultural goods from the South didn't help the South materially. Yep, Norfolk Naval Yard was an economic drain to Virginia. And certainly Southern states got no other pork/earmarks through their congressmen.

Yes, those poor Southern plantation owners were, by the sweat of their slaves' brows, subsidizing all the welfare-sucking Northern interests -- for instance, all those destitute whalers from New England and those penurious ranch owners in California as well as the businessmen in California who got rich off the gold rush. Yes, indeed, it was Southern capital that financed just about every economic endeavor in the Northern states.

GIVE ME A BREAK! I don't buy anything that these scurrilous, scumbag secessionists claimed. Secessionists were de facto traitors and why should anyone trust a traitor?

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by ShotGunRum

 

A pretty good way to discredit this is to note that pretty much noone outside the south agrees with what the OP and others are saying.

I was born in California, raised in Oregon and Washington State, and currently reside in Ohio.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Thank you OP for this post. I realized that I know very little of the American civil war. I realized that I know what media or our local history books wanted me to know. It was always portrayed as a battle to free the slaves. North wanted them free...and "rednecks" of the south didn't. That's how it was portrayed. Your post reminded me about the deceptive nature of the "known" history.

I will at some point in my life try to learn a bit more about the America Civil War...always found it an interesting subject.


Thanks again OP.

reply to post by camaro68ss


There is no such thing as worthwhile common knowledge these days, only common ignorance. When was the last time anyone that actually knew what they were talking about said "Everyone knows that! What are you stupid or something?" to you? Judging from this site lately I'd say common decency has gone the way of the Dodo as well.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


You are in the extreme minority of people outside the confederate states who see things this way. Downplaying slavery as an issue in the civil war can be accurately described as a very regional-bias ideology.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


If it was about slavery then why didnt the norther boarder state, who had legalized slavery, not join the south? simple question. your left winger teachers and propaganda will not rewrite history under my watch. only 20% of familys owned slaves in the south. No white county boy went to war over a slave. they went to war because of Taxation without representation just like the Revolutionary war. slavery was a small part

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

If it was about slavery then why didnt the norther boarder state, who had legalized slavery, not join the south? simple question. your left winger teachers and propaganda will not rewrite history under my watch. only 20% of familys owned slaves in the south. No white county boy went to war over a slave. then went to war because of Taxation without representation just like the Revolutionary war. slavery was a small part

edit on 7-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Read a history book...nothing is rewritten, its taught that the war was from the south trying to leave the union. during the war, slaves were free (as a consequence).
The south did have a slave centric economy however, and didn't like the idea that slave importing would soon be federally banned...one of the reasons they decided to skip out of the union. Of course the lower class were fed a bunch of hoohah about states rights and such, form their own country, etc...but as always, the rich were the true motivators of the move...and they were quite happy with the slave based economy.

You can get poor dumb people to fight wars for you just by stroking their nationalistic pride...age old trick.

And your watch means nothing...unless you are a accredited historian whom has the influence to keep facts into history books, your ultimately just some guy on the internet telling one half the story.

reply to post by camaro68ss

In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.

civilwarcauses.org...

Much lower slave ownership in the border states, and much more opposition to slavery. As you can see in the lower South about 37% actually owned slaves.

And the southern states did have representation in the government, particularly in the Senate. It was just that the majority of the US was opposed to the practice and voted in sanctions of sorts...

The entire conflict was driven by the southern states wanting to keep slavery in place.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

If it was about slavery then why didnt the norther boarder state, who had legalized slavery, not join the south? simple question. your left winger teachers and propaganda will not rewrite history under my watch. only 20% of familys owned slaves in the south. No white county boy went to war over a slave. then went to war because of Taxation without representation just like the Revolutionary war. slavery was a small part

edit on 7-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Read a history book...nothing is rewritten, its taught that the war was from the south trying to leave the union. during the war, slaves were free (as a consequence).
The south did have a slave centric economy however, and didn't like the idea that slave importing would soon be federally banned...one of the reasons they decided to skip out of the union. Of course the lower class were fed a bunch of hoohah about states rights and such, form their own country, etc...but as always, the rich were the true motivators of the move...and they were quite happy with the slave based economy.

You can get poor dumb people to fight wars for you just by stroking their nationalistic pride...age old trick.

And your watch means nothing...unless you are a accredited historian whom has the influence to keep facts into history books, your ultimately just some guy on the internet telling one half the story.

The democrats, who were the majority in the south, feeding poor southerners propaganda for the rich democrats to stay in power and keep there slaves, wow, you can draw a direct line from then to now. I guess something never change.