The truth about slavery and the civil war.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

Shouldn't we be outraged? Yessir, we should stop it today, right?

Yes, we should. Are you arguing we shouldn't?

Plus the south could afford to HIRE labor to work on their cotton plantations. The only reason why they didn't want to was because of GREED.

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Do you know the context of these quotes, and why they directly contradict what he says in other quotes? Was he a flip flopper, appealing to the masses? Or as mentioned in this thread, was he using it to deprive the south of slaves (to make them dependent & not revolt?)

You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160. (Stephens was the future Confederate vice-president.)

Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

Upon further reading I notice that most of his "anti-negro" speech was earlier, when he was trying to get elected for senate (the following quote and one of the first quotes in the thread), and then just a couple years later (right before and after the war) the quotes would make you think he's completely for equal rights & citizenship. He was definitely a good politician.

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro-citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. [Applause.] He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. [Renewed applause.]

edit on 6-12-2012 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)

The apparent contradiction is because Lincoln abhorred slavery itself. He got physically ill when seeing an enslaved human. He didn't, however, believe that it was his duty to abolish it, as he believed it was a right of whites to own slaves. The African race was inferior to the white race in his eyes, not much better than dogs, but they were still humans.

I'm sure if it has been mentioned here, but his freeing of the slaves was both a political and militarily tactical move. He was losing the war against an inferior (by numbers) force. General Lee was probably the best military commander in the last 200 years, and one of the top 5 in military history. He was making a mockery of Lincoln's generals, and gained ground daily, getting as far north as Gettysburg, PA.

Lincoln, realizing that his tail was being kicked, figured that he needed about a quarter-million more soldiers. He got them with the Emancipation Proclamation. Freeing the slaves gave him more than enough soldiers to win the War of Northern Aggression.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


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

Originally posted by antonia
I will never understand why people keep fighting this battle: It doesn't matter anymore. Right or wrong, the civil war is over, that battle is done, stick a fork in it, roll the fat lady out, whatever you want to say about it. What the war was fought over changes nothing.

There is still a war. But it's cultural, vitriolic and controled by media, undue prejudices and political partisanship. And yes, fueled by a misunderstanding of history.

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Shouldn't we be outraged? Yessir, we should stop it today, right?

Yes, we should. Are you arguing we shouldn't?

Plus the south could afford to HIRE labor to work on their cotton plantations. The only reason why they didn't want to was because of GREED.

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

I'm saying that even though we recognize things as being wrong and evil doesn't mean any of us have the power to stop it. Future generations may judge us to be just as bad as many think Southerners were 150 years ago.
It's something to think about.

You know greed wasn't something exclusive to slave holders, the Northern industrialists relied on endless waves of immigrant labor to create profits for them. Working conditions were atrocious, workers were expendable and easily replaced. In slave society there was a vested interest in maintaining the health of one's own property however horrible slavery was as an institution it wasn't much worse than the treatment of the immigrant labor force.

I'm not trying to excuse slavery in any way just show how greed worked it's evil in the North as well. Neither side held a monopoly on morality.

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
reply to post by yadda333

 

I just think these southern sympathizers live in ignorance on how bad slavery was and how bad slaves were treated. I think they live in this fantasy where slaves lived in nice little comfy cabins outback massa's plantation.

They should listen and learn the realities;

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is a slave narrative that was published in 1861 by Harriet Ann Jacobs, using the pen name "Linda Brent". The book is an in-depth chronological account of Jacobs's life as a slave, with the decisions and choices she made to gain freedom for herself and her children. It addresses the struggles and sexual abuse that young women slaves faced on the plantations, and how these struggles were harsher than what men went through as slaves.

en.wikipedia.org...

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass is a memoir and treatise on abolition written by famous orator and ex-slave, Frederick Douglass. It is generally held to be the most famous of a number of narratives written by former slaves during the same period. In factual detail, the text describes the events of his life and is considered to be one of the most influential pieces of literature to fuel the abolitionist movement of the early 19th century in the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...

Two excellent narratives, and both have been canonized. The most interesting thing about Douglass's narrative is that he couldn't describe his escape to the North in detail in the first edition for fear of indicting anybody who helped him.

Everybody arguing BS in this thread should understand this: Douglass couldn't tell exactly how he escaped because his book was published before slavery was abolished and those who helped him could have been indicted.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

What are you arguing? That you think, like what I quoted from one poster, that the South should have been allowed to decide how they ended slavery--maybe 15-20 years to do it? That the Union overstepped their power? What does it matter as long as the end result was the abolition of slavery?

edit on 12/7/2012 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)

It's easy to pass moral judgement on those who came before us. What about today?

Look, I understand what you're saying but you're just wrong. People in that time period passed moral judgement on southern slaveholders--people in that time period knew it was wrong and fought to end it. This is a fact.

The past was no different, we grow accustomed to what is beyond our power to control and either forget it or find rationale to justify it. Murder is as bad as slavery, is it not? Life is never so simple as to make such changes without severe sacrifice on someone's part. The South already paid, the modern US has yet to accrue their due usury.

This is true. And we still see the same types of supporting arguments for the justification of denying people rights today. But we shouldn't sit here and try to make a case for the South.

Regardless of what some people on here think about the rights that were lost through the outcome of the civil war, it ended what was a nightmare for an entire class of people.

We may be able to make all sorts of analogies about being slaves to capitalism, but we do not have our children taken from us and sold on the market under the protection of the law.

reply to post by antonia


The Steven Spielberg movie Lincoln is doing very well at the Box Office.
The democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming to abolish slavery.
Actor Tommy Lee Jones did a great job!

so this is a long way to go to prove what exactly ?

can you be honest and succinct ?

reply to post by camaro68ss


I may be wrong, but this thread appears to not be about slavery or the civil war. This looks to be an attempt to foment opinion on an oppressive central government. The intent is to show those noble southern states rebelling against an unresponsive federal government intent on excessive taxation and infringement on personal freedom and civil liberties. The message is that when government ceases to serve and protect and and becomes restrictive and coercive, time for rebellion is at hand. Don't be fooled folks Camaro68ss, (that is a great car.), is making a case for the feelings of secession that are in vogue today.

Besides that, if you don't think the civil war evolved from conflicts around the issue of slavery, you just don't know history. Slavery as a moral, economic and right to personal freedom, (that is in the case of the slave holder not the slave), concern was the entire sum of the unrest that simmered in the many years leading up to the civil war. The malarkey about the evil federal government was a sideshow encouraged by the powerful and influential in the south to sway the average guy who had no real stake in maintaining slavery and who ultimately did most of the suffering and dieing.

The desire to dissolve the union was the end result of the conflicts over slavery. And just as today this desire is the reaction of choice for a minority that refuses to be governed by the majority. We are at such a place today as seen in the polarization of opinion in our government and our population.

Just consider that Ayn Rand was wrong. Living in a bubble of egotistical excess is a false path. Compromise is the essential element of the human experience.

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.

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 sorry

edit 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 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 sorry

edit 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.

Sorry about that. I guess it doesn't work like that on this site. I just went to "My ATS" and saw no way to message, like on other sites. You'll have to click on my name, to the left, to PM me. Or click on your name to see PM's from me to you.

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.

responding to those who addressed me specifically.
i wouldn't want you to think i'm ignoring you or have no opposition to your arguments.

@ MrInquisitive
you're funny why did i bring up NY ??
i guess since slavery in NY, actually ended in 1827, then the 200yrs worth before that date, doesn't count, right ?

www.slavenorth.com...
As a result, New York soon had had the largest colonial slave population north of Maryland. From about 2,000 in 1698, the number of the colony's black slaves swelled to more than 9,000 adults by 1746 and 13,000 by 1756.

The slave trade became a cornerstone of the New York economy.

The population already was racially mixed, and [color=amber]slavery in New York at first was passed down not exactly by race, but by matrilineal inheritance: the child of a male slave and a free woman was free, the child of a female slave and a free man was a slave. By the 18th century, through this policy, New York had numerous visibly white persons held as slaves.

Free blacks lived in New York at risk of enslavement. The colonial courts ruled that if a white person claimed his black employee was a slave, the burden was on the black person to prove he was not.

nah, there's really no good reasons to mention NY at all

see, this is what's hilarious every time this conversation is engaged ... ppl don't want to accept that slavery was universal in the colonies/states. the North was just as much slave operators as the South was. the North, however, had a good bit of their slave population absorbed into the Union ranks.

never heard of white/indian/european slaves ??
well, you can begin reading about them here ... www.ask.com...

were slaves from Macon, Georgia in the United States who escaped to the North in December 1848 by traveling openly by train and steamboat, arriving in Philadelphia on Christmas Day. She posed as a white male planter and he as her personal servant. Their daring escape was widely publicized, [color=amber]making them among the most famous of fugitive slaves

now, when ppl say the silly things that you have, all i can say is ... do your own homework and get a clue.

and if you should dare enlighten yourself, you'll also discover this tidbit along the way ... a majority of Southern Whites did NOT own slaves.
and that's a FACT, whether you agree or not.

fyi, i have provided extensive lists of links in prior threads about the same topic ... if you're truly curious, start here ... www.abovetopsecret.com...

PUH-leeze provide one that backs up your claim that the South was the world's fourth largest economy at the time of the Civil War

OK
www.civilwarhome.com... or mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us... or www.nps.gov... or in case you require similar phrasing, try this one

clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com...
And despite the historical perception of the ante-bellum South being a kind of subsistence-farming backwater, the non-slave population of the nascent Confederacy actually had the world’s fourth highest per capita income in 1860, and its growth in per capita income matched that of any U.S. region in the twenty years leading up to the Civil War.
- snip -
The war also made the Confederacy more viable by providing a catalyst for its industrial development. Significant successes included the [color=amber]CSA’s Ordnance Bureau that doubled its production of small arms in 1863 achieving self-sufficiency or the state of Alabama which in 1864 produced four times more iron than any other state in the ‘Old Union’ or the gunpowder factory at Augusta, Georgia that grew to be the largest in North America by 1864.

nope, they didn't participate in "arms" either

why don't you ask this question of the Bush ?? either of them

If he did such illegal and unconstitutional things, why wasn't he impeached and how on earth did he win a second term?

btw, secession declarations were filed/announced in December 1859 ... others joined later in April but that was far from the beginning.

tell ya what, since i've danced this dance more times than you are old ... how 'bout, if you're willing/capable, please, re-read the declarations of secession and replace the words "slavery or slave" with "industry and employee" ... chew on that and get back to us, k?

out of room ... continued

continued from previous post ....

oh, and for those who said Missouri did not have slaves in that state ... look again ... then tell us what the Missouri Compromise was really about.

www.missouri-history.itgo.com...
The slave population of the state rose steadily in the 40 years before the civil war from 10,222 in 1820 to 114,931 by 1860.

There are at least a few slaves in every county.
Other large slave holding counties were Boon, Calloway, New Madrid, Saline, and St. Louis.

nah, slaves in Missouri is just revisionist BS

if you actually read the above link, you'll also see that in Missouri, 24,320 People owned 114,931 slaves ... that's more than 20 slaves per person owning them. and, let's not forget that a substantial amount of slave owners were in fact, freed black men.

well y'all, since the primary source floating around this thread is Wiki, i'll bow out gracefully ... those who want the whole story should review original documents, not Wiki.
more from Missouri ... mostateparks.com...

www.historycentral.com...
[color=amber]Most Southern white families did not own slaves: only about 384,000 out of 1.6 million did. Of those who did own slaves, most (88%) owned fewer than 20 slaves, and were considered farmers rather than planters. Slaves were concentrated on the large plantations of about 10,000 big planters, on which 50-100 or more slaves worked. About 3,000 of these planters owned more than 100 slaves, and 14 of them owned over 1,000 slaves.

@ ShotGunRum
you keep saying this ...

In 1807 the protection was gone, hence why the importation of slaves was banned in 1807

and while the IMPORTATION was banned, slavery and the sale of them was not ... see New York for examples all the way into 1827.
need a link ?
hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu... Sales and Auctions: African Coast and the Americas&theRecord=21&recordCount=75 or

www.thefreelibrary.com...
During the 1803-1809 period, we would expect to see an active market since 33 slaves had increased to 84. Slavery was on the rise in the county.

or newyorkslavery.blogspot.com... or

www.rootsweb.ancestry.com...
Local governments also hired slaves. The Board of Aldermen of Florence on February 1, 1841, decided to hire five slaves for the purpose of working the town streets. The slaves were hired from their owners for $12.50 per month with the town providing housing, board, and clothing.

Slaves with definite skills were in the greatest demand and earned the largest income for their owners. In Limestone County in 1848 a slave named Alfred was hired out as a carpenter for $1 per day and was furnished “the usual clothing.” When LaGrange college became the LaGrange Military Academy in 1857, a “drum and bugle corps” was needed. Three slaves with musical talents were hired to satisfy this need.

while the importing of slaves may have been reduced by the new law, it did nothing to enhance freedom for those already enslaved or being sold within the territories permitting it.

@ yadda333
pardon you, but we sure do ...

but we do not have our children taken from us and sold on the market under the protection of the law.

see any Child Protection Division in any State today.
and, if you think the pedos don't have an open/protected market, you just aren't paying attention.

reply to post by crimsongod21


people choose to rewrite history for what they think is the common good.
I wonder what history books wrote back in the 1960's about the civil war.
I grew up in the 70's and we were still taught Columbus discovered America.
I am a big civil war buff and was very disappointed that the 150 year anniversary was not mentioned or any celebration/remembrance events held by our president.
We have become so sensitive that the truth is buried.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Clearly, as shown in the result, it was the Union with a higher regard for equality under the law.

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.

Do you think we would be better off had the South won the war?

some days and even more the older i get.

Or not been fought for seceding?

Absolutely. that and that alone would have been equal treatment under the existing law.

Do you think these states would have ended slavery on their own accord?

most likely as many were already reporting a decline in their slave holdings.
by the time the war broke out, many southern slaves had booked out of the South and into the realm of Northern industrialization. (better for some and worse for others)

why would it need to be an issue ??
slavery was becoming an unforeseen expense for many plantation owners and they were already designing ways to avert the "costs" associated with youth and elder slaves for whom they were financially, socially and productively responsible.

it is by natural progression that slavery would have outgrown itself.

and let's not forget, while the Americans bought the imported slaves, they originated elsewhere and that means, their own ppl devalued their lives in such severity as to capture and ship them off at will.
i will never understand why that important contributor is so often dismissed

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.

reply to post by ShotGunRum

The cotton gin was commercialized in the 1800's

it is comments like these that the ANTAGONISTS persist in spewing with -0- regard for the truth of the matter.

the cotton gin was placed in operation in the 1790s ... roughly 13yrs worth of "importing" slaves ... 13yrs worth is a lot of imports.

www.gpb.org...
With the debut of his invention in 1793, the history and economy of Georgia as well as that of the entire South was changed forever.
- snip -
To produce more cotton, more slaves were needed as field hands. The increase in cotton production saw a parallel increase in slavery. [color=amber]From 1790 to 1860 the slave population increased from fewer than 30,000 to more than 460,000. Dr. Jerry DeVine of Albany State College notes that slaves and land were the two greatest forms of wealth in Georgia, with more money invested in slaves than land.