Change???
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It is analogous in the sense it was presented to illustrate. The SCOTUS had ruled on this, and slaves were "property" both legally and physically. Just as your car is your property, the slaves owned by the 2% of Southerners who owned slaves, were also their property. This is not a testament to the correctness of that, just a statement of fact, it was the law at the time.
Slavery as an institution was in decline, and on the way out. We had long abandoned the practice of importing slaves to this country, and most slaves living on plantations across the South, were 2nd or 3rd generation slaves, who were not purchased as slaves. It is difficult for a rational mind to conclude the South succeeded from the union over something that was obviously destined for extinction with the advent of the cotton gin.
The issue as it concerned slaves, was a property rights issue rooted in the 4th Amendment principles of the Constitution. Whether it was right or wrong to maintain slaves were property, is something that can be argued and debated with the US Supreme Court of that era, who had determined this previously. This was not the fault of southern plantation owners who legally purchased a legitimately sold and traded "property" in America.
The fundamental "reason" for the war, is the foundational principle of government. The burning issue was not slavery, but the rights of individual states to determine their own destiny without interference of the federal government. Before the Civil War, there were no "U.S. Citizens", we were all citizens of our respective states, and we formed a Union of States which comprised a limited central government, with very restricted rights. So we can see in history, there was a dynamic and fundamental split in ideology, which culminated in the formation of "Federalists" and "Confederates" who were diametrically opposed in how our nation should be governed. THIS was why the Civil War was fought, not the myth of "Slavery."
Socrtease
Verified User
Yes just as Soviet History books said they liberated Eastern Europe and ours say they oppressed them. Guess they're just both right.
Anyway, the only issue discussed in Southern newspapers was how the Republican President and the Republicans in congress were going to free the slaves, even though Lincoln never said that. The automatic assumption was that Lincoln would hold the same radical beliefs as the radical republicans in congress and that they would have to lose free labor and start paying people to work their fields. I always love to hear how it was going to destroy the southern economic system. All it was going to do was make it a little less profitable.
Socrtease
Verified User
The "it wasn't about slaves" mantra is the same mantra we repreated over and over in post war Germany, "not all germans were nazis." Technically true but the vast majority LOVED what the Nazis were doing. Read Hitler's willing executioners sometime. It will shed new light on the myth that German's didn't know.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Dix, why did the South wait until its party was out of power to seceed over an issue such as tariffs? There is not one shread of evidence that anything other than the threat to slavery prompted secession, and you have never posted it. You also lied again about the 2% figure - go back and actually read the link I posted of the 1860 Census.
Secondly, 8th Grade history is when they teach abstractions like "preserve the Union" and "war over secession." But as you get older, you can't help but notice that the only reason why the South seceeded was over slavery. Especially if you spend much time reading up on the debate over Western Lands.
Secondly, 8th Grade history is when they teach abstractions like "preserve the Union" and "war over secession." But as you get older, you can't help but notice that the only reason why the South seceeded was over slavery. Especially if you spend much time reading up on the debate over Western Lands.
Anti-intellectual - try using rational deduction, and never attempt the rigors of law school.
Is this like, "the sins of the father?" I guess in the Pacific NW, I am a "son of Oregon Trail..." Sorry, couldn't resist.
Do you have ADD? Seriously, you have been using this, "oh, look at what Congress did/did not do" for quite a while and I have demonstrated how it can be used to suggest that Northerners were not racist (i.e. that it is retarded logic), but now you have "forgotten" your previous arguments? Yeah, I'm being a consistency Nazi, here...
I have already established that abolition was what drove Northern policy in Western Lands but not toward the South, and that the war was initially a war for Union. The South and North did not have the same war aims or reasons for fighting. The South seceeded over slavery (primarily over the debate over slavery in the West) and then faught a war over that.
Heard of it, don't believe in it. I believe in republicanism, where institutions work within an established order to create laws. Democracy is something you can be proud of though, because it was Southern ideologues such as Jefferson and Jackson that popularized it and of course, most people embrace it today.
No, this sounds very inspiring to me - what did they expect, a handout? They should have grown food for themselves, seeing as how they deliberately lacked industry, agriculture should have paid off for once. BTW, as an occupied territory, I still don't see how you can give the South any credit for what was going on in DC. BTW - we all know territories may send reps to Congress, but they don't get to vote!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
This question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As far as I know, there was never a "Southern" party. There was the Democratic party, which was largely popular in the South, but them being in power or out of power, had little to do with tariffs imposed by foreign countries on Southern cotton as a result of Northern industries imposing tariffs on their exports.
Your AOL MEMBER link, is not valid proof of any damn thing! I have already told you what to do... go find the 1860 census and the number of households who owned slaves. Divide this by the population of all Southern states, and you get roughly 2% of the population of the South who owned slaves. Your AOL buddy tabulated percentage of slaves as compared to total population of each state, but the vast majority of the South never owned a slave.
As for evidence the war was not about slavery, there are plenty of shreds. I pointed out the 1862 resolution passed (almost unanimously) by the Untied States Congress, minus the Southern states, which essentially states the war was not about slavery. Are you denying this was passed?
"The THREAT to Slavery" and "Slavery" are two different things. Let's not start trying to wiggle away from your original argument. You started off saying that "slavery" was the issue, now you want to change that to "the threat to slavery" and hope I don't notice. But, I notice everything!
8th grade public education teaches you the war was about slavery. If you are a dullard with no curiosity and a bigoted mind, you go through your life thinking this is true, and no amount of "proof" will change your mind. It's a problem this issue has in debate, and it always will, because the victors write the history books. There is nothing "abstract" about the terms "preserve the Union" or "war over secession", they clearly state a significant point. Although these phrases are not often taught in public school regarding the war, they were indeed used in the language of the 1862 resolution passed by the US Congress, which is far from an 8th grade history class.
You can't use any action of Congress to show a generalized statement about "all" of any group. My point was not to show you that all of Congress was or wasn't racist, it was to demonstrate racist views were not confined to Southerners of the time, as you insisted was the case. It was also to prove the US Congress had been duplicitous in encouraging slavery for many many years before the Civil War, contrary to your idiotic argument the North wanted abolition all that time. No, only bigots like yourself will make a broad generalization out of a fact.
Again, you are incorrect. You keep presenting arguments regarding "The North" and "Northern policy" as opposed to "The South" and "Southern policy" as if we had already divided the country and the Federalists and Confederates both ruled Congress like Republicans and Democrats of today. Before 1861, there was no "Northern policy" and there was no "The South" because those came about as a result of succession in 1861. The Congress had driven policy in western lands, as well as in the South. They also welcomed a slave state into the Union in 1863. Odd thing for the completely non-southern Congress to do, considering your argument they were all for abolition, but that is precisely what they did.
Do you have ANY proof the South didn't have a vote in Congress from 1861 to 1870, as you have argued? If so, I would like to see it. I think you are full of shit and blowing smoke up our ass, personally.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It sounds as if you are trying to justify being a bigot and prejudiced toward select groups of people. I never stated that the Civil War wasn't about slaves, I said it wasn't fought over the issue of slavery, and that is correct.
Again, it sounds as if you want to have a philosophical argument over the morality of slavery, and that is not the debate here. It doesn't matter that we view slavery today as immoral abhorrent human behavior, in 1861, slaves were tangible and legal property, as so ruled and defined by the SCOTUS. According to the 4th Amendment, government can't unlawfully seize your property. Yet, that is in effect what abolition would do, with no compensation to the plantation owners who made the legitimate investment in slaves, based on the fact that it was legal to do so at the time.
It would be like Congress threatening to 'abolish' farm equipment which runs on fossil fuels. Do you think American farmers would go along with that and not protest the violation of their 4th Amendment rights? I don't, and they would have a legitimate argument, regardless of whether the issue of 'fossil fuel farm equipment' was right or wrong. No matter how much you claim they could manage with solar-power tractors they didn't own, no matter how much you scoffed at their audacity to keep the federal government from liquidating their assets, they would still have a legitimate Constitutional point and argument.
The entire issue of human slavery in America, is the sole responsibility of the US government, not the Confederate States of America, because it was the US government who failed to condemn the practice from its very inception, and continued to maintain slavery as an economic institution in this country up until, (and in some cases, after) the Civil War. It was the US Supreme Court who ruled that slaves were property, not the CSA or the South.
Slavery was not the issue of the war, because if Slavery had been an issue in that day and time, the US government would have taken measures to do away with it way before 1861, and they didn't. Instead, they supported and condoned it.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You can get anybody to do anything if you get them hysterical enough. I think that nearly everyone has some latent sociopathy in them that only comes out whenever they have enough power. The most dangerous time is whenever you can defend a philosophy simply by appealing to power, IE saying "What are you going to do about it?" Because then it's too late to turn back, and nearly everyone in a society will join in, and anyone who doesn't dies.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Hey Dix, here's some more numbers for you to ignore. The essay is neat because it talks about how schools address slavery:
http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/a1/lpf305.shtml
The Third Party System (FPS being Fed/DR and SPS being Whig/Dem) of Republicans and Democrats was the first system drawn along regional lines. The Whig candidacy of Winfield Scot in 1852 effectively drove the Southern Whigs into the Democratic Party, and issues such as the Compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, Bleeding Sumner, and Dred Scot drove Northern Whigs and many Dems into the new Republican Party. Also, the Northern Dems ran a separate candidate--Stephen Douglass--in 1860 who drew votes from predominantly non-slaveholding constituents in the districts he carried in the South. So it is quite accurate to refer the the Dems as the Southern Party. In 1860, they didn't carry a single Northern state and Lincoln's name did not appear on most Southern ballots.
No, there is very little difference. The issue was slavery, both sides saw it differently. The North looked at "the containment" of slavery, while the South looked at "the threat" to slavery. Its really even more damning that the South saw it in these terms, because we weren't talking about anything immediate here. It would have made far more sense if the North had been calling for an immediate ban, but the South viewed the containment of slavery as a direct threat.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-reconstruction.htm
Most of the Southern states reformed in December of 1865, but the Republicans refused to let their representatives be seated, and eventually Congress adopted its own requirements which nullified all the constitutions except Tennessee's, placed the South under occupation, etc. Also, if you will examine an election map, you will see that they didn't get to vote in the presidential races of 1868 and 1872 or were under control of carpetbagger governments in which case few people could actually vote.
http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/a1/lpf305.shtml
The Third Party System (FPS being Fed/DR and SPS being Whig/Dem) of Republicans and Democrats was the first system drawn along regional lines. The Whig candidacy of Winfield Scot in 1852 effectively drove the Southern Whigs into the Democratic Party, and issues such as the Compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, Bleeding Sumner, and Dred Scot drove Northern Whigs and many Dems into the new Republican Party. Also, the Northern Dems ran a separate candidate--Stephen Douglass--in 1860 who drew votes from predominantly non-slaveholding constituents in the districts he carried in the South. So it is quite accurate to refer the the Dems as the Southern Party. In 1860, they didn't carry a single Northern state and Lincoln's name did not appear on most Southern ballots.
No, there is very little difference. The issue was slavery, both sides saw it differently. The North looked at "the containment" of slavery, while the South looked at "the threat" to slavery. Its really even more damning that the South saw it in these terms, because we weren't talking about anything immediate here. It would have made far more sense if the North had been calling for an immediate ban, but the South viewed the containment of slavery as a direct threat.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-reconstruction.htm
Most of the Southern states reformed in December of 1865, but the Republicans refused to let their representatives be seated, and eventually Congress adopted its own requirements which nullified all the constitutions except Tennessee's, placed the South under occupation, etc. Also, if you will examine an election map, you will see that they didn't get to vote in the presidential races of 1868 and 1872 or were under control of carpetbagger governments in which case few people could actually vote.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Mississippi Democrats took back the state government as soon as the troops left. They did so by violent suppression of the black majority. It was basically like south africa. Mississippi would be the most liberal state in the union right now if the whites hadn't succeeded in scaring half the blacks up to Chicago.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Doesn't sound like the South had such a strong-arm control over the poor Northern abolitionists to me. Sounds like we had a good healthy mix of ideas and political viewpoints, and they were all represented in Congress... doesn't sound like the Southern Racist Party ruled with an iron fist at all.
Yes, there is a great deal of difference between "threat to slavery" and "slavery." I am sorry you don't see the stark difference in the two, because this is at the heart of the issue we are debating. You see, if you change "threat to slavery" to read "threat to personal property" you essentially have my argument, although I maintain there wasn't a 'single' issue, rather a multitude of issues. I can deal with a lot of things in a debate, but changing your argument in mid stream to essentially the point I have been arguing all along, is just not acceptable.
Hmmm, funny thing about your source, it says "By the time Congress convened in December 1865, most southern state governments were reconstructed, and had elected representatives to Congress." So your assertion the South didn't have any political power for the entire decade, is false.
You mean these election maps?
Looks like the South voted, except for Texas, Mississippi and Virginia in 1868, because they were not yet reconstructed.
The thing is, here we are sidetracked into a debate of what the US did AFTER the Civil War, about Slavery. AFTER Lincoln had proclaimed Slavery as "the cause" and subsequent justification, for the bloodiest war of our history. It's intellectually unfair to look at events AFTER something happens, and claim it proves the reasons and issues before it happened. I have repeatedly asked you to explain why the United States Congress had not taken measures to do away with slavery before the Civil War, and you continue to point to events long after the war to demonstrate this, but that wasn't the question I asked. Containment? Kindly explain the acceptance of West Virginia (a slave state) into the Union in 1863, when not a single Southern state was even IN the US! ...And "containment" is a fucking long ass way from "Abolition," which is what you originally claimed the "Northern policy" favored, over the "Southern policy" of Slavery!
...yes indeed, you do like to wiggle and writhe.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
It did indeed, because there was nothing objectionable about keeping slavery out of the territories except that it embarrassed the South, so nothing meaningful ever occurred until settlers began to force the issue locally in the 1850's.
That argument doesn't have merit because life comes before property. My argument has been consistent - that viewing the debate over the expansion of slavery, the South viewed the prospect of being boxed in as threatening to slavery in the long run, because it could result in enough states being free that the matter of full emancipation could one day be forced upon them. That is why they seceeded (over the threats to slavery in the short run and long run: which is the same as slavery when you figure that containment would inevitably lead to full emancipation).
Try reading the whole thing until you get to the part where Congress reacted to the creation of the new state governments. It shouldn't really be this hard.
You mean these election maps?
Looks like the South voted, except for Texas, Mississippi and Virginia in 1868, because they were not yet reconstructed.
Nice source, btw, but the info is valid, so no biggy. Yes, three states were excluded, and anything colored in red is not a legitimate analysis of the will of the inhabitants, because it means a carpetbagger government was in power and doing whatever it felt like doing. Also, don't forget that there were 8 zones of military occupation to protect these governments and their constituents.
I have already answered that question. The answer is the belief that unionism was a necessary thing. I don't see what the value of it is myself, but that was the feeling at the time. The actions of the North after the war prove what they had wanted to do all along, but couldn't because of the reality of the political situation.
As for your criticism of containment, it is the same stupid line of criticism that neocons use in the present time. For example, comprehensive immigration reform is invalid because it doesn't completely solve the problem 100% (anti-intellectual); liberals/libertarians/etc. cannot legitimately question the merits of going to war when we are there now and so what does it matter (this one is so retarded it annoys the hell out of me to hear it)?; and other such rhetorical gaffs.
You seem unable to grasp the realities of politics. For example, using the most recent popular usage of the word "containment," would you have told Truman that his Doctrine of Containment was invalid because it would not make communism disappear overnight and that he should substitute in its place a Doctine of Communist Abolition? Do you question the committment of the pro-life movement for adopting a defacto policy of containment while callously letting 4000 babies die everyday on their watch?
Now, stop trying to wriggle and writhe your way out of debates using logical fallacies and infantile rhetoric.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Are you saying the US Congress did nothing to free the slaves all those years out of concern for embarrassing the south? So, they were basically "ABOLINOS" ...Ablotionist in Name Only? That is a really new twist, I hadn't heard that lame explanation before. Kudos for thinking that one up!
Lives of slaves did not come before property is 1860 America, the SCOTUS had ruled on it, and they were property. I reiterate, it was the UNITED STATES Supreme Court, not the CSA Supreme Court, who ruled this.
But back to a key fundamental issue, the reason the war was fought. Your argument throughout this debate has been, the Civil War was fought over the issue of Slavery. I have maintained it was not the issue of Slavery, rather a host of economic and constitutional issues concerning state's rights, tariffs, and property rights, and slavery was a sub-issue of the property rights argument. Now, you are trying to change your argument to "threat to slavery" and I can't allow that to stand. It has been my argument all along, one of the reasons for the war was a threat of the federalist government seizing over 4 billion dollars worth of "property" in the South, with no compensation, and in violation of the Constitution. Sorry, but you can't change to MY argument, when yours is failing.
Oh, I read how radical republicans tried to deny them Constitutional rights to equal representation under the law in 1896, which was about the same time the US was using slave labor to construct new infrastructure in the North. Was there some point about this post-war period you needed to make regarding the reasons the US had not dealt with the issue of Slavery before the war?
WTF... First you claim they didn't vote in either election, and when I show you the map, you claim anything that is red doesn't count? It means they DID vote, dumbass, contrary to your idiotic argument that they DIDN'T! The only three states who didn't vote in 1868 were Texas, Mississippi, and Virginia, and that is because they hadn't been reconstructed, the rest of them had functioning government, elected representatives, and a political voice in Congress. But this STILL doesn't answer the question of why the US didn't deal with the issue of Slavery before the Civil War.
This sounds like political double-speak for, "It wasn't a very popular idea at the time." Which is what I have argued all along. There were very few (if any) abolitionists serving in Congress, even in 1860! The overwhelming and vast majority of Americans were either indifferent to the issue of Slavery, or didn't favor giving slaves equality in society, because they did not see them as "equal" in any way. This was the common viewpoint of the time, and it is sad and shameful, but trying to pawn it all off on "only the South" is nothing but a lie and complete denial of reality and history.
I didn't criticize, I just asked you a legitimate question. How was it "containment" to accept West Virginia (a slave state) in 1863? This completely contradicts your argument, which has now changed btw, from, "the north was fighting for abolition" ...to... "the north was fighting for containment!" Containing the practice of slavery to a defined region, is a long damn way from freeing black men from the shackles of slavery!
You seem unable to grasp REALITY! Oh, I fully understand the politics of the day, you simply didn't get elected to public office in America, if you believed slaves should be free. This is why it is so laughable to me, that modern-day liberal bigots like you, will often view the Civil War as some Great Moral Crusade the North undertook to free the slaves. It simply wasn't!
Well let's see, you have compared dealing with the slavery issue to fighting illegal immigration, abortion, and Communism in this very post. Who is presenting the illogical fallacies and infantile rhetoric? I am asking you legitimate questions you can't seem to answer, left and right, and you just keep trying to change your argument over to mine, and I won't let you. That's pretty 'infantile' if you ask me.
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
If you wish to question their sincerity, that is your perogative.
If you could think and read, you wouldn't be accusing me of changing my argument. When you seceed from the union over slavery, there is an assumption that someone is threatening it. Thus, anytime someone like me says the war was over slavery, a thinking person with a functioning brain can deduce that slavery was being threatened. Apparently you are not such a person.
I personally don't care how the South was being treated. The South had been denying the slaves their Natural Rights, which are supposed to be the basis of our laws. As I have said more times than I should have to have, the North freed the slaves, so it must have wanted to do so.
Yep, most people were not eligable to vote because they couldn't meet the standards set forth by Congress. There is no way in hell that such evil, rotten people would have let their states go red in those elections. If you look ahead from the time in history, you will come accross of the Solid South, which represents a people back in full control of its region/elections and able to pleasure itself by killing black people with impunity.
Political parties are supposed to try to win elections. The fact that slavery was illegal in the Northern states is evidence that people didn't like it very much. Putting up an "extreme" candidate would be asking for defeat however. That said, the overwhelming majority of Northerners did not want to see slavery (ala Slave Power) expand into the territories. They wanted to contain it and set it on its path towards extinction. Remember, roughly 1/2 of the US supported slavery and wanted it to expand. There was even a movement in the 1850's to bring back the slave trade.
Don't let the word "West" confuse you. WV was not a Western state, that's why. In other words, it would not be able to maintain slavery because it was soon to be surrounded by free states.
No you don't. And don't call me a liberal, you fag.
I have indeed compared slavery to communism and abortion. Like them it is completely evil and depraved. My argument has not changed, you are just stupid.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not questioning their sincerity, just their lack of action. It seems odd that these Northerners who all thought the black man should be free, consistently passed laws making them property and likening them to cattle. Funny, I can't find any boycott by the North of Southern goods and products before the war, and you would think, if Slavery were such a sharply divided issue of the time, that would certainly have been done, but I can't find any indication of it. No legislative record to speak of, but you argue this is because the South controlled all branches of government at the time and wouldn't allow Northerners to speak.
There are two entirely different issues in play here. One is the issue of enslaving human beings... Slavery. The other, is the issue of what the laws of the time said, (that slaves were property) and what radical republicans were threatening to do, which was to essentially confiscate 4 billion dollars worth of assets from the South, without as much as a kiss or thank you from the Federal government. These are two completely different issues, and to confuse the two, is intellectual dishonesty.
The closest thing to an individual "reason" for the war, is "State's Rights" and this included the institution of slavery, as outlined by the law of the time and several Supreme Court rulings on the matter. But even State's Rights would not have prevented the Federal Government, or the SCOTUS for that matter, from legislating and ruling that black men should be free and equal like everyone else. The issue was not Slavery, America did not deal with the issue because America was not ready to deal with the issue. You can hide behind this false image you've created of the noble abolitionist North vs. the Racist Slave-owning South if you like, it doesn't take away the shame and responsibility the US Government has for the issue of Slavery, and it doesn't make it what the war was fought over. That is a Myth and a Lie.
Yeah, we know you don't care. You don't even have the moral decency to think Southerners should be given basic human rights, that speaks volumes for your character and ethics. You are sounding like a Black Panther again here, and you need to keep in mind, in 1861, negro slaves were not considered 'people' by anyone in the North or South. There were no "natural rights" in those days, for slaves. Our laws (meaning US laws) had determined slaves were property, like cattle or horses. People bought and sold them on the open market in the United States, believe it or not!
If The North had wanted to free the slaves all along, it seems there would be some evidence of it in the public record... some call for a vote... some great debate or filibuster.... some tangible government record pre-1860, which would indicate ANY of our government officials were trying to end slavery. But there simply is no such evidence of this. Instead, we have case after case of obfuscation, ignoring the problem, shucking responsibility for political expediency, and the common theme that white people in general, didn't believe black people were equal or deserved the same rights in America.
Yeah, and seeing how black people only counted as 3/5 of a vote....
Sounds to me like you have let your hate and bigotry get away from you a little. You are sounding absurd and arguing that our election system was a total and complete fraud and sham. How ridiculous can you get?
Again, you are telling me one thing while the record shows something different. Slavery was illegal up North because you have factories, not farms! Most of your industry's cheap labor came from kids and immigrants who made pennies a day, in horrific conditions, and didn't have the luxury of a plantation owner to take care of them. The fact that slavery was geographically confined to the southern states, does not unload the entire issue of slavery onto the South. You wish to do that with your inane argument, but that is because of your bigoted hate toward southerners. The facts do not support your case.
LMAO... I know where West Virginia is! So... the completely abolitionist North was okay with accepting a slave state in the East, but opposed to Western slavery? WTF???
That is a pretty liberal viewpoint you have about the great civil rights activist Dr. Abraham Lincoln Jr. It's a pretty liberal belief that modern-day racial equality issues were prevalent or even present in 1860's America, or that some magical thing took place along the Mason-Dixon to make some men see the injustices of slavery and others ignorant of it.
In RETROSPECT! It is very easy for us to forget this, it was the way things were then! Black people were Slaves, and your court and mine had ruled they were PROPERTY! YES, it IS evil and depraved! I have never argued otherwise! Nor have I argued the South was devoid of racist views or the desire to maintain the institution of slavery! But you can't dump it ALL on the South! That has been my point all along, had the issue of that time and day been the emancipation of the enslaved, there would be historical evidence of it in the actions of Congress before the Civil War happened, but there is not!
There were over a half-million Northern slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation, didn't free a single one of them. Had the Burning National Issue been the emancipation of the enslaved, it would have freed them all! Period!
The truth of the matter you want to escape is this... America was a devoutly racist society in 1860, 1864, 1870 and up until 1964, and is still that way in many places to this day. Your attempts to try and pin the blame all on Southerners is probably your way of dealing with your own personal guilt or something, or perhaps it's because you are just a bigot without any other reason but hate. To me, it cheapens the debate over civil rights today in America, to distort past historic events. Your US government was just as culpable and responsible for the issue of Slavery as my CSA was, if not, more so, because they had almost a century to address the issue and failed to do it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So you are saying, if they put up a candidate with the "extremist" view of abolishing slavery in America, it would have been asking for certain defeat.... yet... this was "the issue" the war was fought over? All of the north favored this abolition even though it was an extremist view, and the South all opposed it for the same reason, huh? ...but, they couldn't get elected in the north with that extremist view, so it seems kind of odd to me, being they all supposedly were fighting for this cause.
...Oh what a tangled web we weave...
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Actually, there was a Gag Rule in place.
Wrong, no cookie for you.
Euphemisms are fun, way to be courageous. I'm not here to bat for the US government, just to attack the freaks who made it disreputable to begin with.
No, slaves were never officially regarded as property by the national government until the Dred Scot decision in 1856, shortly before the war. There was no policy because people weren't allowed to talk about it. There is of course existing evidence of Northern abolition pre-1860 - that would be the state abolition legislation from the late 18th Century, plus the subsequent state governments that came into being later on.
Actually, 3/5 of a population tally which would be used to determine apportionment in the House (which would by extension effect the EC). The 3/5 number was a compromise because the power crazy South wanted them to count as a whole, but it didn't make any since because they were not allowed to vote and were not free persons. Technically, the clause also indicates that they are not property because of the choice of words.
Yeah, I would say the system was a joke when slaves were being counted for representation but not being represented while being used to give the South a political edge... That's fraud.
Okay, Mr. Marx, thanks for the anti-capitalist argument. First, the North abolished slavery during the Revolutionary Era, long before it industrialized. Secondly, it was the harsh conditions of the factory that helped fuel the Free Western Lands movement. They wanted workers to be able to save up money, move out West, and start up homesteads and families without slaveholders interfering with free labor.
Yep, explained why earlier, and then again before that, and so forth.
No, this is me telling it like it is. The side of morality is something liberals are not known for, being the Godless heathens that they are... Again, you mistake abolition for ant-racism, but then there was a civil rights movement during Reconstruction, so...
In retrospect, people should conduct themselves in a proper manner, and when they don't they deserve to suffer for it. Secondly, there was slavery in the border states- Missouri and Kentucky are Southern states eho happened to remain in the Union. Maryland and Deleware are the culprits. DC also had slavery before the war because the South wouldn't let it go, wanting to score cheap political points.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
OMFG, ROFLMAO! It just gets better and better! So now, the North didn't oppose Slavery for the previous century because there was a "gag order" on them? You are really grasping at straws here man, starting to lose it!
Right, and you can keep the cookie, making my point was good enough.
Hmmm, you claim you aren't a liberal, but you sure argue like a liberal. When they are defeated, they always run to the bag of platitudes and cynicisms.
OMGLMFAO Again! Are you seriously going to try and argue that before the government ruled the slaves were property in Dred Scot, they held some other view? The lack of officialdom in the issue is not evidence they favored abolition. Neither is the evidence that some Northern states who had no use for slaves, established abolition laws. The evidence is, these states had no problem whatsoever, accepting goods and products which were the result of slave labor in the South. Their great and noble policy of "containment" was to keep the black people out of their neck of the woods.
Well then, it is in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling which said otherwise, that is all I can say. And it's amazing you will keep throwing up the 3/5 thing, since it was the North who didn't have the moral decency to call them full people, and the South was fighting to have them count as whole people. It kind of slings a big pile of horse shit right back in your face, doesn't it? Oh, but you have a justification and excuse for everything, as bigots always do.
I'm still having a hard time following your tapdance around this pinhead. First you claim the North was opposed to the South counting them as whole people, then you claim they had no political power anyway. First you claim the South was in such strong arm control of Congress they initiated gag orders against people even freely debating abolition, and then you claim they had virtually no political power for a decade. You keep jumping all over the board with your arguments, it's hard to tell what you are trying to say anymore, other than a desperate attempt to explain your bigotry and hate.
Again, "The North" did no such a thing! There was no "The North" prior to "The Civil War!" There were northern states, who held very few (if any) slaves, and they naturally outlawed slavery because of the abhorrent nature of the practice as well as no economic interest or personal concern. In border states where slaves were prevalent, the US didn't even free them with the Emancipation Proclamation! What happened with regard to Western states and territories is irrelevant, there were no slaves in New Mexico! No one in the DESERT needed slaves!
No you have failed to offer a reasonable explanation as to how admitting a slave state to the Union in 1863, could be viewed as "containment" in any way. You have also failed to prove how this shows a desire or effort on part of a completely unobstructed US government, to do what you claim they fought the Civil War to do, which was to free the slaves.
Yes, I know there was, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It should have been the same text as the CRA of 1964, IF the cause of the North was giving the black man freedom. You keep stepping in a load of crap, it's really fun to watch... about the time you think you've found a point to make, it blows up in your face. The fact of the matter is, and you have not refuted this, the overwhelming view in ALL of America at the time, was not for abolition. It was, in your very own words, an "extremist" view of the time, and politicians who embraced it faced almost certain defeat. Yet, you want to paint us this Norman Rockwell picture of General Grant with his loving arms around a Slave, and pretend that was the reason for the Civil War. Sorry, it's a complete load of crap.
You are retrospectively deeming behavior that was legal and constitutional at the time, inappropriate. You are seeking to punish people for obeying the law of the land and doing exactly what their government told them they could do!
You claimed the North was devoid of Slavery, and I pointed out the fact there were a half-million slaves in the North, to which you promptly blame the South for, for some odd and mysterious reason. I don't know how to argue through that kind of bigoted ignorance, I really don't. So, I must resign from this thread at this time, it is hopeless with you, the hate and bigotry just runs to deep.