The civil war, and Ron Paul

Most of us are slaves to a degree. It begins as voluntary choices and then entraps us.
It is a large part of our society, in many different ways.
 
Pretending that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery is solely pretense created to take away from the sacrifice many made to free slaves.
//

I have never indicated that Damo. I am just making the point that slavery was not the trigger for the civil war.
 
uscitizen said:
Pretending that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery is solely pretense created to take away from the sacrifice many made to free slaves.
//

I have never indicated that Damo. I am just making the point that slavery was not the trigger for the civil war.
Click to expand...

Uhmm. Yet it was.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Im just saying it had a lot to do with slavery.
Click to expand...


I said in my first post, that the issue of the expansion of slavery to new states was an issue.

But, linclon and the republican platform never proposed abolishing slavery in the south.

Linclon's decision to raise troops and fight, however, was directly related to the specific events of 1861: a rebellion, an insurrection, and the attack on american troops by rebels.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You didn't answer my question. How do free people compete with slaves?
Click to expand...


simple answer...they cannot unless they want to work for free or bare essentials!

side note: the link I provided you answered this question...you are being like damo loves to say...obtuse!:D
 
Last edited:
Battleborne said:
This was a text book...catch 22...damned if you do damned if ya don't...if you were Lincoln...How would you have handled the dissenters?(with big guns)
Click to expand...
QFT and as Cypress pointed out South Carolina seceded by firing on US Troops. So there was only one response. Big effin guns.
 
Watermark said:
I don't know, but it makes me sick the way liberals support Shermans tactics. In the modern world Sherman would be sent to the Hague and executed as the war criminal scum he is. There were Nazi's who did less than Sherman did and were executed. We do not sink to the level of barbarians, nor should we ever, for any reason, ever, period, at all.
Click to expand...
Sherman burned a swath of the south, the US firebombed Dresden. Most people in Dresden died of asphyxiation. It was payback for the rocketing of London and a bunch of other shit that most of the citizens of Dresden had nothing to do with. Someone somewhere said "War is hell." He was right.
 
Lets not forget the firebombing of Japan either and the resulting firestorms.


Or is it worse when it is against europeans ?
 
uscitizen said:
Do some more studying there Asshat.
Click to expand...
Asshat is right. Read the Declarations of Secession from the four states that issued them.

First Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. 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.
Click to expand...

then Mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Click to expand...

the Declaration of South Carolina spends more time talking about the history of the secession of the United Staes from Britian but then in their FIRST statement of cause for the reason of secession they state:

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Click to expand...

and Finally Texas beginning with the first full paragraph of its document of secession states:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
Just like all good essay writers the authors of these declarations make clear that the instituion of slavery is THE STATE RIGHT they seek to preserve. And not even understanding that Lincoln had NO INTENT to do away with the institution as it existed in the souther states, these states and their less prolific cousins seceded from the Union because they thought that with Radical Republicans in Congress and a Republican president they were going to lose slavery.

Asshat is right, in an attempt to soothe sore feelings we have reclassified the war as one of States Rights rather than one to preserve Slavery. Hell the term States Rights was not even really used by southerners until AFTER the war.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Socrtease said:
Sherman burned a swath of the south, the US firebombed Dresden. Most people in Dresden died of asphyxiation. It was payback for the rocketing of London and a bunch of other shit that most of the citizens of Dresden had nothing to do with. Someone somewhere said "War is hell." He was right.
Click to expand...

Sherman, the war criminal, once said war is hell, and many dictators and people who believe we should nuke Mecca use the same slogan. It's an evil slogan and anyone who quotes it is an idiot and justifies atrocity. Atrocity is never necessary. If any cause can't be kept up without resorting to atrocity it doesn't deserve to remain.
 
If we are humans, we never allow innocent citizens to be murdered, slaughtered, and raped for the sake of military glory. If Sherman was justified Abu-Gharib is justified.
 
Battleborne said:
The North was moving into Industrialization vs the South who depended on crops such as cotton...slaves were needed to profit...The North did not want the slave trade moving into the western territories as they were looked upon as new industrial potential... mining etc...


Never mind read for yourself http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354/Civil_War.html
Click to expand...
once again QFT. The North was not full of philanthropic haters of human bondage, they were terrified that some industrious slave owner would see the profit in using slaves to mine for silver and gold and not have to pay the miners or even care if they died. FEW northerners were opposed to slavery on moral grounds. Most just knew that you could not compete against free labor in a capitalist economy.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Sherman, the war criminal, once said war is hell, and many dictators and people who believe we should nuke Mecca use the same slogan. It's an evil slogan and anyone who quotes it is an idiot and justifies atrocity. Atrocity is never necessary. If any cause can't be kept up without resorting to atrocity it doesn't deserve to remain.
Click to expand...
War criminals are only on the losing side. Rarely if ever do we lable the victor a war criminal. I agree with you Water, what Sherman did was horrible. But water under the bridge. We can stop it from happening in the future, but using the fact that Sherman burned Atlanta as proof that the North should not have engaged in the war in the first place is pure and simple hindsight. Let the south or the north or the mountain west try to secede now and watch what happens. Same song different verse.
 
Socrtease said:
War criminals are only on the losing side. Rarely if ever do we lable the victor a war criminal. I agree with you Water, what Sherman did was horrible. But water under the bridge. We can stop it from happening in the future, but using the fact that Sherman burned Atlanta as proof that the North should not have engaged in the war in the first place is pure and simple hindsight. Let the south or the north or the mountain west try to secede now and watch what happens. Same song different verse.
Click to expand...

It was one of the biggest failures of the founding fathers, setting together a union with problems that would inevitably result in war. Like the joke of the 3/5ths compromise, that allowed southern whites to use representation from slaves who had no voice.
 
And war criminals shouldn't only reference the losers, IMHO. A war criminal is a war criminal whether or not they are punished for it by their own court system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top