I am an Army brat with my family's roots in Michigan, both of my grandparents were Canadian. I grew up all over the States, Korea and Okinawa.ghettoperson wrote:
Lowing, what state are you from?
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-12 15:00:46)
I live in GeorgiaWar Man wrote:
My guess is the latter. I was curious too where you are from. So which state you currently live in?
yes he was against slavery, although his first duty was holding the union together. The issue here is that the southern states believed he was an abololitionist. The answer is clearly spelled out in my previous post. Lincoln has also made plenty of comments, some of them personally to friends and off the record, that show his true antislavery feelings. When i'm not on my phone i'll post those comments.lowing wrote:
Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he did not care about slavery and he felt slavery in the states that already had it was protected by the Constitution.Kmar wrote:
.. and Slavery, which people are trying to right out of the History books. But don't take my word for it. Read what the states wrote themselves.lowing wrote:
It was a war of independenceIt doesn't matter whether or not slavery would have "eventually ended" on it's own. Enslavement is enslavement and should always be ended immediately.Kmar wrote:
(the Declarations of Causes of Seceding State).South Calorlina wrote:
The primary focus of the declaration is the perceived violation of the Constitution by northern states in not extraditing escaped slaves. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. .Texas wrote:
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? For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.Florida wrote:
It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.
It is in so many words saying to you we will not burn you at the stake but we will torture you to death by a slow fire we will not confiscate your property and consign you to a residence and equality with the african but that destiny certainly awaits your children – and you must quietly submit or we will force you to submission – men who can hesitate to resist such aggressions are slaves already and deserve their destiny. The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated. But on the contrary they declare that on this point they will make no concession or compromise. It is manifest that they will not because to do so would be the dissolution of the party.
Slavery was not the issue, be it all slavery or all free he wanted the union to remain intact. It was a war for independence from a tyrannical federal govt. ( in the eyes of the south)
No real point, was just curious.lowing wrote:
Did you have a point or were you just trying to get to know me better through small talk?
Kmar, although Lincoln thought slavery was morally wrong, he was not an abolitionist, nor did he go to war to end slavery. He went to warto preserve the union, be it with or without slavery.Kmar wrote:
yes he was against slavery, although his first duty was holding the union together. The issue here is that the southern states believed he was an abololitionist. The answer is clearly spelled out in my previous post. Lincoln has also made plenty of comments, some of them personally to friends and off the record, that show his true antislavery feelings. When i'm not on my phone i'll post those comments.lowing wrote:
Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he did not care about slavery and he felt slavery in the states that already had it was protected by the Constitution.Kmar wrote:
.. and Slavery, which people are trying to right out of the History books. But don't take my word for it. Read what the states wrote themselves.lowing wrote:
It was a war of independence
It doesn't matter whether or not slavery would have "eventually ended" on it's own. Enslavement is enslavement and should always be ended immediately.
Slavery was not the issue, be it all slavery or all free he wanted the union to remain intact. It was a war for independence from a tyrannical federal govt. ( in the eyes of the south)
no real point unless I was born and raised in the the backwoods of Alabama or Mississippi perhaps?ghettoperson wrote:
No real point, was just curious.lowing wrote:
Did you have a point or were you just trying to get to know me better through small talk?
correctShahter wrote:
oh, noes! that was done by evil commies. not worth remembering, let alone celebrating.Kmar wrote:
Today is the anniversary of the first human spaceflight. ..far more important.
http://youtu.be/RKs6ikmrLgg
That is true.. but you have to look at the causes of war. Obviously if the states would not have left the union then there would be no need to "preserve the union". So, looking back at why they left the union we see that the slavery issue was a major cause.. as spelled out by them.lowing wrote:
Kmar, although Lincoln thought slavery was morally wrong, he was not an abolitionist, nor did he go to war to end slavery. He went to warto preserve the union, be it with or without slavery.Kmar wrote:
yes he was against slavery, although his first duty was holding the union together. The issue here is that the southern states believed he was an abololitionist. The answer is clearly spelled out in my previous post. Lincoln has also made plenty of comments, some of them personally to friends and off the record, that show his true antislavery feelings. When i'm not on my phone i'll post those comments.lowing wrote:
Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he did not care about slavery and he felt slavery in the states that already had it was protected by the Constitution.
Slavery was not the issue, be it all slavery or all free he wanted the union to remain intact. It was a war for independence from a tyrannical federal govt. ( in the eyes of the south)
Exactly what I said, you are/were one of the few people on here who I didn't know where you're from, and it just occurred to me at that moment. I'm not sure why, but I was pretty sure you weren't from the south.lowing wrote:
no real point unless I was born and raised in the the backwoods of Alabama or Mississippi perhaps?ghettoperson wrote:
No real point, was just curious.lowing wrote:
Did you have a point or were you just trying to get to know me better through small talk?
an issue yes, the cause no. Those states, in their eyes viewed the inability for states to choose for themselves their own course of action regarding slavery as well as other issues, as a direct threat. The north was not interested in abolishing slavery all together, the issue was the expansion of it to new territories. Disallowing the right for those states to choose.Kmar wrote:
That is true.. but you have to look at the causes of war. Obviously if the states would not have left the union then there would be no need to "preserve the union". So, looking back at why they left the union we see that the slavery issue was a major cause.. as spelled out by them.lowing wrote:
Kmar, although Lincoln thought slavery was morally wrong, he was not an abolitionist, nor did he go to war to end slavery. He went to warto preserve the union, be it with or without slavery.Kmar wrote:
yes he was against slavery, although his first duty was holding the union together. The issue here is that the southern states believed he was an abololitionist. The answer is clearly spelled out in my previous post. Lincoln has also made plenty of comments, some of them personally to friends and off the record, that show his true antislavery feelings. When i'm not on my phone i'll post those comments.
ok fair enough.ghettoperson wrote:
Exactly what I said, you are/were one of the few people on here who I didn't know where you're from, and it just occurred to me at that moment. I'm not sure why, but I was pretty sure you weren't from the south.lowing wrote:
no real point unless I was born and raised in the the backwoods of Alabama or Mississippi perhaps?ghettoperson wrote:
No real point, was just curious.
lowing wrote:
an issue yes, the cause no. Those states, in their eyes viewed the inability for states to choose for themselves their own course of action regarding slavery as well as other issues, as a direct threat. The north was not interested in abolishing slavery all together, the issue was the expansion of it to new territories. Disallowing the right for those states to choose.Kmar wrote:
That is true.. but you have to look at the causes of war. Obviously if the states would not have left the union then there would be no need to "preserve the union". So, looking back at why they left the union we see that the slavery issue was a major cause.. as spelled out by them.lowing wrote:
Kmar, although Lincoln thought slavery was morally wrong, he was not an abolitionist, nor did he go to war to end slavery. He went to warto preserve the union, be it with or without slavery.
Again, the north did not fight to end slavery, and the south did not fight to keep it. THey fought over the individual states rights to govern themselves and decide for themselves.
It came back to the issue of nullification. Under Jackson, Calhoun fomented a semi-rebellion over the Nullification issue. Nullification would've meant states could veto any federal law they wished by nullifying it. Essentially, it would've destroyed the federal government.Kmar wrote:
That is true.. but you have to look at the causes of war. Obviously if the states would not have left the union then there would be no need to "preserve the union". So, looking back at why they left the union we see that the slavery issue was a major cause.. as spelled out by them.lowing wrote:
Kmar, although Lincoln thought slavery was morally wrong, he was not an abolitionist, nor did he go to war to end slavery. He went to warto preserve the union, be it with or without slavery.Kmar wrote:
yes he was against slavery, although his first duty was holding the union together. The issue here is that the southern states believed he was an abololitionist. The answer is clearly spelled out in my previous post. Lincoln has also made plenty of comments, some of them personally to friends and off the record, that show his true antislavery feelings. When i'm not on my phone i'll post those comments.
It was not uncommon that northern factory workers were treated as bad if not worse than southern slaves. The absolute VAST majority of those that fought for the south did not even own any slaves, so had no reason to fight to protect it. The south did not try and change the way the industrial north operated even though the factory workers were by and large slaves of a different stripe. However, the North DID try and change the way the south operated, by trying to dictate to the expanding territories. This is the northern aggression the south speaks of.Jay wrote:
It came back to the issue of nullification. Under Jackson, Calhoun fomented a semi-rebellion over the Nullification issue. Nullification would've meant states could veto any federal law they wished by nullifying it. Essentially, it would've destroyed the federal government.Kmar wrote:
That is true.. but you have to look at the causes of war. Obviously if the states would not have left the union then there would be no need to "preserve the union". So, looking back at why they left the union we see that the slavery issue was a major cause.. as spelled out by them.lowing wrote:
Kmar, although Lincoln thought slavery was morally wrong, he was not an abolitionist, nor did he go to war to end slavery. He went to warto preserve the union, be it with or without slavery.
South Carolina threatened secession over the nullification issue and Jackson slapped them down. Hard.
Fast forward thirty years and it's essentially the same argument all over again. The issue this time was state sovereignty in regards to slavery. The two are inseparable. You can not remove slavery from the equation and state that it was simply about States Rights.
As for Lincoln... whether he himself was an abolishionist or not is irrelevant. He was a politician and the party he represented was full of abolishionists. He was in fact an abolishionist, but he was a politician first and foremost. If the nation had been pro-slavery and being pro-slavery meant winning an election then he sure as shit would've been pro slavery. He was no different than any other politician has been in history. He certainly was no saint.
Worse in what way? Were they whipped? Were they told where to sleep and what to eat and whom to fuck? No? Ok, then. I'd rather live in a gutter and be free than be someone elses slave. You can not in any way shape or form convince me that slaves were better off than free northern factory workers. Sorry.lowing wrote:
It was not uncommon that northern factory workers were treated as bad if not worse than southern slaves.
The first part is correct. The second part is not. While most southerners were not slave owners, they pretty much all aspired to one day live the idle manor life embodied by the southern planter class. For the same reason that poor people side with the rich on issues like taxation today, it all boils down to hope. Poor southerners had hope that one day they themselves would be rich enough to own slaves, and poor people today have hope that they themselves may one day be rich.The absolute VAST majority of those that fought for the south did not even own any slaves, so had no reason to fight to protect it.
Because they refused to allow the expansion of slavery and an idle lifestyle built upon the enslavement of other human beings? Well holy shit. That's awful. Those people sucked.The south did not try and change the way the industrial north operated even though the factory workers were by and large slaves of a different stripe. However, the North DID try and change the way the south operated, by trying to dictate to the expanding territories. This is the northern aggression the south speaks of.
I mean there were tariffs and other crap that they bickered over but there was no single issue that would've riled the planter class up enough to foment rebellion aside from an attack on the very core of their way of life. That core was built on slave labor and they weren't going to give it up without a fight.Again the north did not fight to end slavery in the south and the south did not fight to keep it. THey fought over exactly what you said Jay, state sovereignty. Not only for the slave issue but for all issues.
1. you are going under the assumption that ALL slaves were treated as cruel as possible. That simply was not the case for the majority of them. A whipped and sick slave was kinda counter productive. Stop watching so many movies.Jay wrote:
I really hate breaking up posts like this...Worse in what way? Were they whipped? Were they told where to sleep and what to eat and whom to fuck? No? Ok, then. I'd rather live in a gutter and be free than be someone elses slave. You can not in any way shape or form convince me that slaves were better off than free northern factory workers. Sorry.lowing wrote:
It was not uncommon that northern factory workers were treated as bad if not worse than southern slaves.The first part is correct. The second part is not. While most southerners were not slave owners, they pretty much all aspired to one day live the idle manor life embodied by the southern planter class. For the same reason that poor people side with the rich on issues like taxation today, it all boils down to hope. Poor southerners had hope that one day they themselves would be rich enough to own slaves, and poor people today have hope that they themselves may one day be rich.The absolute VAST majority of those that fought for the south did not even own any slaves, so had no reason to fight to protect it.Because they refused to allow the expansion of slavery and an idle lifestyle built upon the enslavement of other human beings? Well holy shit. That's awful. Those people sucked.The south did not try and change the way the industrial north operated even though the factory workers were by and large slaves of a different stripe. However, the North DID try and change the way the south operated, by trying to dictate to the expanding territories. This is the northern aggression the south speaks of.
The fight that came with the inclusion of new states over slavery put the lie to the idea that slavery was going to die out on its own. It wasn't. Who in their right mind would give up an idle lifestyle predicated on leaching off the labor of others? No one. It wasn't going to die unless it was forced on them.I mean there were tariffs and other crap that they bickered over but there was no single issue that would've riled the planter class up enough to foment rebellion aside from an attack on the very core of their way of life. That core was built on slave labor and they weren't going to give it up without a fight.Again the north did not fight to end slavery in the south and the south did not fight to keep it. THey fought over exactly what you said Jay, state sovereignty. Not only for the slave issue but for all issues.
Last edited by Jay (2011-04-12 17:59:22)
Your comment painted the worse possible existence for these people, that they all suffered. I am just pointing out that that was not the case. (oxymoron ignored if you can keep my comments in perspective as well.) I know slavery was bad, but they were not treated as harshly as you painted.Jay wrote:
Lowing, where did I state that they were whipped on a daily basis? The very idea of being in bondage should be abhorrent to any human being. Would you accept slavery if you were treated nicely? (ignore the oxymoron)
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-12 18:07:45)
If given the choice would you have taken the lot of the slave or the factory worker?lowing wrote:
Your comment painted the worse possible existence for these people, that they all suffered. I am just pointing out that that was not the case. (oxymoron ignored if you can keep my comments in perspective as well.) I know slavery was bad, but they were not treated as harshly as you painted.Jay wrote:
Lowing, where did I state that they were whipped on a daily basis? The very idea of being in bondage should be abhorrent to any human being. Would you accept slavery if you were treated nicely? (ignore the oxymoron)
and in many cases, as I said, the factory workers lives were just as harsh if not worse.