Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2011-04-13 02:07:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6926|USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the United States Congress on March 2, 1861. Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin offered the amendment during the closing days of the Second Session of the 36th Congress in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. The proposed amendment would have forbidden attempts to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states, including "persons held to labor or service" (a reference to slavery).



Corwin's resolution emerged as the House of Representatives's version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by Senator William H. Seward of New York. However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was totally committed to independence, and so it ignored the proposed Corwin Amendment.


as stated it was a war for independence by the southern states, and a war to preserve the union by the north. The north was not trying to abolish slavery in the south, they wanted to keep it from spreading to new territories.

THere simply was no need for the south to fight for slavery when their right to keep slaves was not in question. Makes no sense.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-13 02:09:32)

2011-04-13 02:15:35
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:


No Kmar, slavery in existing states was never threatened. It was only future territories that was the issue. The south did not fight to keep slavery.
The South did feel threatened of the loss of slavery lowing. It's in clear view when their stated causes of seceding states. That is their words.. there is no disputing it.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … eral_Union
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm
south carolina
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.


florida
Laws clearly constitutional and as decided to be by the Federal Judiciary as well as by the Courts of all the non slaveholding States where the question has been presented for adjudication have been by counter legislation rendered inoperative, laws without the power to pass which none will deny that the Constitution would not have been adopted.

The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.


texas

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.



all of these declarations are pretty long winded and detailed. Bottom line is, it was about states rights being trampled on by a majority of northern states. THe south no longer felt its interests were represented within the federal govt. so they seceded.
annd, as spelled out by them, the interest slavery. Yea, they feared their state rights were being trampled upon.. specifically and obviously their state right to own human beings for labor. I suppose the governor of Alabama (George C. Wallace) felt that his states rights were being trampled on when Kennedy and the national guard forced him to stand aside whilst his state was being desegregated. In instances such as these it's very convenient to play the victim role, whilst protecting the exploitation of people. The civil liberties of (all) men in our constitution supersede the rights of the states.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-04-13 02:21:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6926|USA

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:


The South did feel threatened of the loss of slavery lowing. It's in clear view when their stated causes of seceding states. That is their words.. there is no disputing it.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … eral_Union
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm
south carolina
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.


florida
Laws clearly constitutional and as decided to be by the Federal Judiciary as well as by the Courts of all the non slaveholding States where the question has been presented for adjudication have been by counter legislation rendered inoperative, laws without the power to pass which none will deny that the Constitution would not have been adopted.

The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.


texas

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.



all of these declarations are pretty long winded and detailed. Bottom line is, it was about states rights being trampled on by a majority of northern states. THe south no longer felt its interests were represented within the federal govt. so they seceded.
annd, as spelled out by them, the interest slavery. Yea, they feared their state rights were being trampled upon.. specifically and obviously their state right to own human beings for labor. I suppose the governor of Alabama (George C. Wallace) felt that his states rights were being trampled on when Kennedy and the national guard forced him to stand aside whilst his state was being desegregated. In instances such as these it's very convenient to play the victim role, whilst protecting the exploitation of people. The civil liberties of (all) men in our constitution supersede the rights of the states.
slaver was an issue, but as I showed you, NOT in the existing slave states. There was no threat by the north to abolish existing slavery. The war simply was not fought over slavery. it was fought for independence from the federal govt. slavery being one major issue and not the battle cry for either side.
2011-04-13 02:31:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

south carolina
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.


florida
Laws clearly constitutional and as decided to be by the Federal Judiciary as well as by the Courts of all the non slaveholding States where the question has been presented for adjudication have been by counter legislation rendered inoperative, laws without the power to pass which none will deny that the Constitution would not have been adopted.

The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.


texas

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.



all of these declarations are pretty long winded and detailed. Bottom line is, it was about states rights being trampled on by a majority of northern states. THe south no longer felt its interests were represented within the federal govt. so they seceded.
annd, as spelled out by them, the interest slavery. Yea, they feared their state rights were being trampled upon.. specifically and obviously their state right to own human beings for labor. I suppose the governor of Alabama (George C. Wallace) felt that his states rights were being trampled on when Kennedy and the national guard forced him to stand aside whilst his state was being desegregated. In instances such as these it's very convenient to play the victim role, whilst protecting the exploitation of people. The civil liberties of (all) men in our constitution supersede the rights of the states.
slaver was an issue, but as I showed you, NOT in the existing slave states. There was no threat by the north to abolish existing slavery. The war simply was not fought over slavery. it was fought for independence from the federal govt. slavery being one major issue and not the battle cry for either side.
I have never stated slavery as a single cause. however, from what I have read, it was one of the most significant causes.

It matters what they thought at the time. Wars are often waged on lies, propaganda, and manipulation. Expand your knowledge of the civil war past the letter of the law, and consider historical context and popular sentiment at the time. In this case, perception was reality. It's evident in the language they used when stating their reasons for seceding.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-04-13 05:02:36
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5633|London, England
End this thread. lowing has already been intellectually destroyed. He just refuses to concede.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-13 05:09:02
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+564|6988|Purplicious Wisconsin
Nah, I think lowing has more ammunition.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2011-04-13 05:15:21
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5633|London, England

War Man wrote:

Nah, I think lowing has more ammunition.
https://toychop.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/troll-face-meme.png
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-13 13:57:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6926|USA

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:


annd, as spelled out by them, the interest slavery. Yea, they feared their state rights were being trampled upon.. specifically and obviously their state right to own human beings for labor. I suppose the governor of Alabama (George C. Wallace) felt that his states rights were being trampled on when Kennedy and the national guard forced him to stand aside whilst his state was being desegregated. In instances such as these it's very convenient to play the victim role, whilst protecting the exploitation of people. The civil liberties of (all) men in our constitution supersede the rights of the states.
slaver was an issue, but as I showed you, NOT in the existing slave states. There was no threat by the north to abolish existing slavery. The war simply was not fought over slavery. it was fought for independence from the federal govt. slavery being one major issue and not the battle cry for either side.
I have never stated slavery as a single cause. however, from what I have read, it was one of the most significant causes.

It matters what they thought at the time. Wars are often waged on lies, propaganda, and manipulation. Expand your knowledge of the civil war past the letter of the law, and consider historical context and popular sentiment at the time. In this case, perception was reality. It's evident in the language they used when stating their reasons for seceding.
Nothing more I can show you. I showed you in your own links that the states were not being represented and the constitution was not being followed for the southern states. What they "thought" seemed pretty clear. Their rights as states were being trampled by the northern majority of the federal govt. this is why they seceded, as spelled out in your own links. You have now claimed what the people "thought" is what matters. Well, what they thought is exactly what I have stated, they were threatened by northern interference against their way of life. Hardly any soldier fought for or against slavery. Hardly a man said they are going to war to end slavery, or they are going to war to preserve it.  Hell the norths position on the matter was to keep slavery if it would save the union. They simply just did not go to war to end slavery Kmar.

So if you want to claim the war for southern independence was fought to end slavery, so be it, knock yourself out.
2011-04-13 14:29:16
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,742|7012|Cinncinatti
facedesk
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2011-04-13 14:57:02
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5311|Massachusetts, USA

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:


slaver was an issue, but as I showed you, NOT in the existing slave states. There was no threat by the north to abolish existing slavery. The war simply was not fought over slavery. it was fought for independence from the federal govt. slavery being one major issue and not the battle cry for either side.
I have never stated slavery as a single cause. however, from what I have read, it was one of the most significant causes.

It matters what they thought at the time. Wars are often waged on lies, propaganda, and manipulation. Expand your knowledge of the civil war past the letter of the law, and consider historical context and popular sentiment at the time. In this case, perception was reality. It's evident in the language they used when stating their reasons for seceding.
Nothing more I can show you. I showed you in your own links that the states were not being represented and the constitution was not being followed for the southern states. What they "thought" seemed pretty clear. Their rights as states were being trampled by the northern majority of the federal govt. this is why they seceded, as spelled out in your own links. You have now claimed what the people "thought" is what matters. Well, what they thought is exactly what I have stated, they were threatened by northern interference against their way of life. Hardly any soldier fought for or against slavery. Hardly a man said they are going to war to end slavery, or they are going to war to preserve it.  Hell the norths position on the matter was to keep slavery if it would save the union. They simply just did not go to war to end slavery Kmar.

So if you want to claim the war for southern independence was fought to end slavery, so be it, knock yourself out.
South will rise again.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-04-13 16:12:13
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

slaver was an issue, but as I showed you, NOT in the existing slave states. There was no threat by the north to abolish existing slavery. The war simply was not fought over slavery. it was fought for independence from the federal govt. slavery being one major issue and not the battle cry for either side.
I have never stated slavery as a single cause. however, from what I have read, it was one of the most significant causes.

It matters what they thought at the time. Wars are often waged on lies, propaganda, and manipulation. Expand your knowledge of the civil war past the letter of the law, and consider historical context and popular sentiment at the time. In this case, perception was reality. It's evident in the language they used when stating their reasons for seceding.
Nothing more I can show you. I showed you in your own links that the states were not being represented and the constitution was not being followed for the southern states. What they "thought" seemed pretty clear. Their rights as states were being trampled by the northern majority of the federal govt. this is why they seceded, as spelled out in your own links. You have now claimed what the people "thought" is what matters. Well, what they thought is exactly what I have stated, they were threatened by northern interference against their way of life. Hardly any soldier fought for or against slavery. Hardly a man said they are going to war to end slavery, or they are going to war to preserve it.  Hell the norths position on the matter was to keep slavery if it would save the union. They simply just did not go to war to end slavery Kmar.

So if you want to claim the war for southern independence was fought to end slavery, so be it, knock yourself out.
There is nothing more I can show you. IT seems you have selective reading. From my links .. aka (the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States)

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

It was a war of independence
.. 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.

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.

Mississippi wrote:

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 the 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.
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.
.. and again. I'm sure George Wallace thought his states rights were being trampled on when Kennedy and the national guard desegregated his schools.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-04-13 16:33:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6926|USA

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

slaver was an issue, but as I showed you, NOT in the existing slave states. There was no threat by the north to abolish existing slavery. The war simply was not fought over slavery. it was fought for independence from the federal govt. slavery being one major issue and not the battle cry for either side.
I have never stated slavery as a single cause. however, from what I have read, it was one of the most significant causes.

It matters what they thought at the time. Wars are often waged on lies, propaganda, and manipulation. Expand your knowledge of the civil war past the letter of the law, and consider historical context and popular sentiment at the time. In this case, perception was reality. It's evident in the language they used when stating their reasons for seceding.
Nothing more I can show you. I showed you in your own links that the states were not being represented and the constitution was not being followed for the southern states. What they "thought" seemed pretty clear. Their rights as states were being trampled by the northern majority of the federal govt. this is why they seceded, as spelled out in your own links. You have now claimed what the people "thought" is what matters. Well, what they thought is exactly what I have stated, they were threatened by northern interference against their way of life. Hardly any soldier fought for or against slavery. Hardly a man said they are going to war to end slavery, or they are going to war to preserve it.  Hell the norths position on the matter was to keep slavery if it would save the union. They simply just did not go to war to end slavery Kmar.

So if you want to claim the war for southern independence was fought to end slavery, so be it, knock yourself out.
There is nothing more I can show you. IT seems you have selective reading. From my links .. aka (the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States)

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

It was a war of independence
.. 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.

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.
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.
.. and again. I'm sure George Wallace thought his states rights were being trampled on when Kennedy and the national guard desegregated his schools.
George Wallace might have, however, unlike the mid 1800's, the issue of states rights over federal law has already been decided for him.
2011-04-13 18:10:05
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6855|the dank(super) side of Oregon
exactly what were these other states' rights issues at the heart of secession?  abortion?  healthcare?  guns?  medical Marijuana?
2011-04-14 00:13:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6926|USA

Reciprocity wrote:

exactly what were these other states' rights issues at the heart of secession?  abortion?  healthcare?  guns?  medical Marijuana?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm.

Actually the very first paragraph, sums it up well enough. but it is an interesting read.

It wasn't any specific issue although slavery was the straw that broke that camels back. The issue was, in general, where did the real power lay, within each individual state acting upon their own interests, or with a federal govt. dictating to the states?
2011-04-14 00:38:09
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6855|the dank(super) side of Oregon
slavery wasn't the straw that broke the camels back, it was the 500lb bale.  All that federal power the south was whining about was only a problem because is wasn't their power.  And at the time federal politics were divided and defined by slavery.  Sure, you could say it was a "states' rights" conflict,  but the specific state's right defining their antebellum economy and culture, that they felt was so threatened, was slavery and the white supremacy that went along with it.

which isn't to say white supremacy wasn't a common view/belief in northern states.  They just didn't take it to that human chattel level.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2011-04-14 00:42:37)

2011-04-14 00:50:12
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

I have no doubt that the southern states felt that the federal government was overstepping, and infringing on their rights to govern themselves. However, I think the previous discussions and increasing division on the subject of slavery were the catalyst to war. .. even though compromises were seemingly met.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-04-14 00:56:51
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6926|USA

Reciprocity wrote:

slavery wasn't the straw that broke the camels back, it was the 500lb bale.  All that federal power the south was whining about was only a problem because is wasn't their power.  And at the time federal politics were divided and defined by slavery.  Sure, you could say it was a "states' rights" conflict,  but the specific state's right defining their antebellum economy and culture, that they felt was so threatened, was slavery and the white supremacy that went along with it.

which isn't to say white supremacy wasn't a common view/belief in northern states.  They just didn't take it to that human chattel level.
As I said earlier, the disenfranchised, in the north was no better off than the slaves in the south. Yeah you will argue but they were "free". Free do what? Free to leave, where? There was no social programs, or help up money, they lived and died by the work they produced, just like slaves.

The north was not apposed to slavery, they had a different idea of how it should be put to use.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-14 01:00:04)

2011-04-14 00:58:06
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6949|Canberra, AUS
So kids in the north were forcibly removed from their parents against their will and sold to rich people for life?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-04-14 01:00:31
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6991

Spark wrote:

So kids in the north were forcibly removed from their parents against their will and sold to rich people for life?
There were still some slavery in northern states. Lincolns emancipation proclomation only applied to southern states not northern states.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-04-14 01:01:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6926|USA

Spark wrote:

So kids in the north were forcibly removed from their parents against their will and sold to rich people for life?
That not what I said. I said the north were no saints regarding the exploitation of human workers. As a slave owner, you took ownership of your property, you take care of your property. Just like anything you own now. Imagine a factory worker that no employer was responsible for. If they got sick or died they just bring in a new one for free. A slave owner paid good money for his slaves, it was not in his best interests to keep them in shitty living conditions, poorly feed, or sick. It is like you buying a new car, would you really abuse it and expect it to give you your moneys worth?

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-14 01:09:11)

2011-04-14 01:04:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

The north was actually much better off financially. I believe I once heard that NY produced as much revenue as 4 southern states combined
..i'll have to check that figure though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-04-14 01:06:20
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6991

Kmar wrote:

The north was actually much better off financially. I believe I once heard that NY produced as much revenue as 4 southern states combined
..i'll have to check that figure though.
It's no doubt that the north was a financial and industrial powerhouse. King cotton didn't help the south too much in the end.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-04-14 01:08:45
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

Sorry about the quality .. but actually it produced more than all of the southern states combined.

https://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7794/ss20110414040724.pngWages were much higher as well

http://books.google.com/books?id=fHQpAA … mp;f=false
The census reports of the value of farm products for the year 1890 of the 16 Southern States shows the amount to be $773,185,573 The value of the manufactured products even in the Southern States amounted to $466,541,428 more than the farm products Now contrast the following census statistics of the manufacturing industries of the 16 Southern States with those of the State of New York alone and notice the results No of Total factories oapital New Tork State 65,840 $1,130,161,195 16 Southern States &8 898 853,075,487 Excess in New Tork 6,944 $277,085,708 Wages Employees paid New Tork State 850,084 466,846.642 16 Southern States 734.954 293,716,530 Excess in New Tork 115,130 $173,139,112 Cost of Value of material products New Tork State $871,264,085 1 71 1,577,671 16 Southern 8tates 672,047,394 1.239 727,099 Excess in New Tork 199.218 691 $171,850,572 You will observe that New York State has 6,944 more factories than the whole 16 Southern States that she has $277,085 708 more capital invested in manufacturing industries that she pays $173,130,112 more for wages annually that the cost of raw material used in her factories amounts to $191,216,691 more and that the value of the products of the factories of New York State annually exceeds those of all the 16 Southern States by $471 850,572 Again notice the corresponding statistics of the manufacturing industries of the three cities of New York Brooklyn and Philadelphia in comparison with the Southern States which are as follows No of Total factories capital New Tork City 26.399 $480.238 a02 Brooklyn 10,561 126,849,052 Philadelphia 18.148 362,895,272 Total in 8 cities 54,108 $968,962,926 Wanes Employees paid New Tork City 351.757 $988,537,295 Brooklyn 103.68 S 61,975,702 Philadelphia 258,073 1S2 436 268 Total in 3 cities 708,513 $422,949,265 Cost of Value of material produots New Tork City $357,086,305 T67 B3 923 Brooklyn 137,325,749 248,750,184 Philadelphia 302,623,539 564,823.782 Total in 3 cities i97 035,598 $1,880,407,869
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-04-14 01:24:12
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

Cybargs wrote:

Kmar wrote:

The north was actually much better off financially. I believe I once heard that NY produced as much revenue as 4 southern states combined
..i'll have to check that figure though.
It's no doubt that the north was a financial and industrial powerhouse. King cotton didn't help the south too much in the end.
Tobacco was winding down, but I think cotton was going strong. The cotton gin more than doubled production.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-04-14 01:56:07
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6855|the dank(super) side of Oregon

lowing wrote:

That not what I said. I said the north were no saints regarding the exploitation of human workers. As a slave owner, you took ownership of your property, you take care of your property. Just like anything you own now. Imagine a factory worker that no employer was responsible for. If they got sick or died they just bring in a new one for free. A slave owner paid good money for his slaves, it was not in his best interests to keep them in shitty living conditions, poorly feed, or sick. It is like you buying a new car, would you really abuse it and expect it to give you your moneys worth?
which is why so many white northern laborers sold themselves into slavery?  all that good food and healthcare? 

And how 'bout those damned uppity negroids?  Running away from their owners, learning how to read and write.  Didn't they know how good they had it?  All they had to do was behave and they'd be well taken care of...like a mule or a buick.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard