“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.†- Abraham Lincoln during the Douglas debates
SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found or being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.
Wonder how long it will take this one to migrate to the Fight Club?
Is this another hot button topic? Would it help if I said the Israelis killed Lincoln?
Exactly. Everyone viewed them as chattel in those days. It's just how it was.
... It proved to be an equally stupid projection of the writer's late-20th Century hyper-PC views on colonialism and international political relations onto Teddy Roosevelt, which was an equally misconceived pile of accusatory crap.
Lincoln has been turned into a great President by the African American community. In truth, Abraham Lincoln didn't like black people. He made several quotes to this effect....
He invaded the South to preserve the Union and to preserve his tax income. He did not invade the South to free the slaves. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation with hopes of inciting a slave uprising in the South. If you'll read the document very closely, it was not intended to free slaves in border states fighting for the Union....
70% to 80% of federal revenue of that time was derived from taxes that affected the south mostly.
...and the day or even the day after the Emancipation Proclamation was passed into law it did not free a single slave.
Yes, they do like Lincoln more than Davis, but that's because of ignorance.
There was no constitutional guaantee to slavery.
The South's economy was based on cheap labor (slaves weren't free of charge and had to be maintained). They traded almost exclusively with England and France because the prices of goods in the North were horribly inflated. The Federal Government attempted to force the South to trade with the North by enacting oppressive export tarriffs.
And yet a month before the 13th became law in December.
General U.S. Grant did not release his own personal slaves until November 1865, 7 months after the end of hostilities.
It blew up in their faces.
The South's economy was gutted when Lee surrendered in Appomattox. The 13th amendment was merely a punitive measure to ensure the South was too broke to rearm itself. We suffer from punitive "reconstruction" efforts to this day.
When did the slaves in the Northern slave-holding states see their freedom?
Would that the same could have been for the confederacy.
When did the slaves in the Northern slave-holding states see their freedom?With the enactment of the 13th Amendment; which was the proper legislative remedy to the debate as enshrined by the constitution. If one faction of a debate wants a policy they are obligated to politically seek legislative remedy (read: peaceably).
For many parts of it, yes....
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Robert E. Lee
Did you know Lee freed his slaves in 1862, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation?
Factual information that you disagree with is not propaganda.
If you see this book in your local bookstore (http://www.amazon.com/South-Was-Right-Walter-Kennedy/dp/1565540247), I highly suggest you take a look at it. It has a lot of eye-opening facts about the war and the events leading up to it and immediately following.
The South's economy was gutted when Lee surrendered in Appomattox.
I read the Texas Declaration of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html).
Unless they were lying at the time I see no reason to look further.
HOLY SHIT!!! You mean CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES???!!!!??? WHO THE F*CK KNEW????????
:whatever:
With the enactment of the 13th Amendment; which was the proper legislative remedy to the debate as enshrined by the constitution. If one faction of a debate wants a policy they are obligated to politically seek legislative remedy (read: peaceably).
He didn't CHOOSE to surrender. He was forced into capitulation. This stuff is in books, you know.
In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves.http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
Choices are often constrained, they are still choices. But I was referring to the choice to secede. The outcome after that was solely dependent on the Union's will to keep fighting, a thing the South sorely 'misunderestimated' from start to finish. Appomatox was just the final scene in a play the South chose to set in motion.
The South didn't expect to get invaded, either. Their goal was a peaceful secession.
Nope, but still makes for great debate, :)
Interestingly enough, it ultimately worked out for the better. I don't believe we could have beaten Hitler as a divided nation.
Fine, shut the door and live in ignorance. It's not going to bother me a bit. But you really should learn the difference between a factor and a cause.That is little better than Eferrari's infamous "LOL" This offers nothing new. No points. No testable assertions.
From having read the Texas DoS and CotCSA I do know that Texas seceded for the expressed purpose to preserve slavery and the CotCSA codified slavery. What explanation is lacking?
That is little better than Eferrari's.....
I've studied the Civil War extensively. I used to give lectures on secession at historical events. I was a Civil War reenactor for a number of years and dressed out as both Confederate and Union. I've visited nearly every major battlefield in the U.S. and have assisted numerous tourists with the interpretation of troop movements. Most importantly, I've been ghost hunting at night on the battlefield at Gettysburg. :yahoo:
This isn't a passing fancy for me, it's an obsession. If I come across as brash, I apologize. I usually point to sources and let people come to the light on their own, but since I like you I decided to break it down. The best of all the resources I've come across is the book, "The South was Right." It's actually very non-partisan and will truly surprise you with stuff you'll think you should have known, but didn't.
I've studied the Civil War extensively. I used to give lectures on secession at historical events. I was a Civil War reenactor for a number of years and dressed out as both Confederate and Union. I've visited nearly every major battlefield in the U.S. and have assisted numerous tourists with the interpretation of troop movements. Most importantly, I've been ghost hunting at night on the battlefield at Gettysburg. :yahoo:
This isn't a passing fancy for me, it's an obsession. If I come across as brash, I apologize. I usually point to sources and let people come to the light on their own, but since I like you I decided to break it down. The best of all the resources I've come across is the book, "The South was Right." It's actually very non-partisan and will truly surprise you with stuff you'll think you should have known, but didn't.
Obsession? No shit. Bottom line. The South lost.
Now get back to ****ing work.
Obsession? No shit. Bottom line. The South lost.
I don't view siding with Lincoln as a liberal point of view. Before I began my endeavor to learn all I could about the era, I was a huge Lincoln fan. I'm still a fan of quite a few of his quotes. I just don't believe most people know the real Lincoln. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "Lincoln freed the slaves!" It's an historical fact that Lincoln died in Ford's Theater without having freed a single slave.
As far as 'invasion' goes, or in terms less appealing to Southern partisans 150 years later, 'suppressing an armed insurrection' (Which actually WAS contemplated in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8 - a document that nowhere mentions secession, I might add), those events were quite successfully put in train by the aggressively warlike stance of Secessionists in South Carolina. If you want to ensure there's a war, the damn-sure easiest way to do it is to start the shooting, which they did. No national government, certainly in the 19th Century, is going to put up with that shit. Basing your plans on a contrary belief truly is magical thinking.
Is this another hot button topic? Would it help if I said the Israelis killed Lincoln?
Nope not one bit, however I do believe it was the Germans that convinced the Japanese to bomb Pear Harbor.
He was being sarcastic, Vesta.
Many a truth is told in jest.
:thatsright:
...and BTW, the South lost, fine. The South seceded for reasons that included slavery as stated in many of their Constitutions, fine. ...but I will not believe the North invaded the South to free slaves when they too had slaves nor will I believe that no state had the right to secede. It is unfathomable for people such as the founders to create a voluntary union that, upon signing, automatically became involuntary.I almost forgot about the slaves in the north, good point Rebel. It is a fact that every northern state and French Canada had slaves right up to the civil war, some more than others. Most of the northern states had ended the importation of slaves years before the civil war, but did not emancipate the slaves they had and most northern slaves were elderly holdovers from decades past when slavery was more prolific in the north. New Jersey did not emancipate its slaves until 1865.