Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't find much to disagree about in this statement
Except for the fact that it is untrue.
It was not treason nor the soldiers traitors.
Each state was an independent state with the right to secede and declare war.
You do know that Lincoln couldn't give a damn either way whether slaves were freed or not right?
what i do know is that lincoln often contradicted himself when it came to the issue of slavery and the rights that blacks had in america. i don't feel like going through the trouble of trying to pull up all those articles and sources, but it's as easy to find as just googling it
what i do know is that lincoln often contradicted himself when it came to the issue of slavery and the rights that blacks had in america. i don't feel like going through the trouble of trying to pull up all those articles and sources, but it's as easy to find as just googling it
Your delusional if you think he gave a damn. Are you serious?
And the profiteering wasn't limited to the owners, the traders made the biggest profits and than included many from the north.
Number of Slaves by state in 1790
Slaves in the Union/North:
Maryland - 103,036
Delaware - 8,887
New Jersey - 11,423
All other Union states and Washington DC- 28663
Slaves in the Confederacy/South:
Alabama - 0
Arkansas - 0
Florida - 0
Georgia - 29268
Kentucky - 12430
Louisiana - 0
Mississippi - 0
Missouri - 0
North Carolina - 100,783
South Carolina - 107,094
Tennessee - 0
Texas - 0
Virginia - 292,627
I'm glad you posted this since it shows how the North dramatically reduced the number of slaves, while the South kept on building them up.
I don't get the point of your bit about the profiteering. We're not totally exculpating the North, just holding the Confederacy accountable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Peterson
Except for the fact that it is untrue.
It was not treason nor the soldiers traitors.
Each state was an independent state with the right to secede and declare war.
Yes it was. It was a blatant rebellion of member states of the USA.
"The Union Government [correctly] held the position that secession from the Union was illegal and military force was used to restore the union by defeating in battle the military forces of the illegally rebelling states. No Southern ambassador or diplomat was accorded any status by the Union so an armistice or peace treaty was never an option because that would legitimize the Confederacy as an actual Nation. The legal right for armed force lay with the Constitution of the United States, which the Union interpreted as unbreakable. The actions of the Southern states were therefore illegal because they were attempting to drop the Union as their form of Government, which is considered rebellion or insurrection."
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
cptwerp - Here is my supposed fabrication, you arrogant little twit.
Before you come charging into a thread spewing such hatred, be advised that THIS is what you have been defending.
You better check yourself, kid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killakoolaide
F***k em' the deserved what they got. Trying to rebel against the U.S. in the name of perserving slavery.
They are the same as Nazis. They were fighting to maintain the ability to enslave, murder, rape, and torture blacks without any repercussions. In the South Blacks were not even considered human, so they were not entitled to any of the legal protection that comes with being considered a human being in a civilized society .
Just replace Nazis with confederates, and jews with blacks, and got something that dwarfs the holocaust in practicaly everyway.
"The south, the south, the south is on fire we don't need no water let the motherf****er burn, burn motherf****er BURN!"
I'm glad you posted this since it shows how the North dramatically reduced the number of slaves, while the South kept on building them up.
I don't get the point of your bit about the profiteering. We're not totally exculpating the North, just holding the Confederacy accountable.
Yes it was. It was a blatant rebellion of member states of the USA.
"The Union Government [correctly] held the position that secession from the Union was illegal and military force was used to restore the union by defeating in battle the military forces of the illegally rebelling states. No Southern ambassador or diplomat was accorded any status by the Union so an armistice or peace treaty was never an option because that would legitimize the Confederacy as an actual Nation. The legal right for armed force lay with the Constitution of the United States, which the Union interpreted as unbreakable. The actions of the Southern states were therefore illegal because they were attempting to drop the Union as their form of Government, which is considered rebellion or insurrection."
If the states where independent how could they illegally be rebelling? The U.S. was more wrong then any state as they weren't independent of the U.K.
In my opinion, all this hate that is spewing from the Northeast is nothing but pure jealousy of a region with MUCH better race relations in the here and now.
None of us were around for the Civil War, but it sure seems like our neighbors to the Northeast wish nothing more than to perpetuate it and keep reliving it. When presented with facts that may possibly change the dynamics of the shame of slavery, they recoil in PC horror and denial.
You won. Get over yourselves, time to move on. Now it's the South that could teach you a thing or two about getting along.
I'm glad you posted this since it shows how the North dramatically reduced the number of slaves, while the South kept on building them up.
I don't get the point of your bit about the profiteering. We're not totally exculpating the North, just holding the Confederacy accountable.
You said this which tries to make it seem as if the north barely had a hand in the trade when if fact they played a very large part. The south was just where many ended up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpterp
I wonder how much the North profitted from slavery considering they didn't have any outside of the 80K (and decreasing) in Maryland or the few in Delaware.
Just curious why you chose to use that year for the numbers, because it somewhat backed up the part about the north not profiting from slavery?
Quote:
Yes it was. It was a blatant rebellion of member states of the USA.
"The Union Government [correctly] held the position that secession from the Union was illegal and military force was used to restore the union by defeating in battle the military forces of the illegally rebelling states. No Southern ambassador or diplomat was accorded any status by the Union so an armistice or peace treaty was never an option because that would legitimize the Confederacy as an actual Nation. The legal right for armed force lay with the Constitution of the United States, which the Union interpreted as unbreakable. The actions of the Southern states were therefore illegal because they were attempting to drop the Union as their form of Government, which is considered rebellion or insurrection."
As far as the rest of this, you lift something from wikipedia and expect me to take it seriously. Where in the Constitution does it forbid secession?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
