U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-12-2009, 07:14 PM
 
1,067 posts, read 1,911,208 times
Reputation: 471

Advertisements

Well maybe not clear enough... so I'll try some more...

When Lincoln took his oath of office, he repeated his often-stated vow not to disturb the institution of slavery in the south. But he made it clear that on the matter of the tariff, he would invade the south if it did not cooperate. In Lincoln’s words:
“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.”
In other words, there will be an invasion if the south does not collect the tariff.
It is often said that the Civil War was about slavery. But, as Emory University professor Donald W. Livingston has said, ending slavery was more of an alibi for the war after the fact. A perhaps larger impetus for America’s Civil War, a war that cost more than 600,000 lives, was a desire to protect northern business interests from foreign trade and to provide revenue for federal subsidies to favored northern businesses. In other words, special interest politics and misguided economic beliefs helped ignite the fuse of America’s costliest war.

Please do tell me again how noble those northerners are...

There's more at: http://www.tribstar.com/business/loc...ces_printstory
Rate this post positively

 
Old 10-12-2009, 07:20 PM
 
1,067 posts, read 1,911,208 times
Reputation: 471
Maybe the above posts are the types of things being referred to by the black man in the video of the OP.

So what's hard about working at a bank collecting the sweat of the worker? Or fancy thousand dollar suits running around trading "paper" on "paper" that only drives up costs on average Americans? Tell me all about hard work, please do.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-12-2009, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Kent, Washington
10,254 posts, read 20,587,386 times
Reputation: 10367
That one section of the country loses out to another on a political and economic issue such as tariffs is no excuse for that section to rebel. Such an attitude is contemptuous of the notion of representative government and is an invitation to anarchy.

Note that tariffs had been lowered in 1857.

Note too that the tariffs were raised after the rebelling states had rebelled and recalled their congressmen from Washington. Having opted out of the political system the rebels had no right to cry about what that system did in their absence.

Actually though the tariff issue seems more on the minds of the modern defenders of the rebellion than it was on the minds of the actual rebels themselves. As though rebellion and bloody war against tariffs was somehow more justifiable than rebellion and bloody war in defense of slavery.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-12-2009, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,048 posts, read 33,033,946 times
Reputation: 10573
Quote:
Originally Posted by checking out View Post
Well maybe not clear enough... so I'll try some more...

When Lincoln took his oath of office, he repeated his often-stated vow not to disturb the institution of slavery in the south.
But you do acknowledge that Lincoln changed his views over the course of his term, right? Granted, he turned the conflict into a war against slavery for more political than ideological reasons--but he did it all the same. He wasn't holding to the same views in 1863 as he had been in 1861.

(Also, when you dismiss Lincoln as just another one of those northerners, remember that he was born in Kentucky!)
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-12-2009, 10:55 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
4,085 posts, read 8,356,760 times
Reputation: 2674
He reminds me of Clayton Bigsby, the white supremacist who was African-American.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-12-2009, 11:45 PM
 
900 posts, read 626,679 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by checking out View Post
Well maybe not clear enough... so I'll try some more...

When Lincoln took his oath of office, he repeated his often-stated vow not to disturb the institution of slavery in the south. But he made it clear that on the matter of the tariff, he would invade the south if it did not cooperate. In Lincoln’s words:
“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.”
In other words, there will be an invasion if the south does not collect the tariff.
It is often said that the Civil War was about slavery. But, as Emory University professor Donald W. Livingston has said, ending slavery was more of an alibi for the war after the fact. A perhaps larger impetus for America’s Civil War, a war that cost more than 600,000 lives, was a desire to protect northern business interests from foreign trade and to provide revenue for federal subsidies to favored northern businesses. In other words, special interest politics and misguided economic beliefs helped ignite the fuse of America’s costliest war.

Please do tell me again how noble those northerners are...

There's more at: Arthur Foulkes: Economic beliefs helped ignite Civil War

That must be why the North seceded from the Union....oh wait....never mind.

The only problem with the Civil War is that, after it was won and the slaves had been freed, we should have kicked the southern states the hell out of our country and let them rot. After hanging most of their leaders for treason.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-13-2009, 07:24 AM
 
15,022 posts, read 22,075,386 times
Reputation: 26283
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycricanpapi View Post
Can you provide me with some references or any proof to back up what you are saying here?
Back on topic, thanks....

You asked for proof to support that no slaves or black soldiers were actively recruited in the civil war. Forget about internet sources, antecdotes, supposed eyewitness accounts, etc. I offer you Shelby Foote's 3rd volume on the Civil War "Red River to Appomatox" which does a fine job of explaining the situation with consideration of recruitment of black soldiers on page 754-756. It explains of only one case where a legislative body, Virginia, wanted to recruit slaves - and that was without a provision for emancipation. It does not however discuss the anomolous situations with individual black soldiers in combat.

I continue to agree that what you suggest was proposed by many in the south, it just never came about except for near the last days were a few blacks regiments were trained but never saw action. I also continue to agree that slaves "served" in the CSA as cooks, musicians, teamsters, and mostly fortification and entrenchment builders, but not as combatants except for rare individual occurences (see last line below). These did help the south indeed, as it helped free up white soldiers to man the front lines.

For internet sites, I find this pretty accurate:
Black Confederates | TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog
It details the contribution of the black confederate, but advises these contributions are as labor (diggers, cooks, teamsters, etc). It also details the antictodotes and eyewitness accounts. However it does add this as a final statement. :
"Whether these Black Confederates saw the elephant, engaging in combat, is an open question. The Confederacy contained no organized Black combat units... However, consistent reports of black men seen on the firing line should not be discounted."
My opinion to explain these accounts? If you are a cook or digger serving near the firing line, and you are being fired upon. You are going to do one of two things - 1.) run, or 2.) pick up a rifle and start firing back.

Last edited by Dd714; 10-13-2009 at 07:32 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-13-2009, 09:21 AM
 
1,067 posts, read 1,911,208 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
But you do acknowledge that Lincoln changed his views over the course of his term, right? Granted, he turned the conflict into a war against slavery for more political than ideological reasons--but he did it all the same. He wasn't holding to the same views in 1863 as he had been in 1861.

(Also, when you dismiss Lincoln as just another one of those northerners, remember that he was born in Kentucky!)

Stated fair enough to be reasonably accurate. But let's not loose sight of the economic issues.

Yes of course...if you took me to mean Lincoln was a northerner by birth than I was not clear.

Seems there's a bit of logic twisting going on in this thread by others which I will largely ignore since I'm not about to debate tit for tat on every twisted equation. For instance, it takes two to fight and each are participants thus each are wrong as to fighting itself. Seems some see fit to give the northerners the righteous status of being the "first to complain." To say that rebellion is not acceptable and then to say that war upon a rebel is just peachy is false logic, especially with then the statements of completely eliminating the rebels. So I suppose we should be making parking lots out of Iraq, Iran, Korea, North Vietnam, etc. simply because they don't see it our way. I'm not pursuing conversation on this level and those that do know full well that it is wrong.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-13-2009, 09:25 AM
 
1,067 posts, read 1,911,208 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
That one section of the country loses out to another on a political and economic issue such as tariffs is no excuse for that section to rebel. Such an attitude is contemptuous of the notion of representative government and is an invitation to anarchy.

Note that tariffs had been lowered in 1857.

Note too that the tariffs were raised after the rebelling states had rebelled and recalled their congressmen from Washington. Having opted out of the political system the rebels had no right to cry about what that system did in their absence.

Actually though the tariff issue seems more on the minds of the modern defenders of the rebellion than it was on the minds of the actual rebels themselves. As though rebellion and bloody war against tariffs was somehow more justifiable than rebellion and bloody war in defense of slavery.

Seems you cannot accept that the North came forth with economic advantage in mind.

You're entitled to your opinion on another matter. I'd just want to point out that you are hypocritical. Rebeling against an oppressor is what caused this Nation to be formed. But then rebelling against the oppressive northerners is a fault ascribed only to the south. That's QUITE TWISTED.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-13-2009, 09:28 AM
 
15,022 posts, read 22,075,386 times
Reputation: 26283
Back off-topic, it seems...oh well
Rate this post positively
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.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top