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.
Blacks didn't take up arms and fight for the Confederacy ?
Very, very few. 0.5% is a generous estimate.
Hell, the Louisiana Native Guard tried and were pretty much given a pat on the head and told thanks, but no thanks, fighting is for whites only - an insult quite a few of them decided to repay when the Union took Louisiana and happily accepted their service.
The fact you're calling it "slavery" shows that the doublespeak liberal indoctrination machine has gotten to you. The issue was property rights, not "slavery."
The very fact that I mention slavery was a major cause is actually correct. The South was willing to go to war to protect that institution. It seceded because it wanted to keep slavery. The North refused, and the South attacked Ft Sumter. Why? It wanted to secede. Why? One major reason was the desire to keep slaves. It comes back to slavery.
How exactly do slaves just pick up and leave to go North when all you know is what's within a few mile radius of where you've been all your life.
You act as if they were able to jump into their Cadillacs and head north on the freeways.
You're also ignoring the fact that angry bands of whites terrorized slaves and warned them not to leave their plantations.
What I wrote is a fact. The majority of slaves stayed on working for their former masters. The South stayed under the control of the Union army for some time, so it was possible for slaves to leave and some did. Some slaves traveled north in search of family members; others roamed free and found work where they could. Though most slaves, when given the choice to leave, decided to stay.
One of the Conservative Colorado school board members recently defended her position to rewrite history on the premise that history classes aren't teaching that America is exceptional because we ended slavery "voluntarily." Apparently, she slept through her U.S. History class when they covered those four bloody years of Civil War.
She's clearly a victim of the liberal public education system.
Wow. Twenty more years and conservatives will claims that blacks virtually sold themselves into slavery while most slave masters were black and whites could not abolish slavery simply scared of the powerful black slave masters..... It's just a matter of time.
This is exactly where this Conservative school board member in Colorado is heading, and judging from the hysterical (as in going into hysterics) Conservative response on this thread, they would happily allow her to take the curriculum there. Unbelievable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
The South would have gladly ended slavery if asked rather than having it rammed down their throats by the federal government.
One would wish that this was a joke of a post, but unfortunately, I'm sure this poster actually believes this nonsense. All the North had to do was ask and the South would have gladly given up their slaves? Seriously?? Did you type that tripe with a straight face? SMH.
Good God, this thread has shown us all exactly how asinine Conservatives really are. I didn't think the unmitigated ignorance of the right could surprise me any longer, but this thread has done it.
Once again, 3/4th of the 36 states were needed to add the 13th amendment to the Constitution, and that was only to free 40,000 slaves.
The Emancipation Proclamation combined with Northern victory freed way more than 40,000 slaves. Saying that the Civil War "only" freed 40,000 slaves is extremely disingenuous. The fact that you and other defending the stance of slave states are forced to use that sort of sophistry is perhaps an indication of the strength of your stance?
Quote:
To suggest the Civil War, in which 600,000 people died to free 40,000 was over slavery is ridiculous.
What I wrote is a fact. The majority of slaves stayed on working for their former masters. The South stayed under the control of the Union army for some time, so it was possible for slaves to leave and some did. Some slaves traveled north in search of family members; others roamed free and found work where they could. Though most slaves, when given the choice to leave, decided to stay.
This is all true. Most slaves weren't whipped & separated from their family's, with their women & daughters raped or that kind of thing. That's a narrative that's pushed for political gain today, not because it's accurate. The fact that they were treated decently, combined with the familiarity of home & the fact that the North was so violent towards Blacks meant staying put was the best option for the majority.
Many of those angry bands were Whites from the north that didn't want to see the Blacks move there.
Life was far more dangerous for Blacks in the North. Again, this doesn't fit the modern Progressive narrative, but if one is looking for historical accuracy, the North was worse than the South at that time for Blacks. Blacks were being lynched in Northern city's. A movement to adopt a minimum wage was exacted to keep Blacks out of the work force. In the heyday of the Klan it was the Northern states that had the biggest followings. Ohio was the Capital of Klan activity. etc.
I never once said states' rights wasn't part of it. I was disputing the idea that slavery had nothing to do with it. I even said "yeah, the states' right to own slaves".
I never said WAR. I said SECESSION. The South wanted secession because they wanted to keep their slavery institution. The North was intent on keeping the Union together, so they went to war. Slavery is a major issue in this.
I dont think anyone ever said slavery had nothing to do with it.. the whole thread is about slavery and the reason for its ending.
The discussion which this evolved into, because many believe the Civil War was about slavery was that it wasnt.. it was about the federal government was dictating rules onto the states and many of the states decided they didnt want to put up with it.. Slavery was just ONE of the issues, albeit it a major one, but without secession papers, war never would have taken place.
If it hadnt been over slavery, then secession papers could have been drawn up for any other reason, and it still would have had the exact same effect since many were fighting over state rights, not to keep and own slaves, since again, most didnt own them.
Had the south won, slavery still would have ended due to economic reasons, to suggest otherwise is complete ignorance.
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.
