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.
again, 90% of the South didn't own slaves. Slavery wasn't the reason their were defending their homes and sovereignty. They were fighting the Federal Government who sent troops to destroy and burn towns and kill civilians and wouldn't let the people in the South be independent.....if you don't see that then you are really dense.
That's like the FEDS coming to my town today breaking into homes without search warrants, arresting civilians without due process, violating free speech and destroying homes and killing civilians because of the DRUG WAR. I don't use drugs but I will defend my town 'til death against the FEDS and tyranny if that ever happens. 90% of the people in the South didn't own slaves and could care less but they weren't not going to let a Federal Army sent by a Tyrant from the North to come and kill civilians and burn their towns and force them to be in a Union they no loner wanted to be.....if you can't see that then you have never experienced a home invasion by a tyrant.
Of course the Federal Government had to destroy the South's economy during the war and after so the South would never rebelled again, its a tactic used by every King and Tyrant in history. Don't you think the best way if a few states wanted to be independent and have their own sovereignty is to peacefully negotiate with them?....isn't this how is done in all democratic countries and what we expect other countries to behave when they want their independence and Sovereignty?
We fought WW 2 and the Korean War and Vietnam because the other side didn't respect the will of the people to be independent and have their own sovereignty and use military force to rule by force.
King George could have used the same tactic to crush the rebellion in the 13 colonies and really destroy our economy but even him didn't go that low as Lincoln. Lincoln killed civilians, burn towns and arrested Americans without due process. He was willing to kill as many civilians in the South in order to keep them in line when they NO longer wanted to be part of the Union and wanted to be INDEPENDENT with their sovereignty just like Washington and Jefferson did against the British Crown 90 years before.
I think you might be confused as to who fired the first shots and the language of the Articles of Secession from multiple states.
Hint: It was students from the South Carolina military college, and the language is EXTREMELY specific about slavery being the cause. It seems the southern states didn't respect the states rights of the northern states to not send back escaped slaves.
I think you might be confused as to who fired the first shots and the language of the Articles of Secession from multiple states.
Hint: It was students from the South Carolina military college, and the language is EXTREMELY specific about slavery being the cause. It seems the southern states didn't respect the states rights of the northern states to not send back escaped slaves.
Hint and a clue to you: Did you read the Corwin Amendment? I repeated it here like 4 times and some people keep ignoring it like yourself.
It was an amendment by New York Senator Seward and Ohio Senator Corwin (Northern States).
It was basically the North making a constitutional right for the states to have slavery if they wanted to and the federal government couldn't interfere. It was passed by Congress in 1961 (ALL NORTHERN VOTES), supported by Lincoln and it was ratified at the state level in Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland (all Union states). They did this because the North didn't want the South to be independent and lose the tax revenue from the South going up North and lose control of the navigation and assets of the Mississippi River and the North didn't want another Republic competing with them in stealing the lands from the Natives up West. The Federal Government wanted to take control of those lands.
The South still left and wanted to be INDEPENDENT and have their full sovereignty.....it wasn't about slavery. The North offered slavery as a constitutional right for the states and the South didn't want the deal, they left.....so DUH!!! it wasn't and couldn't be about slavery.
That is the B.S. they teach at the public schools and instead of you doing a deep research in why the North did everything in their power to deal with the South in making a constitutional right to own slaves and the states would have ultimate control and the South still left well common sense tells you it wasn't about slavery since 99% of the people in the South didn't own slaves and could care less, they had nothing in common with the people in the North and the FEDERAL government wasn't representing them. They were paying high taxes and a lot of regulations that benefited the North in revenues and control. So they decided like Washington and Jefferson 90 years earlier to go independent.
Lincoln in a war of aggression send the whole federal Army to all the states that left the Union to destroy and burn towns and homes, burn crops, destroy their whole economy, kill countless of civilians, arrest civilians just on free speech or just suspicion or anybody that protested Lincoln's tyrant actions without due process.....he did what every King and tyrant in history in the world have done to kill any rebellion or people wanting to be independent and have their own sovereignty and make sure they were so broken and weak they wouldn't do it again. That is Tyrant textbook 101.
Corwin Amendment:
Quote:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State
It's misguided. Why would the worker support slavery when an overwhelming majority didn't have any? Slaves took money out of the pockets of the workers.
I'm a few might have. You fight for country. Leaders come and go your country usually doesn't.
Because no matter how many jobs blacks may have taken from whites, there's something to be said about having a group that'll always be beneath you no matter how pathetic you are. That's why they fought to keep slavery even if they owned no slaves.
As to the second part of your post, history tells me that the Third Reich Germans fought just as much for Hitler as they did for their country. They loved Nazism...A LOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
the north had slaves too. As if they welcomed blacks with open arms.
So. What's that got to do with anything.
No white people ANYWHERE have ever welcomed blacks with open arms. So what else is new.
To try and equate the North and the South in terms of slavery is ridiculous. There's a reason why Slaves braved incredible odds to go north...and it wasn't because the hot dogs were better
If that hurts your southern sensibilities (or whatever), that's not my problem.
Slaves had no liberty, and weren't free to make choices.
And those are the only people in the story that I care about.
Of coarse... because they were your ancestors. I don't dwell on the Trail of Tears........
and we understand you could careless about the US Constitution then and now.
What happen over 150 years ago, still offends you today, because you were taught to be a victim of your own skin. Not the act.
I think you might be confused as to who fired the first shots and the language of the Articles of Secession from multiple states.
Hint: It was students from the South Carolina military college, and the language is EXTREMELY specific about slavery being the cause. It seems the southern states didn't respect the states rights of the northern states to not send back escaped slaves.
And the North didn't like it when the Supreme Court said if they were not returned, they would be considered stolen property and you hung the same as stealing a horse.
There was a good business chasing and finding run away slaves in the North. And it was not hard to prove who owned you.
The lessons learned by the Federal Government, before, during and after the Civil War:
1.) We the Federal Government cannot trust the States, much less the people.
2.) The US Constitution that chains down the power of the Federal Government, can be broken if the government wishes.
3.) Militias and State armies crated by militias, are counter productive to the Federal Governments actions to break or alter the Constitution.
4. The People have way too much power over the Government.
Since the Civil War, things changed drastically in the transfer of power from the people, to the Federal Government.
Today, the Federal government has so much control over the people, there is no way to fight back. Not even with words, or blood.
I think the main lesson of the war is lost on most people. To me, the lesson was that the war should never have happened.
Posse Comitatus, passed in 1878, prevents the federal government from using the army in enforcement of domestic policy. But I keep and maintain a firearm anyway.
Because no matter how many jobs blacks may have taken from whites, there's something to be said about having a group that'll always be beneath you no matter how pathetic you are. That's why they fought to keep slavery even if they owned no slaves.
No white people ANYWHERE have ever welcomed blacks with open arms. So what else is new.
To try and equate the North and the South in terms of slavery is ridiculous. There's a reason why Slaves braved incredible odds to go north...and it wasn't because the hot dogs were better
If that hurts your southern sensibilities (or whatever), that's not my problem.
Actually slaves, freed slaves, left the north to go south and west around the time of the revolutionary war when northern states began the slow emancipation because they could no longer, as free people, hold the skilled jobs and factory jobs there. Those jobs were given to poor whites while blacks went west and south, new territories, to work in the booming cotton industry. Well the ones that didnt side with the British for their freedom.
Slavery was such a morally bankrupt institution that down the road, all Americans would pay for it by being enslaved by the Federal government.
The 14th amendment essentially destroyed the essence of the original constitution and ushered in a dominant and expanding federal government. I wish the founding fathers had the foresight to outlaw slavery but keep everything intact to prevent such a disastrous amendment from being passed.
Hint and a clue to you: Did you read the Corwin Amendment? I repeated it here like 4 times and some people keep ignoring it like yourself.
A last-ditch measure passed after secession had already started.
It's not that complicated, really:
Secession was over slavery
The war was over secession
Quote:
The South still left and wanted to be INDEPENDENT and have their full sovereignty.....it wasn't about slavery. The North offered slavery as a constitutional right for the states and the South didn't want the deal, they left.....so DUH!!! it wasn't and couldn't be about slavery.
Secession? Yes. Yes, it was.
See, the slave-holding states (I am sorry if this sticks in your craw, but they themselves used the term, so I'd say it's good enough for us) realized they were becoming a minority as the Union expanded. The violent debacle about Kansas being admitted to the Union as a slave state or free state showed them that while they still had people willing to kill for the institution on their side, the tide was turning against slavery.
I am not going to cite the declarations of secession at length, I am sure everyone interested know about "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" or "we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery" or other examples of those lovely sentiments.
Later states to secede were considerably less enthusiastic about slavery, at least in the official documents. I am sure some just wanted to be on the winning side, an understandable sentiment. Bad gamble, though.
Quote:
common sense tells you it wasn't about slavery since 99% of the people in the South didn't own slaves and could care less
That turns out not to be the case. The 1860 census puts the percentage of slave-owning households at about 26%. of course, only the head of the household would technically "own" slaves, but obviously everybody in the household benefited from the "peculiar institution".
The people actually making the decisions in the South - the planter class - of course owned by far the majority of slaves. Ultimately, they went to war to protect their assets.
On the other hand, the soldiers fighting for the Confederate cause rarely owned slaves - soldiering is a young man's game, and young men (even today) haven't had much chance to accumulate wealth. Old rich farts sent young people out to die so they could stay rich, a depressingly common occurrence in history.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 12-01-2015 at 10:53 AM..
I take it by your response, you have no clue what freedom, and especially liberty are.
I bet you think they are the same thing. LOL!! Too funny.
Responsibility, is for the courts and due process to decide. Not you the individual that thinks they have been harmed or may be harmed.
CLUE: They pulled from the Union of States, because the Constitution was broken, without the people agreeing it be changed. Not because of slavery. Why come off looking like an idiot, when it is well documented, with legal documents stating it wasn't about slavery at all. Even the Supreme Court agreed. How long after the war, was the Constitution finally amended? Carpetbaggers for 1000, Alex. Unconstitutionally, by federal government appointed and not elected, State legislatures.... and never ratified with a vote of the people.
The Articles of Secession state otherwise. In there, slavery is stated as a major reason. Those persons feared their way of life going away.
And the courts are not the only persons to decide what responsibility is. People are. Morals and values. I have plenty of idea what freedom is. I am someone who is free. My ancestors were not free. I am. I have something to compare it to. The "freedom" to enslave someone is is hypocrisy. That is not "freedom with responsibility".
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.
