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.
it is a shame that logical thinking men could not have settled this without spilling blood .. and logical thinking men would have done so but politicians are not such people ..slavery was a terrible unhuman thing that should not have been instituted to begin with but it was acceptable at the time .. no one can disagree with that ..but to ask a general public to give up a given is asking too much .. you people who drive an electric car and want me to stop driving my gas guzzler hot rods aren`t going to win without a fight .. you people who want to take my gun from me are`nt going to win without a fight .. if i owned a slave 160 years ago and you wanted to take him from me what do you think i would do
I'm trying to understand what you're saying but it's hard to reconcile your first sentence with your last?
Please clarify - what would've have been the logical rationale that would've settled this without spilling blood?
'Four score and seven years ago" ... we've all heard it and know the what and why for. There are persons on this thread that demean General Robert E Lee, calling him among other things a traitor. Robert is the son of Revolutionary War hero Light-horse Harry Lee who also served as the 9th Governor of Virginia. Harry (and Robert) believed that they were Virginians first and Americans second. That attitude is why Robert accepted the command of the Army of Northern Virginia. That army was the most formidable force the Union faced and the one that took the most Union soldiers lives and gave it the most defeats. It is the date of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia by General Lee at Appomattox Court House which the North uses as the date the War of Northern Aggression ended. Posters claiming to be the descendants of slaves still carry the 'slave' mentality, ignoring the fact that Gettysburg happened seven score and ten years after the Constitution. They belittle the fact that General Lee considered himself a Virginian 87 years after nationhood yet pride themselves in the slave mentality 150 years later. And remember it was General Lee's father who fought and their ancestors are generations ago.
Second point ... There are posters who harp about the Articles of Secession. Let's see if we can figure this out. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution. There was a little thing called the 3/5 compromise. I need to remind the harpers that it was the NORTHERN states that wanted the blacks relegated to 3/5 status, not the south. The south wanted each body counted as a whole body. But back to the Articles ... these Articles were not written by the poor or the farmers. They were written by the wealthy just like the Constitution was. These same wealthy folks excluded themselves from military service and any person who owned greater than seven slaves. Which means that the fighting was done by the poor folks. These folks were fighting for states rights (a la the 10th Amendment) not so the rich landowners could keep their slaves. By the way, virtually all of these poor folks were white. Kinda like the union troops (although there were a limited number of blacks). You need to go back to a very important date in the War of Northern Aggression ... 1 January 1863 ... and see what happened in BOTH armies. Let's see if the word desertion appears. Now I will end this portion of the history lesson and say "Okay folks, homework time ... look up what happened 1 January 1863". There are certain posters who have already made their minds up so facts will do nothing, and they won't even bother. What a pity.
End of today's lesson.
El Nox
The South wanted each body counted as a whole body to up their representation, yet those very same people were considered property, barely human, and could not vote themselves. So how was that fair? To use the slaves' large population in the Southern states to the South's advantage without allowing them any say in said representation the states would thus receive? Looking at it from the POV at the time, considering slaves were property and not really seen as individuals, as humans, considering them 3/5 of a person made much more sense and wouldn't have given the South the advantage, or even just the extra representation, advantage or not, they didn't deserve.
So the South wanted the advantages of those extra people without actually even considering them people. Giving the historical context and now, does this seem at all fair or right to have done? I don't think so. Use the slaves even more to the nation's advantage while still denying them rights.
The fact that you call it "The War of Northern Aggression" alone shows your bias.
Yeah, because there were no other issues between north and south, other than slavery.
What fairy tale are you talking about?
Slavery was on its way out, as it wasn't viable in the age of industrial revolution. However, even if slavery had died out on its own, the North's treatment of the South would likely have still resulted in secession. And Lincoln would have still have created the loss of life and treasure that was the Civil War.
How did the North treat the South? What was so bad about its treatment of the South that would have led to secession or conflict even disregarding slavery as an issue?
Some of the posters here talk a big game but don't specify.
Ok, so some of you seem to think that slavery was not the main reason for secession and the war, so please share the other reasons. It's been said again and again here yet no one has actually stated those other reasons, so I'm waiting. I'm waiting for specifics on some of your claims.
To me the day Nikki Haley had her little self-righteous PC presser regarding banishing the Confederate Flag was a total cave-in to the Political Coercion powers that be.
History is history. The Soviets and other commies were always rewriting history. Removing these statues and symbols is more of the same.
Yeah, because there were no other issues between north and south, other than slavery. :roll eyes:
I'm making the assertion that without Slavery, there is no American Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
What fairy tale are you talking about?
You are about to spin your present day neo-Confederate fairy tales, sortof like a newish take on the Lost Cause mythologies, not interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Slavery was on its way out, as it wasn't viable in the age of industrial revolution. However, even if slavery had died out on its own, the North's treatment of the South would likely have still resulted in secession. And Lincoln would have still have created the loss of life and treasure that was the Civil War.
How did the North treat the South? What was so bad about its treatment of the South that would have led to secession or conflict even disregarding slavery as an issue?
Slavery is the sine qua non issue, without which - there is no American Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Some of the posters here talk a big game but don't specify. :roll eyes:
There are threads in the History section of this Forum & on many other Forums as well. Mostly specious arguments & sidestepping the fact that without Slavery - there is no American Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Ok, so some of you seem to think that slavery was not the main reason for secession and the war, so please share the other reasons. It's been said again and again here yet no one has actually stated those other reasons, so I'm waiting. I'm waiting for specifics on some of your claims.
You asked for it JerseyGirl - just make sure your bull **** detector is fully charged - you'll be needing it! G'night!
Slavery is the sine qua non issue, without which - there is no American Civil War.
There are threads in the History section of this Forum & on many other Forums as well. Mostly specious arguments & sidestepping the fact that without Slavery - there is no American Civil War.
You asked for it JerseyGirl - just make sure your bull **** detector is fully charged - you'll be needing it! G'night!
I know! Trust me. It's just that they've talked a big game this whole time without providing any actual reasons, except to say "there were more reasons you know" over and over again. So please give me those reasons, then. I really want them.
I think, as I also said before and in return was inexplicably mocked by some Southerners, education is different. I've known since elementary school that the South learns a different history of the Civil War. Starting with the very names they use for it - such as "War of Northern Aggression." I don't doubt that some of these posters who so passionately argue that slavery wasn't the important reason actually believe that, because that is what they were taught growing up in the South. The curriculum is genuinely different. We're going to get nowhere with them.
To me the day Nikki Haley had her little self-righteous PC presser regarding banishing the Confederate Flag was a total cave-in to the Political Coercion powers that be.
History is history. The Soviets and other commies were always rewriting history. Removing these statues and symbols is more of the same.
Ohh dear..Yes..History belongs in the "History Books".. But surely a fairly new democratic society can agree to put aside their differences..in order to thrive. This is 2015..not 19th Century philosophy..But somehow..much of the bigotry has bled thru into the 21st Century...
BTW..This Confederate Flag was not abolished..Just removed from Government properties...and IF anyone actually takes the time to research..THAT flag removed had nothing to do with the Civil war..Southern States had a far difference flag...Course, hey..I'm Canadian trying to educate American's here!!
Freedom of speech hasn't been changed..Freedom of expression hasn't changed..Oh wait..Sure it has..Ala Trump..No more PC speech now....Hate on ALL Muslims..Hate on those 47%'er's..Hate Government...yet DEMAND services but NOT willing to pay for them...Yep Yep..That sound familiar!!
The Confederates started the war. The Union ended it. South Carolina finally got what it wanted when it seceded. A secession in which one major reason was the desire to keep slavery. When the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, that was an act of war. You cannot attack a U.S. military installation, even if it's on foreign soil. There was no "invasion". The Union just fought back. The war is over, the South lost. The broader Confederate cause was not noble. It is better to just admit such.
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.
I don't think so. Use the slaves even more to the nation's advantage while still denying them rights. 
I really want them. 
