Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Take them down or leave them up?
Take them down. They're offensive. 133 36.14%
Leave them up. It's history. 235 63.86%
Voters: 368. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2017, 03:26 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,582 posts, read 7,463,001 times
Reputation: 2534

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillFeickeefre13224 View Post
Part of the reason the South was so intent on preserving slavery was white supremacy.
Tell that to the black guy.

 
Old 06-18-2017, 03:29 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,582 posts, read 7,463,001 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillFeickeefre13224 View Post
This statement is somewhat ambiguous. If it refers to individual states, then it is false: all the Northern states (again, with the arguable exception of Delaware) had abolished slavery well before the start of the Civil War. If it refers to the federal government, then it’s still false: the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, was initially passed by the U.S. Senate on 8 April 1864, more than a year before the end of the Civil War (although it was not officially adopted until December 1865).

The answer to the question of why the Northern states didn’t outlaw slavery prior to the Civil War is an obvious one: it simply wasn’t possible. As long as the Southern slave states remained in Congress, their aggregate Congressional representation was sufficient in number to block the passage or ratification of any law or constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. The 13th Amendment could not have passed until the Southern states, having rebelled, were no longer represented in the U.S. Congress. (Some of the former Confederate states did eventually ratify the 13th Amendment after its passage by Congress, because they were required to do so as a post-war condition of regaining federal representation.)
Pre Civil War Peace Conference | HistoryNet

"Most in attendance seemed resigned to finding ways to save both the Union and slavery"

I use to have a timeline on what was done when, which helped put the events into a better perspective.
 
Old 06-18-2017, 03:30 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,582 posts, read 7,463,001 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillFeickeefre13224 View Post
The Constitution allows the federal government to suspend habeas corpus in time of rebellion.
Guess who wasn't present to cast a vote in the election of Lincoln? How did he get to be potus?
 
Old 06-18-2017, 03:32 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,582 posts, read 7,463,001 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings View Post
It's not an observation, it's Whatboutism. It's an attempt to detract from the heinous reality of slavery before the civil war by trying to make parallels to unrelated countries, unrelated time periods, and unrelated current events.

Start a thread about modern day sex and child trafficking and you won't find a strong case advocating for it's existence. It was be absurd for somebody to make the argument that "they're better off as a sex slave because the conditions of their native country", and yet this is a common idea shared discussing pre-industrial slavery.
Told you it wasn't a deflect, but you turned it into one any way.
But while I'm on that roll with, slavery that has nothing to do with modern day sex and child trafficking but everything to do with that which no one wants to discuss:

My Family's Slave

"Lieutenant Tom had as many as three families of utusans living on his property. In the spring of 1943, with the islands under Japanese occupation, he brought home a girl from a village down the road. She was a cousin from a marginal side of the family, rice farmers. The lieutenant was shrewd—he saw that this girl was penniless, unschooled, and likely to be malleable. Her parents wanted her to marry a pig farmer twice her age, and she was desperately unhappy but had nowhere to go. Tom approached her with an offer: She could have food and shelter if she would commit to taking care of his daughter, who had just turned 12.

Lola agreed, not grasping that the deal was for life."

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 06-18-2017 at 04:05 PM..
 
Old 06-18-2017, 04:14 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,582 posts, read 7,463,001 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
Guess who wasn't present to cast a vote in the election of Lincoln? How did he get to be potus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillFeickeefre13224 View Post
He won a free and fair election, as the Constitution lays out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillFeickeefre13224 View Post
They were considering preserving slavery where it already existed because it would help avoid war. The goal of the Lincoln Administration was to contain slavery, putting it on the gradual course to extinction. The South rebelled when he was elected because of this.
Contextualizing history does nothing but add confusion to those who are confused already. And I'm not alone in the idea that there was something hinky in the election of Lincoln.

As you said, "Maryland had to be kept loyal by any means necessary," and I pointed out, the arrest of the Maryland Legislature, 1861, and yet you'll come back with, nothing wrong there?

That in itself leaves me to go, wow, okay ...
 
Old 06-18-2017, 04:32 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,582 posts, read 7,463,001 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillFeickeefre13224 View Post
He won fair and square. The South did not like it, and they rebelled to expand slavery. I don't understand what part of that is fuzzy to you.

And because Lincoln was exercising the powers granted to him by the Constitution to suppress an insurrection, that's suddenly bad?
It's what's fuzzy to you that I find dubious.

Was Maryland able to vote in the election of Lincoln, or were they behind bars at during the election period? And no one in the south voted for Lincoln. If he threw people in jail, not allowing them to vote and the south didn't vote for him, how did he become potus? (just asking a question that seriously remains a mystery)

Interesting article:

The Lincoln Administration and Arbitrary Arrests: A Reconsideration


" If the arrests had been aimed primarily at quashing dissent, so large a number would probably have threatened the fabric of what was left of the Union and would certainly have caused the administration serious political trouble. Yet the fact of the matter is that arbitrary arrests caused a minimum of social unrest. The three most famous and violent riots of the Civil War North — those in New York City in July 1863, in Baltimore in April 1861, and in Charleston, Illinois, in 1864 — had nothing to do with arbitrary arrests and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Baltimore riot occurred before the privilege of the writ was suspended anywhere. The Charleston riot, too, brawl between soldiers and civilians (with no indication that the question of civil liberties was at issue). And the New York riots were sparked by the issue which had real ability to cause socially explosive, violent, even murderous behavior — the draft. "
 
Old 06-18-2017, 05:24 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,582 posts, read 7,463,001 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillFeickeefre13224 View Post
He was elected before the South started to rebel. It was an election where he won fair and square. That the South chose not to allow his name on their states' ballots means nothing. He won the electoral votes needed to become president, as the Constitution requires. He carried all of the votes of the Northern states needed to win.

The arrests were a constitutional power granted to the federal government. It started in response to the Baltimore riot.
I think the person that wrote the article I cited had a different take on that, but hey ...

You are right about the election in that Lincoln won, but fair and square is a matter of opinion.
How Lincoln Held Onto Maryland
"In nine of the southern states, Lincoln's name did not appear on the ballot.

Though his name was on the Maryland ballot, Lincoln finished dead last with 2.5% of the vote statewide, and only 50 votes in Montgomery County."

Also, now I get the arrests and what that was all about, like you would clear that up for me right?

Maryland and Secession
September 11, 1961
Abraham Lincoln has Secretary of War Simon Cameron order the arrest of Maryland legislators who are openly pro-South.

btw: you shouldn't be able to arrest politicians to block a vote, regardless of the circumstances.

that's all ...

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 06-18-2017 at 05:27 PM.. Reason: added btw ...
 
Old 06-18-2017, 05:47 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,582 posts, read 7,463,001 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillFeickeefre13224 View Post
Well, he won as the Constitution requires, and that is what matters legally. That the South rebelled and tried to overturn a lawful election is the problem.

Regardless of whether or not he "shouldn't have," he did so legally. And there is no way to say it was wrong because it was during an enormous crisis.
A person can justify anything you know that right?
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, 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