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.
Please follow your own advice, the portrayal of the happy slave, loyal unto death simply is the stuff of antebellum novels and propaganda.
I did not repeat that myth. There's well documented cases of slaves being treated very well, as there are cases of horrific treatment. The majority that we have documentation on is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
The government should not have been willing to pay southern plantation owners to give up their slaves. Slavery was a heinous barbaric practice and needed to end. And yes, while Lincoln did say if he could end the war by not releasing a slave he would do that, slavery did not become part of the reason of the war later. It was the main cause as the reason the Confederate states left the Union in the first place was fears Lincoln would end Slavery.
You really don't know your history do you?
And even though something is now a "heinous and barbaric" act, doesn't mean that the government shouldn't compensate owners, for their property.
Slavery was allowed under the constitution. Regardless of what you think of it, or what we as a society think of it today, it was legal. They legally bought property, and that property was in danger of being taken with no compensation for it.
Without slave labor, or the money of it, the southern economy would have crashed. Its that simple. Farmers couldn't pay workers, crops would rot, they couldn't pay their bank notes, and the property would have been seized, and bought by northern businessmen.
Not paying for the slaves, was what caused the civil war. Actually the south had plans, after the war, to release the slaves, and pay the owners for them.
Read a history book, and don't listen to the propaganda that was sold you.
And even though something is now a "heinous and barbaric" act, doesn't mean that the government shouldn't compensate owners, for their property.
Slavery was allowed under the constitution. Regardless of what you think of it, or what we as a society think of it today, it was legal. They legally bought property, and that property was in danger of being taken with no compensation for it.
Without slave labor, or the money of it, the southern economy would have crashed. Its that simple. Farmers couldn't pay workers, crops would rot, they couldn't pay their bank notes, and the property would have been seized, and bought by northern businessmen.
Not paying for the slaves, was what caused the civil war. Actually the south had plans, after the war, to release the slaves, and pay the owners for them.
Read a history book, and don't listen to the propaganda that was sold you.
The problem is that the history books printed today are full of revisionism. It is sad that kids today haven't a clue about American history because it has been politically cleansed.
And even though something is now a "heinous and barbaric" act, doesn't mean that the government shouldn't compensate owners, for their property.
Slavery was allowed under the constitution. Regardless of what you think of it, or what we as a society think of it today, it was legal. They legally bought property, and that property was in danger of being taken with no compensation for it.
Without slave labor, or the money of it, the southern economy would have crashed. Its that simple. Farmers couldn't pay workers, crops would rot, they couldn't pay their bank notes, and the property would have been seized, and bought by northern businessmen.
Not paying for the slaves, was what caused the civil war. Actually the south had plans, after the war, to release the slaves, and pay the owners for them.
Read a history book, and don't listen to the propaganda that was sold you.
I do know History, and I graduated college with a History Major. I know it was legal under the Constitution and yes they did pay for the slaves, however that does mean they deserved anything from the Government in order to free the slaves. It was a barbaric and heinous practice and needed to be stopped. They deserved nothing for it.
Who allowed his soldiers to rape, murder, and kill citizens who had little to nothing to do with the decision to secede.
Yeah, great General.
Yes, it's appalling. I know it is. It's personal. I have a grudge. During my grade school years I thought 'rebs' were cool, but that was at my young age when I didn't understand the reasons for the Civil War. In adulthood I was curious about the South. I grew up and lived in Chicago most of my life (30+ years).
A few years back I made the dreadful mistake to move to Kentucky. I have since lost all sympathy for the South. Yes, General Sherman and the infamous March!
My great great uncle and several of his cousins were not terrorists. I have lots of documents on them (letters, etc.). Not terrorists. Sherman was a blatant terrorist, however...
I don't like disagreeing about Sherman but all should understand that he went very deep into the Confederacy and surely didn't want a Confederate army to regroup and come in behind him to hurt his army as they could have done. Sherman stated that war is hell and made sure that Georgians believed what he said by his scorched earth policy. I tire of hearing people talk about how bad Sherman was although I agree that he didn't treat north Georgia very nice.
The soldiers of the Confederacy were considered soldiers by the Union government although they were out of official uniforms by war's end. They were not a rabble and sure not just terrorists.
Ronald Martin is just like Al Sharpton now. He's a prick.
I have always thought of Roland Martin as just what you said. Since I got Fox about 1 1/2 years ago I have not had to see Martin or Cooper and have been very happy about that.
I don't believe that Confederate soldiers were "terrorists", or Union troops either INCLUDING Gen.William Tecumseh Sherman. That said ,your comments regarding Lincoln are misinformed and irrational. He saved the Union, or is that not an important fact in your eyes?
Enough of the false romance of the "Lost Cause."
I'm proud that my great-great grandfather fought to keep the Union together, in the 15th Pennsylvania Cavalry.
Too many people don't accept the fact that Lincoln did not say that slavery was the reason he was prosecuting that war. He knew that he would lose the four border states that stayed with the union and that that would weaken the union immensely and strengthen the South.
Lincoln never really freed any slaves until the war ended. He freed exactly no slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation since he said they were freed only in the states that were still at war. This was said that way to keep those border states happy. Yes, he actually freed no slaves that day in 1862.
Why would they have that fear? Weren't they members of a republic, with a voice in government, a voice in those decisions?
How could a President end slavery? (Hint: He couldn't do it all by himself.)
We know that but many people really think that presidents have much more power than they do have. As long as we keep this Constitution it will be the way it is. I wonder how much longer before Obama wipes out that flawed document. Of course, he can't do that without the Congress going along.
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.
