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.
Historical revisionism as obvious by Jackson Jr.'s efforts. The MSM would have us believe that Ft. Sumpter April 1861 was the first shot of the "civil war" too even though battles had been fought along the Missouri/Kansas border since 1856.
Of course the far left doesn't want to discuss the Northern slave holders who did not want to relinquish their slaves do they. You never studied that in the politically correct history books. Did you study that Lincoln didn't start the war to free slaves? Doubt it.
Not to mention the indentured servants of the north. The only difference was that they weren't "bought".
Unfortunately for African Americans people who advocated the abolition of slavery on moral grounds lost the war. John Brown and Robert Gould Shaw are probably two of the few heroes that have meaning to African Americans. Sure, plenty of northerners thought slavery was a bad thing but not on moral grounds.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855:
How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]
1. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move designed to keep England out of the conflict.
2. Early in the war, Lincoln said that he would compromise on the concept of slavery if it would preserve the Union.
3. Many blacks served in Union ranks in the Civil War- THEY DID PARTICIPATE.
4. Lincoln, in the election of 1864, said he WOULD NOT COMPROMISE on the Emancipation Proclamation.
5. Lincoln considered Frederick Douglas a personal friend.
You see, the war was initially about state's rights and was changed to a war of morality AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation. Many Union soldiers, particularly those from souther Illinois and Indiana, deserted after the Emancipation Proclamation, as they did not support that concept.
Agreed. As if government can ever be moral. They were so moral about blacks they wouldn't allow them on trolley cars or buses because they didn't want them to fall and get hurt. Government is so moral they didn't want blacks marrying whites in order to protect the black race from getting impure. Yea government loves the black race.
This time it wasn't about money like every other time, right? It wasn't about the south paying an unproportional amount of taxes, against their will, that hurt the souths industry, was it?
I hope every slaveholder went bankrupt as a result of their participation in the evil practice. Since you're all about compensation, I'm sure you would've also stood behind an agreement to compensate newly freed slaves for their years in bondage, right?
Compensated by whom? Was their much left of the slave holders possessions to divy up even though doing so would have been illegal? Compensated from the ones who had nothing to do with slavery and who didn't own slaves?
I still don't understand how kidnapping was legal but how can you compensate someone for having something done to them that was legal at the time? That is the problem you run into. I wonder if the owners of speakeasys were compensated monetarily for the money lost during prohibition?
Slavery did become a major theme, but it did not begin with it. It began since the South was under the impression that foreign nations would support them and started it, and the North was not about to let them get by with it. The south *lost* the war the day they started it. At the end the southern armies were reduced to tatters and starvation and shot deserters so they didn't go home. The north had well armed divisions which never needed to be mobilized.
Slavery DID become a issue near the end, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. It did become a reason for some to support the war at the time the North was tired of a drawn out war and wanted out and the politicians needed to keep it going. Note that it ended slavery ONLY in states in rebellion.
But at the start the US simply refused to let the southern states leave and would fight rather than let them. And the illusion that the south could have won at all. Every determiner of the winner was against them from the start.
But what happened to the US is that we became a single nation. Before, if you were from a place you likely stayed the rest of your life. People primarily identified with their state. After, with the mass movement of people, we became a nation and for the first time people began thinking of themselves as Americans over being from a state. Without the Civil War we could have never developed a national identity.
It's easy to think of the past in terms of today, like revisionist history does. Today we commonly see smaller points of view expressed in our media and we live where news is old in an hour. In that time, it could take months to get news from one place to another, and movements did not happen like we see them now because there was no way to connect all the dots. With the sort of media we have today, it could well have been about slavery. Just imagine the way the debates would have been on national television with worldwide instant distribution. But back then, people lived regionaly. The anti-slavery movement was strong in places and reviled in others, but largely minor for many.
I suggest people go to source documents when discussing history. Diaries and journels will tell you what it was to live in a time. Peoples motivations, that which is being claimed here, are based on how they see the world. In 1860 the average person saw a world as far away from what we understand as the middle ages would seem. Only by reading *their* words can you see how their world was percieved.
There are two kinds of history. One looks at history as the culmination of peoples actions and perceptions of life as they saw it. We may disagree with their standards but we can't impose ours and get that picture right. This is real history. The other is revisionist. You take your perceptions and see what you want. Give me first generation history over that any day.
If the war began and was fought over slavery, then why did the north *return* fugatives to their owners at first until they realized they could claim them as seized *property* and have them work for the army. It caused even more to leave which was an even better strategic gain.
Try watching Ken Burns documentary "The Civil War" recently rerun on pbs. Its live streamed on netflix in hd too. It's a very first generation based history where agendas don't have to be fufilled. And you see, too, the other notable thing it came to represent. For it was the *first* modern war fought with tactics aimed against civilians along with armies. Study it and you see the basis for all the wars that followed the First WW.
Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855:
How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]
"On February 3, 1865, Lincoln and Secretary of State Seward met with a Confederate peace delegation that included Confederate Vice President Stephens. Lincoln told the delegation that he still favored compensation to owners of emancipated slaves. It had never been his intention, the President said, to interfere with slavery in the states; he had been driven to it by necessity. He believed that the people of the North and South were equally responsible for slavery. If hostilities ceased and the states voluntarily abolished slavery, he believed, the government would indemnify the owners to the extent, possibly, of $400 million. Although the conference was not fruitful, two days later Lincoln presented to his cabinet a proposal to appropriate $400 million for reimbursement to slave owners, providing hostilities stopped by April 1. (The cabinet unanimously rejected the proposal, which Lincoln then regretfully abandoned.)"
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.
