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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2013, 11:36 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,795 posts, read 7,267,618 times
Reputation: 5194

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Nope - and slavery was quickly abolished in the North. The Civil War ended in April 1865 and by mid-December slavery was abolished everywhere (even in those few remaining states of the north where it was still legal in April).

Ken
There were more slave owners in the North than in the South, so what was the war really about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2013, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,629,534 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
There were more slave owners in the North than in the South, so what was the war really about?
The war was about whether the union of states would remain as a single entity or not. Remember, Secessionists and all that? When Lincoln knew the Union was going to strangle the South with it's industrial might and the ready supply of soldiers to win the war, he had to do something about the million or so slaves after the war was over. So he freed them. It was a byproduct of a larger agenda....that of preserving the union.

It wouldn't be any different today. If Texas tried to secede from the union the federal government would send troops into Texas and arrest the governor and Texas legislature.

The Union of States in the United States of America is Sacrosanct. I know this concept gets up a lot of ultra conservative's and Libertarian's noses. Too bad, so sad.

Last edited by mohawkx; 08-18-2013 at 02:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 02:42 PM
 
26,316 posts, read 14,916,050 times
Reputation: 14493
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
There were more slave owners in the North than in the South, so what was the war really about?
This is a lie.

Roughly a third of secessionists state families owned slaves.

1860 Census Results

If we dismiss the slave border states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri...the 1860 census shows that northern states had already eradicated slavery and was in the process of phasing it out into extinction.

I will admit that the census numbers aren't as accurate as can be. For instance, New Jersey did have around ~20 slaves...in 1860. When they state banned slavery they made all slaves "apprentices for life"...however, the state never had a large amount of slaves and most were just freed at that point - to the point where literally New Jersey had around 20 slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,288 posts, read 20,670,325 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Nonsense.

#1 Your number is high and what was Lincoln suppose to do? Let Democracy die? When ever someone didn't like an election they can simply break off thus allowing there to be no efficiency or purpose to government.
My number is not high. Recent new studies have put the number much higher than in past times. Democracy was never in danger of dying. There was no need to kill 800,000 Americans.

#2 Path to bigger government? I think you are confusing later presidents like Wilson and FDR with Lincoln. After Lincoln we went through a period of weak presidents and to a large extent decentralized power after reconstruction ended.
[/quote]

Lincoln started the transfer of power from the state to the federal level and that transfer has continued. I'm not aware of any decentralization after Lincoln.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,288 posts, read 20,670,325 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
620,000 compared to 800,000 is about 30% overstated.
Your number is very out of date. You need to keep up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/sc...anted=all&_r=0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,288 posts, read 20,670,325 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
Lincoln was a tyrant, he cared not for blacks or the cause of slavery. He cared only for the institution of an all powerful Federal Government to do the bidding of the industrialists to whom he bowed. He destroyed States rights and killed more Americans than all foreign wars combined.

Slavery was a dying institution as most in the south had accepted long before the war and would have ended under the political pressure of time as it did throughout the Caribbean without force or war.
The civil war was fought to create an empire, where industrialists could use the Federal Government to strip the States of their wealth without compensating the true owners, the citizens, of what they would have been entitled.

The American people were the heirs of a continent containing more wealth than could be imagined.
Quadrillions of dollars of that wealth have been stolen by industrialists and bankers since the civil war and the American people today are struggling in a system where most will work a lifetime and die with nothing to show for a lifetime of labor. Do you know what that is? It is slavery. You see slavery was never abolished, it was simply perfected.
Correct. There was never a need to start a war and kill 800,000 Americans. Slavery was ending all over the world and would have died out soon in the US. Lincoln just hated Southern independence. He even said himself that he didn't care about slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 05:51 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,261,493 times
Reputation: 7621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Correct. There was never a need to start a war and kill 800,000 Americans. Slavery was ending all over the world and would have died out soon in the US. Lincoln just hated Southern independence. He even said himself that he didn't care about slavery.
It was "ending all over the world" because in those OTHER places, they didn't simply allow those owning slaves to break off and form their own slave-owning countries.


I DO agree slavery would have ended in the south EVENTUALLY - heck even apartheid ended in South Africa eventually - IN THE 1990's!!!!!!!!!!


But then again, what's a few more generations of slavery anyway - as long as it's not YOU who's enslaved.


The South was NO WHERE NEAR willing to give up slavery without a fight - and likely would NOT be for DECADES to come because they had an economy that was DEPENDENT upon it. Heck, even AFTER abolishment of slavery was forced upon them they STILL found ways to keep Blacks from their legal rights - methods that were still in place 100 YEARS LATER!!!

Your argument is total speculative BS.

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 08-18-2013 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 06:47 PM
 
6,073 posts, read 4,720,935 times
Reputation: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
It was "ending all over the world" because in those OTHER places, they didn't simply allow those owning slaves to break off and form their own slave-owning countries.


I DO agree slavery would have ended in the south EVENTUALLY - heck even apartheid ended in South Africa eventually - IN THE 1990's!!!!!!!!!!


But then again, what's a few more generations of slavery anyway - as long as it's not YOU who's enslaved.


The South was NO WHERE NEAR willing to give up slavery without a fight - and likely would NOT be for DECADES to come because they had an economy that was DEPENDENT upon it. Heck, even AFTER abolishment of slavery was forced upon them they STILL found ways to keep Blacks from their legal rights - methods that were still in place 100 YEARS LATER!!!

Your argument is total speculative BS.

Ken
all those slaves were forced to work for food and shelter in the south. once the war ended, slaves worked for food and shelter in the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 06:54 PM
 
26,316 posts, read 14,916,050 times
Reputation: 14493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Correct. There was never a need to start a war and kill 800,000 Americans. Slavery was ending all over the world and would have died out soon in the US. Lincoln just hated Southern independence. He even said himself that he didn't care about slavery.
That is a lie.

He made speeches his whole career on the evils of slavery.

You are probably referring to Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley. Lincoln was getting blasted as not doing enough to help the slaves AND doing too much to help the slaves. Lincoln was in a catch 22.

What Lost Causers forget/choose to ignore is that:

#1 He is stating his "official duty" as president, which is to save the union regardless of the slave issue.

#2 When Lincoln wrote this letter, he already had written the Emancipation Proclamation and was waiting to announce the EP to the country as his cabinet said it was too controversial even in the north and to wait for a victory (Antietam would be the victory).

#3 Lincoln clearly says that he cares about ending slavery - but that he can't let that get in the way of his official duty. Lost Causers typically chop this part of the letter off so they can repeat the lie you posted.

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." This is the part that lost causers chop off of the letter.

You can read the letter here: Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 10:13 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,261,493 times
Reputation: 7621
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators View Post
all those slaves were forced to work for food and shelter in the south. once the war ended, slaves worked for food and shelter in the south.
The difference being THEY WEREN'T PROPERTY - and they could leave if they wanted - and their children COULDN'T BE TAKEN FROM THEM AND SOLD.

EVERYONE works for "food and shelter" - but only slaves are PROPERTY.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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
Similar Threads

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