Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Secession was over the protection of slavery. Read Apostles of Disunion or any book by a scholarly person..
|
I take that to mean anyone from the North who justified the North's agression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Read South Carolina's own words as they discussed secession.
Read the south's newspapers, political speeches, minister sermons.
The south broke off to protect their peculiar institution.
|
You are obviously ignorant of the facts. Declarations of Causes of Secession and the Ordinances of Secession that were issued by the first seven states of the Confederacy, one finds that there were several reasons these states wanted to be independent and that some of the reasons had nothing to do with slavery. For example, the Georgia and Texas Declarations of Causes of Secession included economic complaints, in addition to concerns relating to slavery. The Texas declaration complained that unfair federal legislation was enriching the North at the expense of the Southern states. The Georgia declaration complained about federal protectionism and subsidies for Northern business interests.
The South’s long-standing opposition to the federal tariff was another factor that led to secession. The South’s concern over the tariff was nothing new. South Carolina and the federal government nearly went to war over the tariff in 1832-1833. In the session of Congress before Lincoln’s inauguration, the House of Representatives passed a huge increase in the tariff, over the loud objections of Southern congressmen. Naturally, this alarmed Southern statesmen at all levels, since the South was always hit hardest by the tariff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Please cite the terrorists actions within the Republican platform....besides stopping the expansion of slavery westward...if you want to call that terrorism..
|
John Brown was probably the best know northern terrorists of the time his adoption of bloody force in the interests of freeing slaves and his raid on Harpers Ferry.
In Kansas, John Brown and his four sons grabbed five pro-slavery settlers in the middle of the night from their homes in Pottawatomie Creek and brutality murdered them in front of their families.
There were also;
Gabriel Prosser's rebellion
1831: Nat Turner's revolt
The Underground Railroad
There were also attempts to create insurection among the slaves by distributing phamphlets encouraging rising up and killing their owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Wait a minute. Lee freed his slaves after they were technically already freed. The Union Army occupied and controlled Arlington. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued September 22, 1862 to take effect on January 1st, 1863.
Lee freed his slaves on December 29th, 1862.
Could Lee remove his slaves from Arlington? No. The Union army wouldn't have allowed it.
So Lee's slaves were technically already freed, just waiting for it to be official...when Lee sped up the process by a mere 3 days..
|
In fact, the process to free these slaves (who were not his) started 5 years before... here is a factual account.
General Lee and the Family Slaves
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
The only known evidence that Grant owned slaves was evidence that he freed one before the war. The slaves you cite were owned by his father in law and lent to his daughter, Grant's wife...while Grant was away. .
|
Before the war grant was an overseer of slaves on his wealthy father-in-law’s 850 acre plantation known as White Haven in Missouri. These slaves were owned by Grant and his father-in-law until 1865.
In 1858 he [Grant] hired two slaves from their owners and borrowed one, William Jones, from his father-in-law. Jones, he subsequently bought.
Grant was known to be a racist, and in December 1862, Grant issued General Order # 11, which expelled all Jews from the three states of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Not quite what you are saying is it?.
|
Actually it is not quite what you are saying...
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Except Grant never said that. There is no document or historical record of Grant ever having said that or something similar to it. In fact many documents with Grant saying perhaps the opposite..
|
Grant was an oportuinst, he had little in the way of morals, even when he was sober, which was not often.
Here is the entire passage...In the summer of 1861 General Grant, then Colonel of the Twenty-first Illinois Regiment of Infantry, was stationed in Mexico [Missouri], on the North Missouri Railroad, and had command of the post . . . . Ulysses the Silent was then Ulysses the Garrulous, and embraced every fair opportunity which came his way to express his sentiments and opinions in regard to political affairs. One of these declarations we distinctly remember. In a public conversation in Ringo's banking-house, a sterling Union man put this question to him: 'What do you honestly think was the real object of this war on the part of the Federal Government?'
"'Sir,' said Grant, 'I have no doubt in the world that the sole object is the restoration of the Union. I will say further, though, that I am a Democrat--every man in my regiment is a Democrat--and whenever I shall be convinced that this war has for its object anything else that what I have mentioned or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the purposes of the abolitionists, I pledge you on my honor as a man and a soldier that I will not only resign my commission, but will carry my sword to the other side, and cast my lot with that people.'"
He also said..
Ulysses S. Grant - “The issue of slavery provoked little moral indignation in General Grant, and in the first days following the attack on Fort Sumter, he seems to have believed that the North shared his indifference to abolition 'In all this I can but see the doom of Slavery. The North do not want, nor will they want, to interfere with the institution. But they will refuse for all time to give it protection unless the South shall return soon to their allegiance, and then too this disturbance will give such an impetus to the production of their staple, cotton, in other parts of the world that they can never recover the controll of the market again for that comodity. This will reduce the value of negroes so much that they will never be worth fighting over again.'â€
Ulysses S. Grant - “I never was an Abolitionest, not even what could be called anti slavery...
Grants presedency was also racked with scandals, including Crédit Mobilier, a scheme to siphon off the profits made in building the transcontinental railroad. Also the pay of President was doubled during Grants term to $50,000.
Read more:
The scandals - Ulysses S. Grant - war, election, second
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Lincoln was smart...he couldn't upset the border states. Plus he had no legal authority to unilaterally free those slaves anyways - he did have that power in the rebel areas. Lincoln's top priority was to preserve the union. .
|
He never gave a damn about the slaves and said so...
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln)
The civil war was fought over the wealth and control of the countries resources, and was an act of aggression as the war with Mexico was before that.
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.
pull-EEZ!
