Conservative Colorado School Board Member: U.S. "Excpetional" Because We Ended Slavery Voluntarily (Nebraska, leader)
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.
Well given that their secession, and attack on the US, was based entirely on the fact that they refused to give up slavery voluntarily, and the claim is that they gave up on slavery voluntarily...yes, this is in fact extremely important to the discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
I have never heard of that the nadir of race relations was from 1900-1940.
Warmth of the other Suns is a great book
Right to Ride (Dr. Blair L M Kelly) is fairly interesting, though not at...touching. It mostly covers the black resistance to separate but equal as it begins to be imposed in trains, trolleys, and the like. And the Nadir roughly began when the GOP stopped supporting voting rights for black people post -reconstruction, so 1890-1900. But like I said, we're discussing before then.
The truth is, the ratification of the 13th amendment ended slavery, not the Civil War.
It wouldn't have mattered that the south lost the war.....slavery would have continued for some time after without the 13th.
Learn YOUR history.
If the South had won the American Civil War, how likely would it have been there would've been a 13th Amendment?
In fact, any amendment would've been attached to the Constitution of the Confederate States of America which had few important changes (from the Constitution of USA) except to seemingly perpetuate the existence & expansion of the institution of slavery.
Can you refute that at that time, the Democratic Party was conservative?
We were talking about slavery in THIS country, no other country.
BTW, the USA was not the first nation to abolish slavery. Mexico beat the USA to that 30 years before. Poland abolished slavery a long time before the USA did. Alot of countries abolished slavery before the USA did. And something else. When Napoleon sent Polish missionaries to put down the slave rebellion in Haiti, some of the Polish mercenaries deserted Napoleon and sided with the slaves. The USA at that time shared similar sentiments with France on trying to squash the slave rebellion in Haiti, and in making sure Haiti didn't become independent. The USA didn't recognize Haiti as an independent nation until 1862.
Since it is delusional Democrats that keep saying it, why don't you prove that the 19th century Democratic Party was the conservative party and we'll go from there.
Btw, religion was the main driver of the Abolitionist Movement and we all know how liberals feel about religion.
If the South had won, it would be its own nation now and it would be up to the remaining United States if America to constitutionally guarantee that slavery would not exist within the union.
Besides, the 13th Amendment hasn't stopped slavery. Human trafficking and forced labor(especially in the sex industry) is going on in the USA as we speak.
The goal or main objective of the American Civil War was to stop slavery throughout the world? Hhhmmm, that's an interesting (albeit extraordinary) claim. I thought it was a Civil war?
The Civil War was not begun to end slavery, but a few years later, the Emancipation Proclamation did end slavery, in part as an effort to bring the war to a close.
It does not matter what the intents and purposes were in either case. Slavery as an official institution ended with the end of the Civil War.
At any rate, the United States did not end slavery voluntarily like Great Britain, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium and Portugal all did. Slavery ended in the United States through force, not civil agreement.
The U.S. ended slavery by choice, we chose to end it ourselves, there was no outside force making us do it.
That's nice, but hardly a point in favor of American exceptionalism, and wasn't that her point in the first place? She did say "This is part of the argument that America is exceptional", did she not?
The UK abandoned slavery (without outside pressure and also without blowing through hundreds of thousands of their own citizens' lives) decades earlier, and then used considerable resources on having the Royal Navy limit the Atlantic slave trade. In the context of Western nations, the US does not have much of a record as regards slavery.
All nations have skeletons in the closet - it's a sign of maturity to acknowledge it.
Yet British looms continued to spin with southern slave harvested cotton.
I'm sure they were extremely conflicted it about though.
Last edited by Mr. Joshua; 10-05-2014 at 07:58 AM..
The Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery. It was fought to keep the Confederate states from seceding. Four of the Union states were slave states. You need to learn your history before you try to bash others for not knowing it.
Then President Lincoln free the slaves in1863 the last year of war. Emancipation Proclaimion.
This article is about American history. For emancipation proclamations in other countries, see Abolition of slavery timeline.
[CENTER][LEFT] Henry Louis Stephens, untitled watercolor (c. 1863) of a black man reading a newspaper with headline "Presidential Proclamation/Slavery".[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][LEFT]
Abraham Lincoln, Brooklyn Museum[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the eleven states that were still in rebellion,[2] excluding areas controlled by the Union and thus applying to 3 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not outlaw slavery, and did not grant citizenship to the ex-slaves (called freedmen). It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
Around 20,000 to 50,000 slaves in regions where rebellion had already been subdued were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[5]
Hearing conservatives argue American history is like hearing conservatives argue climate change: Both arguments are fact free and headache inducing.
Really? I think you should look it up the Lincoln's Speech and decide for your self. Although it was far from perfect, the goal was to win the Civil War.
Opps just look at the previous post!
Just as a side thought, Liberals write politically correct History books for our Public schools and our kids barley knows there was a WWII?
Yet their looms spun with southern, slave harvested cotton. I'm sure they were extremely conflicted it about though.
I think there were some (Condfederate-leaning) folks who felt other Nations might take 'their' side to protect their cotton interest, leading to the infamous 'Cotton is King' boast:
Quote:
Cotton's central place in the national economy and its international importance led Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina to make a famous boast in 1858:
Quote:
Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us, we could bring the whole world to our feet... What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years?... England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her save the South. No, you dare not to make war on cotton. No power on the earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is King.
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.
