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.
and the North cared? you actually think that Lincoln and the North cared about slaves in the South?......you actually think Lincoln's goal before the war was to end the institution of slavery? You fell asleep many times during history class and didn't read Lincoln's inaugural adress in 1861 or read the Corwin Amendment.
Why are you trying so hard to put words in my mouth?
And I see you're also resorting to personal insults, which is telling.
To repeat for at least the third time now - I am not discussing the North's attitude toward black people. I'm discussing the South's insistence on keeping the institution of slavery in place, even if it cost thousands of lives to do so.
I'm just leveling the playing field. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about how noble REL and the South was - how the South and all these fine men were simply forced to defend their homes when the reality was that their economy - and their own personal wealth in nearly every case - was based on the backs of slave labor, even if that fact disturbed them.
IT SIMPLY WAS.
That institution had to go. It simply had to. I wish it could have been done without a war, without bloodshed, without devastation, but that's not the way it played out.
And personally I think it's a crying shame that the Civil Rights Movement took another 100 years to gather enough steam to enforce change, but that's a story for another day.
Let me ask you an honest question - do you think that most southern slave owners would have voluntarily freed their slaves?
i agree with you that the institution of slavery had to go into history. and i too would have preferred that it go peacefully. in fact it was kind heading that way anyway. new technologies, changing attitudes across the country, etc. all would have ultimately ended slavery in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
but the North and Lincoln wanted to put it specifically in the CONSTITUTION in 1861 in the Corwin Amendment to end any doubts or confusion.....so again the North and Lincoln didn't have any issues or problems with slavery....they just wanted to keep the South in the Union and continue the taxation revenue from the South coming up North and keep controlling the South's economy.
At least lets be honest about it.
i am being honest about it. the north was going to try to do what was necessary to keep the union together. but as i noted, slavery was doomed anyway, it just would have taken longer, and would have been less contentious than a war.
as for your question about the south and their ultimate goals in that war, once again i will ask, do you really think that if lee had been able to fulfill his plan to take washington dc, that he and the south would have given it back after the surrender of the union? put yourself in president davis place, would you really want your enemy right on your border, especially after you had defeated them in battle?
Right - because what Lincoln and other northerners said or believed about black slaves is ever so much worse than this (taken directly from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession):
Quote:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
Find it very fascinating the Democrats created chaos when the statue went up and they're the same ones tearing it down, again causing chaos. The party of dysfunction and always going against their own said values. Robert E. Lee would never have wanted the statue in the first place. Just another way for Dems to discredit military men, to start with a General and not Robert Bryd. I have taken this to all be fake outrage to keep the party alive and hateful.
This below is a uneducated response, a quote I saw...........
"In a public place, if it is offensive and people are taking issue with it, let's move it. Let's put it somewhere where historically it fits with the area around it so you can have people come to see it, who want to understand that history and that individual,"
It would be more accepted if it were, that a discussion had taken place and it would be better fitted to complete history, that these statues should be in a museum. Instead, we have snowflakes......"some people may be offended", this is NOT how decisions or policies should take place.
Actually, I don't find it fascinating. I especially don't find it fascinating considering history. The Democratic and Republican parties were far different parties when they started out. And thanks to the Democratic National Convention of 1948, alot of changes took place.
Right - because what Lincoln and other northerners said or believed about black slaves is ever so much worse than this (taken directly from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession):
I don't doubt that Lincoln was no friend of the Black man. Lincoln being a racist does not negate anything about the Confederates.
and the North cared? you actually think that Lincoln and the North cared about slaves in the South?......you actually think Lincoln's goal before the war was to end the institution of slavery? You fell asleep many times during history class and didn't read Lincoln's inaugural adress in 1861 or read the Corwin Amendment.
No one hear is arguing whether or not Northerners cared. This is not about northerners. This is about Lee. This is about the role of the Confederates. Lincoln was no friend of the Black man. That does not refute what the Confederates did. Instead of deflecting from the topic, face up to what the Confederates did.
No one hear is arguing whether or not Northerners cared. This is not about northerners. This is about Lee. This is about the role of the Confederates. Lincoln was no friend of the Black man. That does not refute what the Confederates did. Instead of deflecting from the topic, face up to what the Confederates did.
Preach it.
Deflection - honestly - it's such a transparent tactic.
"Takes one to know one!" "I know you are but what am I?" "He started it!"
I'm just leveling the playing field. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about how noble REL and the South was - how the South and all these fine men were simply forced to defend their homes when the reality was that their economy - and their own personal wealth in nearly every case - was based on the backs of slave labor, even if that fact disturbed them.
IT SIMPLY WAS.
That institution had to go. It simply had to. I wish it could have been done without a war, without bloodshed, without devastation, but that's not the way it played out.
And personally I think it's a crying shame that the Civil Rights Movement took another 100 years to gather enough steam to enforce change, but that's a story for another day.
Let me ask you an honest question - do you think that most southern slave owners would have voluntarily freed their slaves?
Exactly, I also notice that the Lost Cause apologists never acknowledge that the only reason they were put in a position to defend their homes was because the elected officials that they chose to vote for decided that going to war was preferable to ending the practice of selling human beings and allowing them to be legally tortured, raped and/or murdered at the whim of the "property owner". The South had ample opportunity to give up the repulsive practice of slavery and refused time and time again.
I would also ask the many posters that claim that slavery would have eventually ended anyway and therefore the Civil War was not needed how many years they would have tolerated living life as a slave while waiting for racists to get cool with the idea of treating them as an actual human being?
The big mistake that Lincoln made was showing mercy to the Confederates. Generals like Lee and leaders of the Confederate government like Jefferson Davis should have been executed immediately after the South surrendered. Letting them live and create legends as honorable men just defending their homeland is an open wound that has been allowed to fester ever since. Anyone that openly supported the formation of a government based solely on white supremacy and aggression toward the United States should have been treated like the traitorous scumbags they were.
I totally agree - but it justifies all sorts of horrific things according to some people.
This is an inconvenient topic. This is why so many deflections are brought into this. We have proof showing what the Confederate cause was about. If proof cannot be refuted, then there is an expectation that certain things will be admitted to. Not really. Instead of refuting, it becomes deflecting and bringing up red herrings.
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.
