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.
Who owned the slaves?
Who passed Executive Order 9066 which threw people in prison based on ethnicity and without due process?
Who passed every single Jim Crow Law?
Who was less supportive of all the Civil Rights Act?
But the year is 2021. Who loves to display and wave Confederate Flags? Just Republicans?
Distribution of Slaves in 1860
In 1861, in an attempt to raise money for sick and wounded soldiers, the Census Office produced and sold a map that showed the population distribution of slaves in the southern United States. Based on data from the 1860 census, this map was the Census Office's first attempt to map population density.
It took six months to paint this map for Lincoln.....it was in the oval office during the Civil War
Race-based enslavement was the sine qua non cause.
That is; no obsession with race-based enslavement, no secession, no War. Period. Full stop.
The historical record demonstrates there were far more folks than just President Lincoln who were attempting to avoid what they saw as the inevitable military conflict between the Slaver States & the Free States.
The period from Lincoln's election to secession (Secession Winter) is incredibly well-documented. What were the leadership, i.e. the elected officials/representatives saying? Documentation includes newspaper accounts, State secession conventions/deliberations (Jan - March), testimony from the Washington Peace convention, letters of secessions from the commissioners of Slave States, list of grievances in State declarations of secession, & so on.
Additionally, the Congressional Record of the 36th Congress shows the proposals of many Constitutional Amendments (President Buchanon was the 1st to propose).
'US Constitution & Secession' is a relatively recent book by Dwight Pitcaithley. His book focuses on analyzing these amendments. Basically he breaks down 350 different topics in the proposed 67 amendments. Race-based enslavement expanded in the territories is the largest topic cited. The Slave State position was that Government should protect slavery because slaves are property. 90% of the amendments proposed were about protecting & expanding race-based enslavement. 2 out of the 350 discussed tariffs. 5 were logical exit strategies for secession. One described having 4 Presidents, 1 each for North, South, East & West.
The Slaver States seceded to protect race-based enslavement & the notion of white supremacy.
The Southern Slave Staes were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the Slave States were willing to trade State authority to protect, & expand race-based enslavement for Federal authority to protect & expand race-based enslavement. In other words, it was about the ridiculousness of the right to own people as property.
As one of the Moderators in the History forum put it "War is due to a failure in politics at the leadership level".
You are proving my point.
Slavery was a point of contention. The Civil War was about secession. They are related but different.
I dare you to answer this question but you wont because it obviously proves you wrong.
If the South got rid of slavery on Monday and wanted to succeed on Tuesday would Lincoln say no you can't go?
You seem to be saying that fighting for Nazi Germany did not extend the life of the Nazi regime.
That is something you made up and nothing factual to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Clearly that cannot be what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Agreed I never alluded to it so why make things up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
That's - gobbledygook. Did you forget to swap some names or something?
You're not making sense again
don't deflect and answer this question
You have a neighbor, who is having a conversation defending side A. Another person is defending side B, gets mad and attacks the side A neighbor. Dane_in_LA stops the attack. Is Dane_in_LA now defending side A or is Dane_in_LA defending a neighbor?
I know you've read this post multiple times but have refused to answer. Try. But you wont even try since it proves my point
Lots of southern towns/cities are going to look ugly with empty statue pedestals.
I'd make the argument that the statues at least have artistic merit and should be kept up for that reason alone.
Destroying historical monuments is a sign that a nation is devolving into disorder and chaos.
Why should statue pedestals remain empty? They should be used to honor people everybody in the area admires.
Slavery was a point of contention. The Civil War was about secession.
I dare you to answer this question but you wont because it obviously proves you wrong.
If the South got rid of slavery on Monday and wanted to succeed on Tuesday would Lincoln say no you can't go?
What is your point? I already answered your ridiculous "what if" question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution of the Confederate States of America
Preamble
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
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.