Civil War slave owners owed reparations? (leader, elect, federal government, federal)
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.
I am 100% correct that Lincoln said if slavery isn't wrong than nothing is. He was consistent on this position.
Yet at the same time, Lincoln told the South when he won that he had no legal ability to end slavery as it was constitutionally protected and that he would not harm it where it already exists, but that he would prohibit the expansion of slavery, which was a nonstarter for the South as that meant the North would strengthen its strangle hold on the national government and could do a constitutional amendment to end slavery in the future.
The war changed things. He now legally could end slavery in areas under rebellion by executive order and he would.
Wrong history. The U.S. Supreme Court settled slavery. Lincoln was a lawyer and knew better. That's why he supported the Corwin Amendment for the South to return and they didn't. He fought the war to keep the union not for slavery. Slavery was protected under the S.C. and Lincoln agreed to that. Lincoln couldn't stop the spread of slavery because it was backed by the Supreme Court.
Lincoln and the North wouldn't stop the spread of slavery because if the South return, the Corwin Amendment which the North passed with Super Majority numbers with the support of Lincoln would have been in the constitution. Ending slavery was a war tactic by the North to destroy the South's economy and forced them back in the Union after they failed to bring the South back with the Corwin Amendment.
Lincoln couldn't punish any state for practicing slavery when it's backed by the Supreme Court. Lincoln said it many times. This was more a war of independence than civil.
I want to see someone revive my long dead, slave holding ancestors and have them pay up. I am sure not going to do it.
Also, it was very hard to get some past slaves to work much after being emancipated and the war ended. You don't study much history, do you ? Someday, may be before I die, I am going to put together all creditable diaries, histories, studies, learned treatises on slavery, slave stories and the aftermath of THE WAR. But, the subject of slavery has been used to drag this country down. Its over, its done, get on with your life and stop being a victim. Some of my family was very poor and during the depression. They sharecropped, did whatever they had to do to support the family. We all turned out ok and went on to raise our children and educate them. I am so sick of this business of victims and double standards. Any idiot knows it is going to take this country back to the stone age, as far as being a world power. Bah. I am sick of all of you.
I understand where you are coming from, and I am with you. Having said that, I believe you better head to some leftist dolts' forum and understand their pov. they are saying that the slaves helped to build the US current global superpower status without pay. So, US gov't should pay up.
That is why, out of the blue, the whole issue brings to the front page. You did not see leftist dolts talked about it when USSR was kicking the USA butt.
Slavery is not the reason the U.S. is a Super Power and created the best economy in world's history. If it was, many countries and empires who practiced slavery for a lot longer and before than the U.S. would be today and that's not the case.
Wrong history. The U.S. Supreme Court settled slavery. Lincoln was a lawyer and knew better. That's why he supported the Corwin Amendment for the South to return and they didn't. He fought the war to keep the union not for slavery. Slavery was protected under the S.C. and Lincoln agreed to that. Lincoln couldn't stop the spread of slavery because it was backed by the Supreme Court.
Lincoln and the North wouldn't stop the spread of slavery because if the South return, the Corwin Amendment which the North passed with Super Majority numbers with the support of Lincoln would have been in the constitution. Ending slavery was a war tactic by the North to destroy the South's economy and forced them back in the Union after they failed to bring the South back with the Corwin Amendment.
Lincoln couldn't punish any state for practicing slavery when it's backed by the Supreme Court. Lincoln said it many times. This was more a war of independence than civil.
#1 The Republican party was literally founded with the primary position of stopping the expansion of slavery westward. This would be possible through laws and selective admission of states.
#2 Even with the Corwin Amendment, Lincoln stood firm on stopping the expansion of slavery westward.
#3 Declarations of Secession and Secession Conventions make it abundantly clear that the election of Lincoln was untenable for the South in the Union, because he was 100% firm in stopping the expansion of slavery.
#4 The Free States had grown rapidly compared to Slave States. 9 out of 10 immigrants moved to a free state and for every northerner that moved to a slave state, 2 southerners moved to a free state.
The North was simply dominating the South politically in the decades leading up to secession. The South went from having a lot of control over the federal government to less and less.
Demographics continued to favor the North, which means the North would not only increase its domination of the US House, but that the 50/50 split in US Senate would be lost forever.
The stopping of slavery's expansion westward meant that the free states could easily elect a man president who was antagonistic to slavery and easily pass any laws antagonistic to slavery.
#5 The North's domination of the electoral college and congress due to demographics also meant that the North would be picking the future Supreme Court members.
#6 Anyone who knows the law, knows constitutional amendments can be undone. See 18th and 21st amendments. The Corwin Amendment was a hollow promise at best that could easily be undone by future politicians.
Lots of Lost Cause nonsense understanding of history in this thread.
#1 The Republican party was literally founded with the primary position of stopping the expansion of slavery westward. This would be possible through laws and selective admission of states.
#2 Even with the Corwin Amendment, Lincoln stood firm on stopping the expansion of slavery westward.
#3 Declarations of Secession and Secession Conventions make it abundantly clear that the election of Lincoln was untenable for the South in the Union, because he was 100% firm in stopping the expansion of slavery.
#4 The Free States had grown rapidly compared to Slave States. 9 out of 10 immigrants moved to a free state and for every northerner that moved to a slave state, 2 southerners moved to a free state.
The North was simply dominating the South politically in the decades leading up to secession. The South went from having a lot of control over the federal government to less and less.
Demographics continued to favor the North, which means the North would not only increase its domination of the US House, but that the 50/50 split in US Senate would be lost forever.
The stopping of slavery's expansion westward meant that the free states could easily elect a man president who was antagonistic to slavery and easily pass any laws antagonistic to slavery.
#5 The North's domination of the electoral college and congress due to demographics also meant that the North would be picking the future Supreme Court members.
#6 Anyone who knows the law, knows constitutional amendments can be undone. See 18th and 21st amendments. The Corwin Amendment was a hollow promise at best that could easily be undone by future politicians.
Lots of Lost Cause nonsense understanding of history in this thread.
If you say so. You and your wishful thinking. The U.S. Supreme Court settled slavery. There was nothing the North or Lincoln could do about it. He even said it many times. When the North and Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment and passed easily by the North and were waiting for the South to return and make it a constitutional act finalized (a step further what the Supreme Court declared) it shows Lincoln or the North couldn't care less about slavery but saving the union and ending slavery in the South only during the war was a war tactic to force them back in the Union. It was a war tactic, period.
See you forget American Civics. A President and a party that only controls the North weren't changing the constitution or the S.C. by themselves. Lincoln could only get away of doing that during war not during peace time.
The Supreme Court in 1857, 7-2 declared slavery legal and Lincoln accepted it many times. For the Republicans who were a party on the North, it was an uphill battle to change the S.C. by themselves and pretend they would be expanding and become a 1 party nation.
If you say so. You and your wishful thinking. The U.S. Supreme Court settled slavery. There was nothing the North or Lincoln could do about it. He even said it many times. When the North and Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment and passed easily by the North and were waiting for the South to return and make it a constitutional act finalized (a step further what the Supreme Court declared) it shows Lincoln or the North couldn't care less about slavery but saving the union and ending slavery in the South only during the war was a war tactic to force them back in the Union. It was a war tactic, period.
See you forget American Civics. A President and a party that only controls the North weren't changing the constitution or the S.C. by themselves. Lincoln could only get away of doing that during war not during peace time.
The Supreme Court in 1857, 7-2 declared slavery legal and Lincoln accepted it many times. For the Republicans who were a party on the North, it was an uphill battle to change the S.C. by themselves and pretend they would be expanding and become a 1 party nation.
Quite frankly your argument is absurd and has no understanding of basic political realities.
The US Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that congress can't keep slavery out of the territories.
This doesn't mean the North that would perpetually control the federal government going forward couldn't destroy slavery.
By picking antislavery Supreme Court justices to make new rulings (the number of justices wasn't as firm back then so it could happen quicker).
By blocking new slave stated.
By repealing the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act.
By making it illegal to transit slaves through the North.
By making free blacks in the North eligible to vote.
Etc.
I suggest you read the Declaration of Secession of South Carolina. They point blank say they can't have a president who will is hostile to slavery and will support the above things. That president is Lincoln.
Anyone who has read notes from the secession conventions, and it is clear you have not, that the South saw Lincoln's election as a sign that slavery was dead in the Union, if not in Lincoln's term, eventually after.
Anyone who has read antebellum southern newspapers and I have read through them for hours and hours, knows that the southern newspapers were literally saying that if Lincoln wins the election that in 10 years blacks would enslave poor whites, rape their wives, and marry their daughters.
Quite frankly your argument is absurd and has no understanding of basic political realities.
The US Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that congress can't keep slavery out of the territories.
This doesn't mean the North that would perpetually control the federal government going forward couldn't destroy slavery.
By picking antislavery Supreme Court justices to make new rulings (the number of justices wasn't as firm back then so it could happen quicker).
By blocking new slave stated.
By repealing the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act.
By making it illegal to transit slaves through the North.
By making free blacks in the North eligible to vote.
Etc.
I suggest you read the Declaration of Secession of South Carolina. They point blank say they can't have a president who will is hostile to slavery and will support the above things. That president is Lincoln.
Anyone who has read notes from the secession conventions, and it is clear you have not, that the South saw Lincoln's election as a sign that slavery was dead in the Union, if not in Lincoln's term, eventually after.
You need 2/3 to amend the constitution. You need a Super Majority to appoint S.C. justices. How was the North doing that by themselves without 1 vote from the South and overturned a 7-2 Supreme Court that was solid?
It doesn't matter what the states put in their state constitutions. They could put that slavery was the bomb and blessed by God and pink flowers and butterflies are the best. The U.S. Supreme Court, the law of the land declared it legally with a solid vote of 7-2 and Lincoln as a lawyer accepted it and went along with it. He went so much along with it that the North passed easily the Corwin Amendment. It passed by the North by a Super Majority and Lincoln taking oath supported it. The problem was the South didn't want to return and went SOLO. Lincoln said many times his reasons for war and slavery was not it. It couldn't be since the Supreme Court declared it legal and Lincoln and the North passed the Corwin Amendment on their own to cement slavery in the constitution as long that the South return and leave independence alone.
If abortion is legal and cemented by the Supreme Court, the federal government can't send troops to the states to stop it. States can put it in their state constitutions, it doesn't matter what they put what matters is what the S.C. declares. Lincoln was in the same scenario. His reason was to keep the Union and ending slavery in just the rebellious states was a WAR TACTIC during the war to destroy their economy and force them back.
The rest is your wishful thinking of what you wanted history to go. Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to Africa because they weren't compatible with the U.S. So wishing Lincoln was going to end slavery during peacetime and constitutionally after the facts is really creating a myth. Slavery would have ended decades later but Lincoln's main reason was to keep the Union at all cost. Slavery was a bargaining chip that later became a war tactic during the war.
There was the "Compensation Act of 1863." Larry Elder has no place in public office because he is an idiot.
thank you. it's common knowledge that slave-owners got "reparations". This country is silly and backwards for doing that. On top of slavery, the slaves didn't get reparations, or rights, but the slave owners got paid. then on top of that, the country just left the former slave population to fend for themselves.
this thread is another one where people show their lack of knowledge and context. And people want black history to start at 1970 like i always said.
Black slave owners were very rare percentage wise and it was often innocent. What I mean by that is a free black might purchase a family member to protect them, but the law often didn't allow black slave owners to free their slaves. So blacks owning slaves that they might want to free was often impossible.
I don't see what black slave owners have to do with anything I've said. I don't support reparations today in either direction.
Also it is a well-known fact that the Planter class were the strongest secessionists. They had the most financially to lose under any abolition policy. The lack of basic knowledge on the Civil War's politics is startling.
The Planter class scared the crap out of poor whites about what would happen if slaves were freed and would show them benefits of slavery even though they were too poor to own slaves.
Did you know that the areas with fewer slaves in the South (typically mountains like what became West Virginia) were hotbeds of pro-Union areas in the South? Conversely the more slaves an area of the South had the more the area was likely to support secession.
I've literally posted quotes on here from confederate leaders stating that slavery was the direct reason they went to war. And people still want it to be for stuff like "states rights". It's amazing seeing people completely misrepresent the words of the group they glorify.
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.
