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.
The people in this thread seem to believe that the north wanted to abolish slavery out of benevolence for the blacks. That the North were some kind of moral crusaders. The exact opposite is true. They opposed slavery because they hated blacks and wanted them removed from the country.
Moreover, Lincoln's official policy prior to the war was not abolition, but rather stopping the spread of slavery to the Western territories. This again was not out of benevolence for blacks. White laborers didn't want to compete against slave labor. Whites were only concerned for themselves(which should be obvious if you think about what happened after the war). You can see a similar thing in the immigration debate. Everyone tries to pretend they have the moral high-ground, but their true motives are always selfish.
Nor was Lincoln waging war against the south for any benevolent purposes. The North simply refused to let the south go because they wanted to maintain control over their people, resources, production, markets, etc. It is the same reason Russia doesn't want to let Crimea/Donbas/Ukraine go. And the same reason China doesn't want to let Taiwan go. People who ascribe moral sentiments to governments are idiots.
Here is a map of all European secessionist movements.
The people in this thread seem to believe that the north wanted to abolish slavery out of benevolence for the blacks. That the North were some kind of moral crusaders. The exact opposite is true.
Correct, but the left doesn't care. They don't even know there are confederate statues in the Capitol still being honored today.
Quote:
There are several works of art in the United States Capitol honoring former leaders of the Confederate States of America and generals in the Confederate States Army, including eight statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection, busts and portraits
The people in this thread seem to believe that the north wanted to abolish slavery out of benevolence for the blacks. That the North were some kind of moral crusaders. The exact opposite is true. They opposed slavery because they hated blacks and wanted them removed from the country.
Moreover, Lincoln's official policy prior to the war was not abolition, but rather stopping the spread of slavery to the Western territories. This again was not out of benevolence for blacks. White laborers didn't want to compete against slave labor. Whites were only concerned for themselves(which should be obvious if you think about what happened after the war). You can see a similar thing in the immigration debate. Everyone tries to pretend they have the moral high-ground, but their true motives are always selfish.
Nor was Lincoln waging war against the south for any benevolent purposes. The North simply refused to let the south go because they wanted to maintain control over their people, resources, production, markets, etc. It is the same reason Russia doesn't want to let Crimea/Donbas/Ukraine go. And the same reason China doesn't want to let Taiwan go. People who ascribe moral sentiments to governments are idiots.
Here is a map of all European secessionist movements.
That was the whole enchilada disguised with heavy sour cream. If you benefit from modern day slavery, oppression and human rights violations then sit down and stop with the superior moral b.s. about dead people over 150 years ago.
The North always wants to look down on the people of the South after 156 years and ignore their own b.s. and that they have bloody hands also and benefited from slavery themselves and what they did to the Natives and White people and other countries for economic domination violating treaty after treaty and sovereignty after sovereignty but people want to ignore a pattern even if they left bread crumbs for them to follow they still don't get it.
You know how many times the union violated the treaties with the Natives? I would need more fingers in my hands to count. A lot more then 10 and some people here are in denial that they couldn't to the same thing against the states that freely left the union and the union waged an illegal war on them. The blindness mix with arrogance.
They want to sell the b.s. that from this line up in the map the people were morally superior, kind, righteous and children of God and the opposite from the line down. It was the Allies on 1 side and the Nazis on the other. Good vs evil. This is the b.s. they teach in schools.
That was the whole enchilada disguised with heavy sour cream. If you benefit from modern day slavery, oppression and human rights violations then sit down and stop with the superior moral b.s. about dead people over 150 years ago.
The North always wants to look down on the people of the South after 156 years and ignore their own b.s. and that they have bloody hands also and benefited from slavery themselves and what they did to the Natives and White people and other countries for economic domination violating treaty after treaty and sovereignty after sovereignty but people want to ignore a pattern even if they left bread crumbs for them to follow they still don't get it.
You know how many times the union violated the treaties with the Natives? I would need more fingers in my hands to count. A lot more then 10 and some people here are in denial that they couldn't to the same thing against the states that freely left the union and the union waged an illegal war on them. The blindness mix with arrogance.
They want to sell the b.s. that from this line up in the map the people were morally superior, kind, righteous and children of God and the opposite from the line down. It was the Allies on 1 side and the Nazis on the other. Good vs evil. This is the b.s. they teach in schools.
The confederate lost because they had zero support from any other nation due to the fact they wanted to continue using slaves. The world had progressed past slavery the confederates were losers it was a good thing in the end slavery needed to stop most people feel that way today.
The confederate lost because they had zero support from any other nation due to the fact they wanted to continue using slaves. The world had progressed past slavery the confederates were losers it was a good thing in the end slavery needed to stop most people feel that way today.
No. The North had a bigger economy and they didn't want to disrupt that. They were waiting how the war ended before taking sides. The war was keeping the union. The North was willing to kill and destroy to force a union on states that decided to leave and the South willing to keep slavery. I guess none of the sides had the moral high ground but don't fool yourself, both sides had blood on their hands for the institution of slavery. Just like you have blood in your hands for the human violations from China.
The North didn't have a problem with slave money and buying slave products. You just prove how hypocritical and self-righteous the North were and how bad is your history.
The world has progressed past slavery???? Our government today supports 87% of the world dictators and our corporations does business with China that practices modern day slavery, child labor, has concentration camps and human rights violations so you can have your smart phones, shoes and all the cr@p you buy from China but you are past slavery. Thanks for the laugh.
I forgot, after the Civil War the U.S. bought sugar from Cuba at high volumes who had slaves for 21 more years and after that started a war to control the sugar from Cuba. I guess if you don't see slavery or do it yourself you are past slavery. People really think that their b.s don't stink.
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 02-02-2022 at 12:51 AM..
You know how you expose the North was full of b.s. of stopping slavery apart from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 and the Corwin Amendment passed by the North and supported by Lincoln in 1861. The next huge hole in their b.s. and the most important because it's about economy which surpasses morals all the time was that the "free" states never prohibit the money and products from the South being spent in the North. They took that money for their economy up North and bought all the products made or farmed by slaves in the South. The North sold real estate to slave holders up North and the West from the land they stole for the Natives. They wanted that money from slavery up North.
They could have boycott from buying products from the South or refusing them to buy land in the west or north or to use slave money for any commerce with the North. They didn't. That's a lot better than war, you think?. The only reason they went to war was when the South left and No more money was going North and they had no more access to the resources and cash flow.
but some still believe in fairy tales that it was a moral war.
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 02-02-2022 at 01:12 AM..
The confederate lost because they had zero support from any other nation due to the fact they wanted to continue using slaves. The world had progressed past slavery the confederates were losers it was a good thing in the end slavery needed to stop most people feel that way today.
I think you’re right ~ most rational people in the present day feel similarly.
The Lost Cause mythologies & propaganda became the ideological foundation for the racial violence & domestic terrorism employed to reverse Reconstruction & to reimpose white supremacy in the Jim Crow era. Acceptance of these harmful mythologies by the North as well as in the South facilitated a reunification following the American Civil war but at the cost of the civil rights of African Americans.
All wars compel a struggle over their memory, & compel a struggle over interpreting & explaining the meanings of the war. The American Civil war is no different in that regard.
No. The North had a bigger economy and they didn't want to disrupt that. They were waiting how the war ended before taking sides. The war was keeping the union. The North was willing to kill and destroy to force a union on states that decided to leave and the South willing to keep slavery. I guess none of the sides had the moral high ground but don't fool yourself, both sides had blood on their hands for the institution of slavery. Just like you have blood in your hands for the human violations from China.
The North didn't have a problem with slave money and buying slave products. You just prove how hypocritical and self-righteous the North were and how bad is your history.
The world has progressed past slavery???? Our government today supports 87% of the world dictators and our corporations does business with China that practices modern day slavery, child labor, has concentration camps and human rights violations so you can have your smart phones, shoes and all the cr@p you buy from China but you are past slavery. Thanks for the laugh.
I forgot, after the Civil War the U.S. bought sugar from Cuba at high volumes who had slaves for 21 more years and after that started a war to control the sugar from Cuba. I guess if you don't see slavery or do it yourself you are past slavery. People really think that their b.s don't stink.
Your in the extreme minority of this country who thinks slavery should have been allowed to continue because they had a legal right to do it. History has judged the unions war against the south as necessary to end slavery. When I say the world had moved on from slavery yes it had compared to the 18th century during the peak of the slave trades.
The south lost because they were weaker and had no support from any other country. The south will always be linked to slavery, and even today racism is still a problem down there the Ahmaud Arbery murder is good example. Local DA and police tired to sweep the murder under the rug almost got away with it.
Your in the extreme minority of this country who thinks slavery should have been allowed to continue because they had a legal right to do it. History has judged the unions war against the south as necessary to end slavery. When I say the world had moved on from slavery yes it had compared to the 18th century during the peak of the slave trades.
The south lost because they were weaker and had no support from any other country. The south will always be linked to slavery, and even today racism is still a problem down there the Ahmaud Arbery murder is good example. Local DA and police tired to sweep the murder under the rug almost got away with it.
Nope. You are so way off and can't comprehend other people's views and facts of dead people and history. I said many times, the war wasn't to end slavery and it wasn't a moral war since both sides benefited from the institution of slavery and did many other immoral acts that include killing and destruction and stealing that you keep ignoring in your self-righteous brain.
Looking back at history, I come to the conclusion by our standards today that slavery was wrong, the benefiting financially from slavery was wrong and the North doesn't have clean hands, that the South had a right to leave the union without getting invaded and force at gun to be in the union, that war and destruction are evil and in this case a choice by the North (Union) who has a pattern of violating treaties and sovereignty in our history. That are public education on the war is b.s. but you ignore all that.
Not only you ignore all but you bring isolated cases from today that has NOTHING to do with the war and act like racism only exist in the South with white people and ignore the crimes and hate from blacks against Whites and Asians and to themselves and pretend that We are all stupid with your 1 sided lectures when the problem is a human problem not a region problem. North= Good South= Bad really gets tired.
You say: "The south will always be linked to slavery" and I say that is B.S. and bad history since slavery was legal since the 13 colonies, our founding fathers were wealthy slave owners and the north was built on slave money and slave labor and the North fully benefited financially in every day of their lives even after the war when the U.S. bought Sugar at high volumes from slavery from Cuba. Something you keep ignoring of the bigger picture.
You can always uncover people's true feelings of the war by how they feel today about America and mix isolated crimes from the present with the war like they have a connection. It might take time to uncover but that train is never late. It will sooner or later pop up in the conversation.
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 02-02-2022 at 09:14 AM..
Your in the extreme minority of this country who thinks slavery should have been allowed to continue because they had a legal right to do it. History has judged the unions war against the south as necessary to end slavery. When I say the world had moved on from slavery yes it had compared to the 18th century during the peak of the slave trades.
The south lost because they were weaker and had no support from any other country. The south will always be linked to slavery, and even today racism is still a problem down there the Ahmaud Arbery murder is good example. Local DA and police tired to sweep the murder under the rug almost got away with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
Your in the extreme minority of this country who thinks slavery should have been allowed to continue because they had a legal right to do it.
Would they have been made upon their freedom to earn a wage, been made full citizens of the u.s. coming with that the right to form militias and carry arms? If so, who in the Northern Territories purposed that? btw: minimum wage was not a thing; they could have traded labor for a roof over their heads and food, it would have worked.
"In Congress the Northern States had 183 votes ; the South, if unanimous, 120. If then the North was prepared to act in a mass its power was irresistible ; and the election of Mr. Lincoln plainly showed that it was prepared so to act and to carry out a sectional design. The anti- slavery power in the North was now compact and invincible, A party opposed to slavery had organized in 1840, with about seven thousand voters ; in 1860, it had polled nearly two million votes, and had succeeded in electing the President of the United States. The conservative party in the North had been thoroughly corrupted. They were beaten in every Northern State in 1860, with a single exception, by the avowed enemies of the South, who, but a few years ago, had been powerless in their midst. The leaders of the Northern Democratic party had, in 1856 and in 1860, openly taken the position that freedom would be more certainly secured in the Territories by the rule of non-intervention than by any other policy or expedient. This interpretation of their policy alone saved the Democratic party from entire annihilation. The overwhelming pressure of the anti-slavery sentiment had prevented their acceding to the Southern plat- form in the Presidential canvass. Nothing in the present or in the future could be looked for from the so called conservatives of the North ; and the South prepared to go out of a Union which no longer afforded any guaranty for her rights or any permanent sense of security, and which had brought her under the domination of a section, the designs of which, carried into legislation, would destroy her institutions, and even involve the lives of her people.
Such was the true and overwhelming significance of Mr. Lincoln's election to the people of the South. They saw in it the era of a sectional domination, which they proposed to encounter, not by revolution, properly SO called, not by an attempt to recover by arms their constitutional rights in the Union, but simply to escape by withdrawal from the confederation, and the resumption of their original character of independent States." The lost cause; a new southern history of the war of the Confederates. (1866) #88 (p.80) & #89 (p.81) [my emphasis]
If the Northern Territories were purposing full citizenship rights of those in the slave population that would have earned the Southern Territories (including half of Maryland) more than the 120 delegates in enumeration of the population. So your going to try and tell me with a straight face, those in the Southern Territories went to war to keep slaves from being full citizens of the u.s.? Their political value being greater as citizens than as property to which they owed taxes, plus housing, clothes, the roof over their heads and medical. Even as freemen they would not have had full protections of the u.s. Constitution which counted 'others' in the population as 3/5. Find me the document purposed by Northern delegates that states otherwise, then you'll win your argument.
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.
Our government today supports 87% of the world dictators and our corporations does business with China that practices modern day slavery, child labor, has concentration camps and human rights violations so you can have your smart phones, shoes and all the cr@p you buy from China but you are past slavery. Thanks for the laugh.