@diurdi Um, yeah. Lincoln have surrendered, allowed the South's Constitutional violation to stand, and accepted several more centuries of slavery and segregation. And FDR could have surrendered after Pearl Harbor. No one "forced" the racist South to open fire on American soldiers. That's absurd. We agree with Lincoln's decision to defend the troops, uphold the Constitution, save the Union, and free the slaves, because We believe slavery is wrong. You're free to disagree.
It's worse than that. Paul's not saying the Civil War shouldn't have been fought---he's just saying Lincoln was wrong to fight back. That's like saying FDR shouldn't have fought WWII after Pearl Harbor. Should America roll over and surrender when attacked by tyrannical racists? No thanks.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I don't think you understand your history. Lincoln could've solved the secession peacefully by allowing the South to buy the Federal Forts that were within the Southern States. Lincoln refused to even negotiate and thus forced the South to attack the Federal Forts.
Once you are under attack, ofcourse you defend yourself, but Lincoln had the possibility to avert the civil war before any violence took place.
@diurdi "Lincoln could've solved the secession peacefully by allowing the South to buy the Federal Forts that were within the Southern States."
The President doesn't have the authority to sell federal property to anyone. If the south actually wanted to buy the property legally, they would have gone to Congress. They went to Lincoln because they knew he would refuse to negotiate. It was a political ploy to make it LOOK like they were trying to secede peacefully and purchase the property legally.
@KayBeeEee1983 Well that's a whole lot of speculation on your part. But if you were correct (which I Have not seen historical evidence of), then obviously the south shouldn't have assaulted the North.
@diurdi Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and ***to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the...(CONT'D)...
Paul is wrong on all accounts. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous."
And additionally, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South still turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
So Paul is absolutely incorrect on all levels. The South was not like UK or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair.
Course he did. He said Lincoln was wrong to go to war. That happened only after the South unconstitutionally seceded, seized federal property, opened fire on American soldiers, and adopted a constitution to protect slavery forever. Lincoln could only defend the troops, uphold the Constitution, and free the slaves, or surrender and accept more centuries of slavery and segregation. We the People think he made the right choice, because We think slavery is wrong. Others disagree. .
It wasn't possible, the South would not let that happen, they wanted slavery to expand, not be restricted in any way, and it's incredibly ignorant of him to make the assertion. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery.
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
And additionally, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South still turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
So Paul is incorrect on all levels. The South was not like UK or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair.
@OHMAHGAA Of course, the South should have explored a less violent approach to freeing the slaves. After all, every single Northern state peacefully abolished slavery, most years before the war.
By the time Lincoln took office, the South had already unconstitutionally seceded, seized federal property, and opened fire at American soldiers. Paul's saying Lincoln should have surrendered, allowed secession to stand, and accepted several more centuries of slavery and segregation. No thanks.
@MrHexxor Paul said the civil war shouldn't have been fought. That means he thinks Lincoln should have allowed the southern states to get away with unconstitutionally seceding and stealing federal property and weapons. Lincoln's intention was not to free the 4 million American slaves, but that was the result. Therefore, the civil war was a good thing. 620,000 dead Americans is a lot, but they freed 4 million black people and ensured that their descendants would also be free.
@MrHexxor Blacks would have been picking cotton for many more decades, probably into the 20th century, before being replaced with machines. Even after machines replaced most slaves, who knows when the southern states would have actually outlawed slavery altogether. Not to mention that the north and the south needed each other. The north needed the south to prop up its economy and buy its manufactured goods, and the south needed the north's weapons and men to defend and expand its large territory
If you believe someone breached a contract, you can sue them. You can't shoot them in the face and steal their property. Obviously. South Carolina didn't pursue litigation because it didn't have a case. Instead, South Carolina unconstitutionally seceded and started a war to try to preserve its beloved slavery until the end of time. Racist spammers support that choice for one singular reason---they support slavery. They don't think it's morally wrong for white people to own blacks as property.
If you think somebody breached a contract, you can sue them. You can't shoot them in the face and steal their property. Obviously. South Carolina didn't pursue litigation because it didn't have a case. Instead, it unconstitutionally seceded and started a war to try to preserve it's beloved slavery until the end of time. Racist spammers support that choice for one obvious reason---they support slavery. They don't think its morally wrong for white people to own black people as property.
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
-
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
@Rundstedt1 It was also the issue of States Rights and the economy. the central issue in these situations was slavery but the struggle between the federal and state governments over these issues was what set it off.
"Multitudes still cannot bring themselves to confront the story of slavery as both lived experience and as the central cause of the Civil War
Federalism and "state sovereignty," as Southerners tended to call it, demands an understanding beyond slogans and uses that often skirt the deeper issues at stake in the 1850s — slavery, race, and the future of labor in an expanding republic." - Professor David W. Blight, Yale
“Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
"I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.” Dr. James Loewen
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Simpson
Thank goodness We the People defended our troops, upheld our Constitution, and won the War of Southern Aggression, thus keeping lying, neo-Nazis spammers from living their dream of owning and segregating black folks today.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Your version of the Constitution means fuck all. You're a single minded right/left (depending on mood) winger, unsure and incapable of mature reasoning. You're the very everything that you hate and despise, a contradiction, paradox, oxymoron and a fucking idiot.
The only act of greatness you could perform is a long walk into a mine field.
Of course, Paul fails to mention that the South was the aggressor in the Civil War. Also, his defense of the position that northerners should've bought and freed the slaves buys into the assumption that Black people are property to be bought and sold. How people can still believe that he supports individual liberty and equality for ALL people boggles my mind. Libertarians, out of all people, should be opposed to him. And progressives are insane if they support this guy.
@JonathanM00r3 "assumption that Black people are property" No he was implying that slaves were property, which they were, the Supreme Court defined slaves as such, as horrible as it is.
"the Civil War" It wasnt a civil war since civil war means 2 or more groups fighting each other for control of the government. There were in fact 2 seperate nations, one trying to force the 2 together, the other trying to break away. A better name for the war would be The War for Southern
@RevBillyRayCollins "The south fired first only after being intentionally provoked, Abe admits to this in a letter to Gustavus Fox."
This is why no one takes you seriously. Fort Sumter was federal property. Lincoln sent supplies to federal troops on federal property. If you have a problem with that, then you don't believe in property rights, which is probably the most fundamental principle of the USA. How can any American think that defending one's own property is an act of aggression?
@KayBeeEee1983 Your trying to educate me on property rights when you follow a philosphy that wants to abolish all private property? Funny. Look at it this way, SC perceived the Fort on their territory as a threat, they would not tolerate a fort of another nation on their land the same way the colonists would not support a British fort on their land during the Revolution. Thats like saying the US has the right to build military bases in over 130 countries and were in the right.
"SC perceived the Fort on their territory as a threat, they would not tolerate a fort of another nation on their land"
It wasn't their land, it was federal property. Get that through your thick skull. Even if we ignore the bombardment of Fort Sumter, the south stole federal weapons and fired on an unarmed northern ship. All that happened months before Lincoln even took office. The south were the aggressors.
@KayBeeEee1983 You arent a socialist? Well if you say so.
It wasnt their land? SC does not belong to SC? Look, the base was in SC, SC wanted the base that was on their land, they took it. I dont see anything wrong with that, perhaps the Union should have put up more of a fight if they wanted to keep it. The CSA offered to pay for all federal property in the south, they were turned down.
"All that happened months before Lincoln even took office." Yes Buchanan never ment to
"Resolved, That [SC] do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory"
"SC wanted the base that was on their land, they took it. I dont see anything wrong with that"
Of course not, because you have no ethics. If it benefits you, it's right. If it doesn't benefit you, it's wrong.
@KayBeeEee1983 "The CSA didn't go to Congress, they went to Lincoln." A foreign nation isnt concerned with how another nations Const works. Lincoln should have pointed them in the direction of Congress.
"you have no ethics" Okay 1 this was during a war, 2 the first casuality in war is innocence. SC reasoned that Sumter in federal control was a threat, they were not going to allow a foreign nation to have their base on their territory. You do know that SC seceded right?
Why do you think it was South Carolina's land? Because it was within South Carolina's territorial borders? Your land is within Virginia's borders, right? Does that give Virginia the right to take your property whenever it wants to?
@KayBeeEee1983 "Because it was within South Carolina's territorial borders?" The main reason is that it was a foreign base on foreign territory, when SC seceded all contracts with the US were void. They dont have to follow the Const anymore.
"Does that give Virginia the right" Its called eminent domain and if they pay me enough perhaps I'll give in.
@KayBeeEee1983 No I dont live under a rock, though I enjoy sleeping out under the stars. I wouldnt say Im making stuff up as I go, but once SC seceded, they were no longer part of the US, no obligations, no forcible contracts etc. They were a foreign nation.
The state doesnt need my consent, if they want it they can simply take it, despite what I say, and compensate me at market value. However it usually doesnt come to that and most people allow the govt to take it.
@RevBillyRayCollins You are making stuff up as you go. You're bullshitting. What the hell makes you think a contract between 2 separate nations can be voided without the consent of both nations?
@KayBeeEee1983 The contract was not between two nations, there werent two nations when the contract was signed. The states arent nations remember? Im not SoveriegnStatesman. The contract was between the Federal Government and South Carolina. SC seceded and then suspended and voided all involvement with the Feds once they seceded. They took up the principle that they were now a soveriegn nation independent of the US and they felt the US broke the contract before they did.
@RevBillyRayCollins What the hell makes you think a contract can ever be voided by only one of the parties? Is that what they do down south? The federal government purchased the title of the land under Fort Sumter. South Carolina can't arbitrarily take it back. You seriously don't understand why this is so?
@KayBeeEee1983 SC percieved as a foreign nation, that fort held by another nation was a threat to Charleston, considering the fort was constructed to protect the harbor but was now aiming her cannons at the town. But SC concluded that the Federal Govt was no longer serving the interests of SC and that the Feds failed to serve the ends of her people, SC concluded that the Feds broke the contract first.
@RevBillyRayCollins Showing your hypocrisy once again. You have no problem with aiming cannons at Fort Sumter, but you take issue with the federal cannons that were aimed back at the southerners. SC showed they were willing to use them, too, when they fired at the "Star of the West" in January, 1861. But, of course, forcefully taking federal weapons, firing cannons at a northern ship, and putting a federal fort under siege are not aggressive actions and northerners are lunatics for thinking so..
@KayBeeEee1983 South Carolina as a state in the Union ceased to exist in the views of the Confederacy.
I have no problem aiming cannons at Sumter if they arent going to stand down. The Star of the West was a civilian ship, not a a military transport. Mjr Anderson sent a dispatch to Sec of War Joseph Holt saying that supplies were not needed and that SC was building gun emplacements. Anderson then assumed the ship would not come. Holt then realized that this could be a bad idea
@RevBillyRayCollins "I have no problem aiming cannons at Sumter if they arent going to stand down."
Typical thug mentality. You have no problem pointing a gun at someone's head if they don't give you what you want. Were you raised by wolves or something?
"Star of the West was a civilian ship"
That makes it worse, retard
"Holt then realized that this could be a bad idea and tried to recall the ship, but failed. When the ship entered the harbor the cadets on Morris Island opened fire"
@KayBeeEee1983 Hahaha, yeah Im a "thug" alright. Never can trust them former boy scouts. No, but the people who wrote history characterized my parents as savages. I have no problem aiming a gun at someone who does not remove the gun from my head.
It was a civilian ship thus unafiliated with both sides so the Union cant claim SC fired upon a Union ship but a civilian ship. Its still the fault of the civilian ship because they should have known better than come in between two
@RevBillyRayCollins "I have no problem aiming a gun at someone who does not remove the gun from my head."
Your analogy fits the perspective of the federal troops inside Fort Sumter.
"they should have known better than come in between two opposing forces and then attempt to help out the otherside and excpect no form of consequences."
So you side with the Germans who sunk the Lusitania during WW1 and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor during WW2?
@KayBeeEee1983 opposing forces and then attempt to help out the otherside and excpect no form of consequences.
My point is that the Union tried to reverse their actions because they knew what might happen, they didnt say "This boat is going through do not fire." They tried to stop it.
@RevBillyRayCollins "My point is that the Union tried to reverse their actions because they knew what might happen, they didnt say "This boat is going through do not fire." They tried to stop it."
So what? How does that make it okay to open fire on it? If it's a civilian ship, doesn't that imply that it shouldn't be shot at?
@KayBeeEee1983 and tried to recall the ship, but failed. When the ship entered the harbor the cadets on Morris Island opened fire. Anderson did not return fire on the cadets.
Its like that scene from the film "The Rock" starring Sean Connery. The FBI agents break into the shower room where the badguys are waiting for them. Ed Harris' character tries to tell the FBI men to stand down, but they refuse. They open fire and kill them. As he points out, they brought it on themself.
@RevBillyRayCollins Your "The Rock" analogy is probably your most accurate analogy ever. Unfortunately for you, it hurts your argument. Ed Harris was a total nut who illegally took control of government property and held a bunch of innocent people hostage. The FBI agents had a right to be there, Ed Harris and his goons didn't.
If two people rob a liquor store and the cashier kills one of the robbers, the surviving robber gets charged with murder, not the cashier.
@KayBeeEee1983 I feel so appreciated that one of my analogies has finally been accepted. But I see it a different way, Ed Harris' character in the film, and its one of my favorite movies, had a very noble cause, he was angered that the govt was shadowing the deaths of fallen comrades and refusing to pay benefits to the families of the war veterans who died in covert ops. Near the end, he 'comes to his senses' and helps saves the day, but it was his men who were sadistic.
@KayBeeEee1983 "If two people rob a liquor..." Is that how are messed up judicial system works? I wouldnt be suprised, but I wouldnt charge the robber with murder if he didnt murder anyone, but I wouldnt charge the cashier with murder so long as their is sufficent proof that the cahier was acting in self defense and didnt intentionally gun the guy down if it wasnt necessary, but even then I probably would charge him with the crime of murder.
@RevBillyRayCollins It's the robber's fault for robbing the store in the first place. If you instigate a crime, you're responsible for any shit that goes down while you're committing the crime. If you try to steal someone's property, you run the risk of getting killed. That's what the Revolutionary War was all about.
@KayBeeEee1983 Well sure its the robbers fault for robbing the sore, but I wouldnt charge the guy with murder if murder wasnt what he did. I mean, if a guy robbed a store and in a completely unrelated nature the toilet overflows and messes up the plumbing, with no relation to the robbery, I wouldnt force the robber to pay for the plumbing bill.
Well I dont personally know that many people who would automatically consider killing someone if they try to steal your stuff.
@RevBillyRayCollins There you go again with your awful analogies. That didn't last long. The murder wouldn't have happened if the crime hadn't occurred. The toilet would've overflowed regardless. And clogging a toilet isn't a crime.
@KayBeeEee1983 My awful analogies? Ha, I find them to make sense.
Well granted, the guy wouldnt have been killed. But I wouldnt charge anyone with the crime, 1) the other robber didnt commit the murder, and 2) the cahier was acting in self defense.
Well yes the British went into Concord to capture and destory the colonists military supplies, but the overall scope of why was the war fought goes deeper than that. Thats what caused the first shots but thats not why they fought.
@RevBillyRayCollins The concept of "No taxation without representation" is about taking American property without their consent. Taking something without consent is theft.
@RevBillyRayCollins I've read it. Why don't you read the southern Declarations of Causes for Secession because you keep saying that they didn't secede over slavery. No one who has read the Declarations of Causes for Secession would say that.
@KayBeeEee1983 Way to change the subject, I guess the conversation was turning in my favor so you got out of there as quick as you could.
I have actually already explained how if one were to only look at the decs of sec then you cant come to any conclusion other than slavery, for the deep south that is. However, there is much more evidence to prove otherwise such as numerous comments from CS officials, during and after the war, and the growing conflict before the war, but the
@RevBillyRayCollins There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to back out of contractual obligations. There's southern honor for you. You're a joke.
@KayBeeEee1983 Of course not, but SC saw that the Feds broke the agreement to fulfill the general welfare of South Carolina, so they revoked all relations with them.
@RevBillyRayCollins If you sell something to someone, you can't take their money and then take back what you sold them. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
@KayBeeEee1983 Under most, if not all, circumstances that is true. But SC ceased its existence as a state of the union when she seceded. When you get divorced, your marriage license is no longer valid.
@RevBillyRayCollins If it's true under all circumstances, why wouldn't it be true regarding the USA and South Carolina? If you sign a separate contract with your wife (i.e. not the marriage license), and then you get divorced, the contract is not invalidated.
@KayBeeEee1983 Who the hell signs such a contract with their wife? The contract can be voided if both parties agree; one could argue since Anderson surrendered the fort over to SC he "agreed."
@KayBeeEee1983 number one example to prove my case, as one Confederate official or officer said (whose name I'll get back to you on) is that slavery was more secure in the Union than when the south seceded and formed the CSA. Had the south of stayed, slavery would have stayed, for Lincoln would have pushed for the passage of the amendment that would prohibit interference of southern slavery.
@KayBeeEee1983 What do you mean thats what the Revolutionary war was about? Im not following you there. I dont think it was about the idea that if you steal someones property, then be ready to face death.
@KayBeeEee1983 "Lincoln sent supplies to federal troops on federal property." Which he was advised by nearly everyone in his cabinet not to do including Winfield Scott. "When the President determined on war, and with the purpose of making it appear that the South was the aggressor, he took measures.” -John G Nicolay and John Hay.
Along with the ship to "provision" Sumter were several armed warships with heavily armed troops. Hmm... Not to mention no one ever fired back at SC,
@KayBeeEee1983 why? Because "it is very important that the Rebels strike the first blow in the conflict." -Lincolns Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles.
But the troops at Sumter were hardly starving. Up until April 5 CS General PGT Beauregard allowed Anderson to purchase groceries in Charleston. Everyday "the people of Charleston sent to Sumter a boat load of food supplies, freah meats, fowls, fruits, vegetables, etc." Hardly starving as Yankee newspapers wrongfully said.
@RevBillyRayCollins You still can't grasp the concept of property rights, can you? You're just like your confederate ancestors. You're a hypocrite to the extreme. They supported states rights and property rights only when it benefited them. But if those rights stood in the way of something they wanted, they had no problem trampling all over them.
@KayBeeEee1983 Im a champion of states right and the tenth amendment. I have not been a hypocrite when it comes to that. Mind you I didnt live during the 1860s. In terms of property rights, I dont see how someone has the right to have property on someone elses land. I would not tolerate a sqautter in my yard, the taliban would not tolerate US military bases in the middle east.
Look compensated emancipation was suggested many times right before and after the outbreak of the war, and even as late as the Hampton roads conference in 1865, the south still turned it down. They were not about to give it up no matter what. Not only was it integral to their economic system, it was ingrained in their culture. Freeing the slaves would have disrupted the hierarchal system of aristocratic white supremacy, the so called 'southern way of life'
Why should I prove anything when you prove nothing? And I've already given you the Hampton roads conference. (that you obviously never heard of). and again come on prove your shit about taxes, you can't becasue its all made up garbage. Yea and there's taxes that effect a welder more than a cotton grower, since most of the economic activity happened in the north the North actually played most of the taxes.
"Abraham Lincoln hoped that a grand plan of compensated emancipation might bring a speedy end to the rebellion. Though Senator Charles Sumner doubted the plan’s success, he worked with the president and his cabinet.
On March 6, 1862, the president sent a special message to Congress, calling for a joint resolution offering “pecuniary aid” to any border state that would initiate a gradual plan of compensated emancipation.
On March 14th 1862, Lincoln tried to convince Senator James A. McDougal to support “gradual emancipation with compensation.” Lincoln spent the rest of March trying to garner Congressional support. Though he was unsuccessful, he did not entirely abandon his plan of compensated emancipation.
That July, Lincoln called border state representatives to the White House and again tried to convince them to accept some form of compensated emancipation, but again with no success.
The plan appears again in his Annual Message to Congress in December 1862." - Lincoln Studies.
Now go read a book, I recommend McPherson's "Battle cry of Freedom" But with your obvious lack of literary skills it will take you some time to go through the 800 pages and look up all the words you don't know
It was also offered to all of the states that would accept it, it was only offered directly to the border states, but it was open to all. Yes the bills failed because the slave owners or the state itself would not give up their slaves. And I don't need a google search I have degrees and books. Come on and where's that stuff about taxes? Sorry all of he qualified historians in the field are on my side.
Exactly what taxes did the South pay that the North didn't? And just a warning, if you try and say tariffs I'm going make you look like a fool.
And the 'states rights' was the right to own slaves.
"Federalism and "state sovereignty," as Southerners tended to call it, demands an understanding beyond slogans and uses that often skirt the deeper issues at stake in the 1850s — slavery, race, and the future of labor in an expanding republic." - Professor David W. Blight, Yale
Geeze what dishonesty again by the NeoReb spammer. He has been corrected on this over and over again yet he continues to lie. He takes the amount of slave owners and tries to divide that by the entire white population to say hay look there's only X % of slave holders, when by doing so he is including little children who are the children of slave owners, women who are wives of slave holders, and others in slave holding families, and trying to say that they were not involved in slavery.
It's pure trash. As we have repeatedly pointed out to him, the proper way to look at it is by family. And on average, 1/3 of southern families owed slaves, and this rose to about 1/2 in the deep South. But no, he continues to misuse a basic demographic. He's been told, and I'm sure he understands the misrepresentation, but he continues. He deserves no respect, no matter how polite he tries to come off. He's a lying sack of shit without scruples trying to support the unsupportable
Of course West Virginia was created legally. See Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871).
It's HILARIOUS when stupid neo-Nazi spammers decide to lecture the entire world about a subject as complex as Constitutional law without ever stepping foot inside a law school, much less graduating from one!!! It's hilarious that they are so ashamed of their real beliefs, and so intellectually incapable of arguing them directly, that they instead lecture about subjects they've never studied!!!
Fuck yeah!!! If even one confederate would have accepted compensated emancipation, then America should have surrendered to the racists and allowed the rest to enslave and segregate millions of innocent black people until the end of time!!! That's a BRILLIANT argument!!! Either you think slavery is morally wrong or you don't. Nothing else matters.
"The united states government is constitutionally charted to print money on the good faith and credit of all of us, and not pay interest why are we being such fools?"
"The bottom line is it that central banking (The Federal Reserve) is an evil cancer, these people are selling us credit they don't have, so they can take profits they don't deserve out of our pockets, that's nuts."
Robert D. Steele (Marine corps intelligence officer)
Slavery never happened b/c of hatred for a race. It happened b/c of greed.Slavery was the best/easiest way for the colonist to mass harvest a crop.Slavery was only gone in the north b/c they had already found a better, more efficient way to make money...machinery! The notion that we would still have slavery today without the civil war is simply preposterous.The people that agree with the top comments needs to get their head out of their ass and read a history book.
Even by 1820 there were only about 3000 slaves left in the North, this is well before any machinery took the place of labor, let alone farm labor. No; the ending of slavery in the North had as much to do with moral forces and the 'great awakenings' as anything else such as trade, and it was actually machinery in the form of the Cotton Gin that made slavery quite profitable. Oh and by the way, I suggest YOU read a history book, as the historians would agree with the top comment.
"...the war ended the institution of chattel slavery. that was an institution that the country could not have carried into the twentieth century without suffering a crippling handicap. It is not easy to see how the institution could have been disposed of, except by violence. It had imbedded itself too deeply, not only in the Southern economy and by indirection, in the Northern economy as well, but also in human emotions.
So while we may not have had slavery today, it most probably would have lasted until the turn on the 19th century, and perhaps into the 20th as it was quite profitable for the aristocracy in the South. The South was not about to give up slavery, they would not even broach the topic as evidenced by Mississippi's statement.
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
@jcaled24 Of course it wasn't because they hated blacks. The large quantity of mulatto slaves can attest to that (411,613 mulatto out of 3,953,760 slaves, 10.4%). Whites thought they were superior to blacks. They believed that most black people couldn't take care of themselves. They also believed that living as a slave in America was better than living in Africa. The bible also says that humans can own other humans as property, for life, which their children can inherit (Leviticus 25:44-46).
@jcaled24 The north outlawed slavery altogether, they didn't just replace their slaves with machines. Slaves didn't only work farms and plantations. They were butlers, maids, chauffeurs, handymen, etc.
"The notion that we would still have slavery today without the civil war is simply preposterous."
I agree. The top comments have nothing to do with that, though.
@jcaled24 Many history books would agree with the top comments because the people who posted the top comments got them from incorrect history books. Such as highschool texts which leave out SO much important information, hardly any books, unless they are critical of Lincoln, ever show the many bigoted statements by him. But the history books that actually use primary sources and evidence from the time are the better books, and are neglected by many people on here. Theyre revisionists.
@RevBillyRayCollins "Such as highschool texts which leave out SO much important information, hardly any books, unless they are critical of Lincoln, ever show the many bigoted statements by him."
You think Lincoln's opinion of black people is important information? It's a fact that southern slave owners refused to sell their slaves to the government. So you'd prefer a history book to have opinions instead of facts?
@KayBeeEee1983 Yes I think it is very important, because it is the truth. Many texts portray Abe as before his times in terms of racial equality, and that just isnt so. He really was no different than every other white man of the time.
Before you make such claims, were EVERY slave owner against compenstated emancipation? Were EVERY one even asked? Im not so sure, and I wont claim it such in either direction.
I would rather have text that shows ALL the facts instead of a select
@RevBillyRayCollins LOL... Yeah, I know! When I said read a history book I was definitely talking about the ones you were referring to... The factual kind, not the the collective pages of BS they hand out in high school... Now I've got some of these people trying to give me a history lesson using their "politically correct" version of history, and not actual history..... I can't figure out whether it's more funny, or just plain sad.
@jcaled24 "Slavery was only gone in the north b/c they had already found a better, more efficient way to make money...machinery!"
As Rundstedt1 has already pointed out, machinery had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery in the north. Slave labor is less efficient than free labor. Individual business owners may make more money using slave labor instead of free labor, but, as a whole, an economy is more productive if it uses free labor. Also, using black slaves meant fewer jobs for whites.
@KayBeeEee1983 No... See the North and the South had different types of economies. The Norths economy was driven by factory wages, earned by everyday people. The Souths was based on cotton. Slaves were the most efficient way to harvest cotton at the time, thus making the owners the most money. You are crazy if you think that as soon as machinery became the best way to make money, they would have been aaaallllll over it. Just like they had already started doing in the West with
@jcaled24 The north didn't just replace slaves with machines until there weren't any more slaves. Every state north of the Mason-Dixon line abolished slavery by 1804.
"You are crazy if you think that as soon as machinery became the best way to make money, they would have been aaaallllll over it."
You're crazy if you DON'T think that. Why wouldn't a slave holder switch to machinery if it were more profitable? There were so many slaves in the south because there was no mechanical cotton picker.
@KayBeeEee1983 "Every state north of the Mason-Dixon line abolished slavery by 1804." WHAT?! As I told UnionStatesHeritage, that is a blatant lie! New Jersey full abolition 1846, Rhode Island 1842, Connecticut 1848, Pennslyvania 1850, to name a few. That was when slavery was officially abolished.
@RevBillyRayCollins They passed laws for gradual abolition, retard. All the northern states made the decision to abolish slavery in their state by 1804 when the industrial revolution had barely begun.
@KayBeeEee1983 Slavery was not OFFICIALLY abolished in those states until the years I listed. You are being intellectually dihonest. Yes they started emancipation, Virginia's first bill to abolish slavery was in the late 1700s. Didnt pass but thats when it started. Please refrain from using offensive langauge, its a little immature.
@KayBeeEee1983 their production of wheat! ..... Oh and what do you think was in the factories that the Norths economy was based on at the time..... MACHINERY! :P
It's hilarious when racists pretend to be offended that slaves in the Border States weren't freed until 1865 while they simultaneously champion the confederate alternative of NO freedom for millions of innocent black people, or any of their descendants, until the end of time. What's next? Neo-Nazis pretending to be offended by anti-Semitism in Allied nations?
Either you think slavery is wrong or you don't. Either you think the Nazis were "right in their opinion" that Jews are evil or you don't.
The Civil War was unnecessary. If we would have tried bargaining with the South *FIRST*, instead of pushing them directly into war, it could have possibly been avoided. Had that not worked, then just go in and take the slaves away from them, and if they rebel, *THEN* solve it through the necessary means.
America is so blood-thirsty. Always has been, (likely) always will be.
Plus, if you choose not to vote for Ron Paul based on his stance on a historic war, you're very ignorant.
You don't know one bit of what you are talking about, there was bargaining even after the war broke out to try and stop it, and in the decades leading up to it there was compromise after compromise dealing with it. And the gov't just can't take away property without due process or a law being passed. And in this case that meant an constitutional amendment as the states claimed slavery the right to slavery and the institution is alluded to in the Constitution with the 3/5s clause
Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I know all about the Civil War, thank you very much. I know of the bargaining, I know of the decades of compromise, but the North was all too soft about it. Slavery could've been killed at the roots, but the North let it go on far too long.
If something of similar happenings were to occur in this day and age, I know the matter would be handled much more swiftly and aggressively (not violently), from the beginning.
There was no such constitutional authority to do as you assert, and you are asking the people at the time to act unrealistically and somehow be able to see the future.
I could say, well they should have given the women the vote then too, but that doesn't make it possible just because I will it to be.
The events happened in a particular atmosphere that must be taken into account. Because it was so much part of Southern culture as well as the economy, ending slavery without violence here was near, if not totally impossible, as it indeed proved to be.
Very much so agreed, but you still can't deny the fact that had the North responded and intervened faster, fewer lives would have been lost. Can we agree to this consensus?
Also, it wouldn't have been the first time the government has ignored constitutional laws (ex. going into undeclared wars)
What undeclared wars? Tribal wars? Not really relevant as they were not classified as nations in the western sense. (there was the skirmishes against France, but that was not something the US, but France started, and was ended before a war could break out. Making declaration of war is not always a good thing in situations like that as it makes it harder both sides to cool down and usually brings non-violent diplomacy to a crawl and raises other barriers.
The undeclared war I was speaking of is a very recent one. Iraq ringing any bells?
But I see your points. However, no matter what Ron Paul thinks of the Civil War, that doesn't render him unfit for presidency in any way, shape, or form.
We all have opinions, and of course, all of my solutions are just hindsight, and things we could've done better.
Slavery should have never came into existence in the first place. Would've figured America was too "humane" for that. Haha, nope.
And no declaration of war was needed as the South was not another nation but parts of the country that was in rebellion. The president doesn't need a declaration of war to put down a rebellion.
And if you want to up a total hypothetical sure, and they could have ended it even faster and with greater aplomb with Helicopter gunships, that doesn't make that tidbit historically accurate of historical concern.
And I never said that a declaration of war was necessary in the Civil War. I was just using it as an example of something our government has done illegally and in complete ignorance of the constitution.
I never implied that a bunch of gunships should've just swooped their asses in and obliterated everyone right away, either, so don't compare my hypothetical with something of ridiculous proportion. All I was suggesting is that the faster you act, the quicker you can remove the cancer.
@AlexWerkmeister712 "you still can't deny the fact that had the North responded and intervened faster, fewer lives would have been lost."
Are you suggesting that the North should have invaded the South as soon as the first state seceded? Or are you suggesting that the North should have militarily forced the southern states to abolish slavery sometime before the war?
And when did the gov't ignore the constitution before the Civil war? I get the feeling that you meant "only" instead of "first" tho
Preaching to the choir. The South, however, disagrees with you.
*If we would have tried bargaining with the South *FIRST*,*
Stating Congress should have tried "bargaining" shows ignorance to the many years and ways they had tried to do exactly that. The South was vehemently opposed to all of it.
*instead of pushing them directly into war,*
The South Seized Federal Property, Fired on Federal Property and Forcibly Removed US Citizens.
"First," as in a time when slavery was just being introduced.
I acknowledge that the South were drunk hicks that started firing first, but as I said, it could've been avoided with immediate intervention from the North, much earlier to when they first started.
All of what I'm saying is hypothetical, obviously. The war is long gone, and highly unlikely to repeat itself, so it's nothing to fret about. Just suggesting alternatives.
@AlexWerkmeister712 This southerner does not drink alcohol, nor am I a hick. The south was provoked into firing first, Lincoln admits to this, he is the aggressor. The south did not want a fight. Lincoln did.
The South had slavery, the North gave the South many chances to agree to sell the slaves to abolish slavery, but the South refused.
Of course the South didn't want a fight. They knew they were outnumbered in men, guns, and other resources, and they wanted to keep slavery, which didn't turn out very well for them, obviously.
Don't take the "drunken hicks" comment personally. I was referring to the drunkards that aided the South in losing the war.
@AlexWerkmeister712 "I acknowledge that the South were drunk hicks that started firing first, but as I said, it could've been avoided with immediate intervention from the North, much earlier to when they first started."
That was an impossibility. The "Slave Power" controlled all 3 branches of the federal government up until the election of Lincoln in 1860.
@KayBeeEee1983 "The "Slave Power" controlled all 3 branches" Not sure who the slave power is, but if we are referring to southerners, who were mostly Democratic, then it must be stated that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives in the 36th Congress of 1859-61. As for the Supreme Court, in 1860, 2 were avid unionists, 2 did the best they could to avoid confrontation btwn the north and south, 3 others were from the north, and the other from VA.
Once again you show your blatant ignorance of civil war history. The "Slave Power" were the pre-civil war politicians who were pro-slavery or sympathetic towards slavery. This included all southern politicians and a lot of northern politicians, mostly from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Examples include Presidents Van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan, and Supreme Court Justices Samuel Nelson and Robert Grier.
@KayBeeEee1983 Considering it wasnt a civil war in my opinion, I must plead guilty. I must also say I have never heard that term before, "Slave Power." I've heard pro-slavery and slave states but never slave power. Which reminds me....
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL
or
Я Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N
in
2012
.
.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
END THE FED | IN GOLD WE TRUST
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
TheEnneagram 1 day ago
@diurdi Um, yeah. Lincoln have surrendered, allowed the South's Constitutional violation to stand, and accepted several more centuries of slavery and segregation. And FDR could have surrendered after Pearl Harbor. No one "forced" the racist South to open fire on American soldiers. That's absurd. We agree with Lincoln's decision to defend the troops, uphold the Constitution, save the Union, and free the slaves, because We believe slavery is wrong. You're free to disagree.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
It's worse than that. Paul's not saying the Civil War shouldn't have been fought---he's just saying Lincoln was wrong to fight back. That's like saying FDR shouldn't have fought WWII after Pearl Harbor. Should America roll over and surrender when attacked by tyrannical racists? No thanks.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I don't think you understand your history. Lincoln could've solved the secession peacefully by allowing the South to buy the Federal Forts that were within the Southern States. Lincoln refused to even negotiate and thus forced the South to attack the Federal Forts.
Once you are under attack, ofcourse you defend yourself, but Lincoln had the possibility to avert the civil war before any violence took place.
diurdi 1 day ago
@diurdi "Lincoln could've solved the secession peacefully by allowing the South to buy the Federal Forts that were within the Southern States."
The President doesn't have the authority to sell federal property to anyone. If the south actually wanted to buy the property legally, they would have gone to Congress. They went to Lincoln because they knew he would refuse to negotiate. It was a political ploy to make it LOOK like they were trying to secede peacefully and purchase the property legally.
KayBeeEee1983 1 day ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Well that's a whole lot of speculation on your part. But if you were correct (which I Have not seen historical evidence of), then obviously the south shouldn't have assaulted the North.
diurdi 1 day ago
@diurdi Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and ***to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the...(CONT'D)...
KayBeeEee1983 1 day ago
@diurdi ...(CONT'D)...Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings***"
I put asterisks (***) around the most important part. Congress has authority over land purchased from a state.
KayBeeEee1983 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1/5)
Paul is wrong on all accounts. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(2/5)
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(3/5)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous."
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(4/5)
And additionally, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South still turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(5/5)
So Paul is absolutely incorrect on all levels. The South was not like UK or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair.
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
Course he did. He said Lincoln was wrong to go to war. That happened only after the South unconstitutionally seceded, seized federal property, opened fire on American soldiers, and adopted a constitution to protect slavery forever. Lincoln could only defend the troops, uphold the Constitution, and free the slaves, or surrender and accept more centuries of slavery and segregation. We the People think he made the right choice, because We think slavery is wrong. Others disagree. .
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
He's basically saying they should have explored a less violent approach to freeing the slaves, seems reasonable to me.
OHMAHGAA 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OHMAHGAA (1/5)
It wasn't possible, the South would not let that happen, they wanted slavery to expand, not be restricted in any way, and it's incredibly ignorant of him to make the assertion. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery.
Rundstedt1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OHMAHGAA (2/5)
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
Rundstedt1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OHMAHGA (3/5)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
Rundstedt1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OHMAHGAA (4/5)
And additionally, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South still turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
Rundstedt1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OHMAHGAA (5/5)
So Paul is incorrect on all levels. The South was not like UK or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair.
Rundstedt1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OHMAHGAA Yes for most reasonable people it does.
RevBillyRayCollins 2 days ago
@OHMAHGAA Of course, the South should have explored a less violent approach to freeing the slaves. After all, every single Northern state peacefully abolished slavery, most years before the war.
By the time Lincoln took office, the South had already unconstitutionally seceded, seized federal property, and opened fire at American soldiers. Paul's saying Lincoln should have surrendered, allowed secession to stand, and accepted several more centuries of slavery and segregation. No thanks.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 days ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Pretty sure he didn't say any of that.
MrHexxor 2 days ago
@MrHexxor Paul said the civil war shouldn't have been fought. That means he thinks Lincoln should have allowed the southern states to get away with unconstitutionally seceding and stealing federal property and weapons. Lincoln's intention was not to free the 4 million American slaves, but that was the result. Therefore, the civil war was a good thing. 620,000 dead Americans is a lot, but they freed 4 million black people and ensured that their descendants would also be free.
KayBeeEee1983 1 day ago
@MrHexxor Blacks would have been picking cotton for many more decades, probably into the 20th century, before being replaced with machines. Even after machines replaced most slaves, who knows when the southern states would have actually outlawed slavery altogether. Not to mention that the north and the south needed each other. The north needed the south to prop up its economy and buy its manufactured goods, and the south needed the north's weapons and men to defend and expand its large territory
KayBeeEee1983 1 day ago 3
If you believe someone breached a contract, you can sue them. You can't shoot them in the face and steal their property. Obviously. South Carolina didn't pursue litigation because it didn't have a case. Instead, South Carolina unconstitutionally seceded and started a war to try to preserve its beloved slavery until the end of time. Racist spammers support that choice for one singular reason---they support slavery. They don't think it's morally wrong for white people to own blacks as property.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you think somebody breached a contract, you can sue them. You can't shoot them in the face and steal their property. Obviously. South Carolina didn't pursue litigation because it didn't have a case. Instead, it unconstitutionally seceded and started a war to try to preserve it's beloved slavery until the end of time. Racist spammers support that choice for one obvious reason---they support slavery. They don't think its morally wrong for white people to own black people as property.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 4 days ago
where's the full clip?
oyhnvgsdhgfsd 4 days ago
The Civil War wasn't completely about Slavery.
300daysandnights 5 days ago
@300daysandnights The war in itself had nothing to do with slavery.
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@300daysandnights
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
Rundstedt1 5 days ago
@300daysandnights
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
-
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
Rundstedt1 5 days ago
@Rundstedt1 It was also the issue of States Rights and the economy. the central issue in these situations was slavery but the struggle between the federal and state governments over these issues was what set it off.
300daysandnights 4 days ago
@300daysandnights
"Multitudes still cannot bring themselves to confront the story of slavery as both lived experience and as the central cause of the Civil War
Federalism and "state sovereignty," as Southerners tended to call it, demands an understanding beyond slogans and uses that often skirt the deeper issues at stake in the 1850s — slavery, race, and the future of labor in an expanding republic." - Professor David W. Blight, Yale
Rundstedt1 4 days ago
@300daysandnights
“Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
"I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.” Dr. James Loewen
Rundstedt1 4 days ago
@300daysandnights
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Simpson
Rundstedt1 4 days ago
Thank goodness We the People defended our troops, upheld our Constitution, and won the War of Southern Aggression, thus keeping lying, neo-Nazis spammers from living their dream of owning and segregating black folks today.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Your version of the Constitution means fuck all. You're a single minded right/left (depending on mood) winger, unsure and incapable of mature reasoning. You're the very everything that you hate and despise, a contradiction, paradox, oxymoron and a fucking idiot.
The only act of greatness you could perform is a long walk into a mine field.
dtsmucker 5 days ago
Of course, Paul fails to mention that the South was the aggressor in the Civil War. Also, his defense of the position that northerners should've bought and freed the slaves buys into the assumption that Black people are property to be bought and sold. How people can still believe that he supports individual liberty and equality for ALL people boggles my mind. Libertarians, out of all people, should be opposed to him. And progressives are insane if they support this guy.
JonathanM00r3 6 days ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonathanM00r3 "assumption that Black people are property" No he was implying that slaves were property, which they were, the Supreme Court defined slaves as such, as horrible as it is.
"the Civil War" It wasnt a civil war since civil war means 2 or more groups fighting each other for control of the government. There were in fact 2 seperate nations, one trying to force the 2 together, the other trying to break away. A better name for the war would be The War for Southern
RevBillyRayCollins 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonathanM00r3 Independence, The War to Prevent Southern Independce, The War of Northern Aggression, Lincolns War etc.
"progressives are insane" Bill Maher said that leftists who dont support Paul are brainwashed liberals.
"Libertarians, out of all people" Most Libertarians are in love with Paul. Theyre views are very similar.
"the South was the aggressor" No. The south fired first only after being intentionally provoked, Abe admits to this in a letter to Gustavus Fox.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevBillyRayCollins "The south fired first only after being intentionally provoked, Abe admits to this in a letter to Gustavus Fox."
This is why no one takes you seriously. Fort Sumter was federal property. Lincoln sent supplies to federal troops on federal property. If you have a problem with that, then you don't believe in property rights, which is probably the most fundamental principle of the USA. How can any American think that defending one's own property is an act of aggression?
KayBeeEee1983 6 days ago 4
@KayBeeEee1983 Your trying to educate me on property rights when you follow a philosphy that wants to abolish all private property? Funny. Look at it this way, SC perceived the Fort on their territory as a threat, they would not tolerate a fort of another nation on their land the same way the colonists would not support a British fort on their land during the Revolution. Thats like saying the US has the right to build military bases in over 130 countries and were in the right.
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I'm not a socialist.
"SC perceived the Fort on their territory as a threat, they would not tolerate a fort of another nation on their land"
It wasn't their land, it was federal property. Get that through your thick skull. Even if we ignore the bombardment of Fort Sumter, the south stole federal weapons and fired on an unarmed northern ship. All that happened months before Lincoln even took office. The south were the aggressors.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 You arent a socialist? Well if you say so.
It wasnt their land? SC does not belong to SC? Look, the base was in SC, SC wanted the base that was on their land, they took it. I dont see anything wrong with that, perhaps the Union should have put up more of a fight if they wanted to keep it. The CSA offered to pay for all federal property in the south, they were turned down.
"All that happened months before Lincoln even took office." Yes Buchanan never ment to
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It wasn't SC land. Google "ownership of fort sumter"
In the SC House of Reps, 12/31/1836
"Resolved, That [SC] do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory"
"SC wanted the base that was on their land, they took it. I dont see anything wrong with that"
Of course not, because you have no ethics. If it benefits you, it's right. If it doesn't benefit you, it's wrong.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "The CSA offered to pay for all federal property in the south, they were turned down."
Only Congress has the authority to sell federal property. The CSA didn't go to Congress, they went to Lincoln.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 "The CSA didn't go to Congress, they went to Lincoln." A foreign nation isnt concerned with how another nations Const works. Lincoln should have pointed them in the direction of Congress.
"you have no ethics" Okay 1 this was during a war, 2 the first casuality in war is innocence. SC reasoned that Sumter in federal control was a threat, they were not going to allow a foreign nation to have their base on their territory. You do know that SC seceded right?
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 provoke the South into firing, he didnt want a war.
"it was federal property"... on SC land.
"the south stole federal weapons" So?
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "on SC land"
Why do you think it was South Carolina's land? Because it was within South Carolina's territorial borders? Your land is within Virginia's borders, right? Does that give Virginia the right to take your property whenever it wants to?
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "Because it was within South Carolina's territorial borders?" The main reason is that it was a foreign base on foreign territory, when SC seceded all contracts with the US were void. They dont have to follow the Const anymore.
"Does that give Virginia the right" Its called eminent domain and if they pay me enough perhaps I'll give in.
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "when SC seceded all contracts with the US were void."
Do you live under a rock? Are you just making up your own rules as you go?
" Its called eminent domain and if they pay me enough perhaps I'll give in."
So you admit that the state would need your consent?
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 No I dont live under a rock, though I enjoy sleeping out under the stars. I wouldnt say Im making stuff up as I go, but once SC seceded, they were no longer part of the US, no obligations, no forcible contracts etc. They were a foreign nation.
The state doesnt need my consent, if they want it they can simply take it, despite what I say, and compensate me at market value. However it usually doesnt come to that and most people allow the govt to take it.
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You are making stuff up as you go. You're bullshitting. What the hell makes you think a contract between 2 separate nations can be voided without the consent of both nations?
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The contract was not between two nations, there werent two nations when the contract was signed. The states arent nations remember? Im not SoveriegnStatesman. The contract was between the Federal Government and South Carolina. SC seceded and then suspended and voided all involvement with the Feds once they seceded. They took up the principle that they were now a soveriegn nation independent of the US and they felt the US broke the contract before they did.
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins What the hell makes you think a contract can ever be voided by only one of the parties? Is that what they do down south? The federal government purchased the title of the land under Fort Sumter. South Carolina can't arbitrarily take it back. You seriously don't understand why this is so?
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 SC percieved as a foreign nation, that fort held by another nation was a threat to Charleston, considering the fort was constructed to protect the harbor but was now aiming her cannons at the town. But SC concluded that the Federal Govt was no longer serving the interests of SC and that the Feds failed to serve the ends of her people, SC concluded that the Feds broke the contract first.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Showing your hypocrisy once again. You have no problem with aiming cannons at Fort Sumter, but you take issue with the federal cannons that were aimed back at the southerners. SC showed they were willing to use them, too, when they fired at the "Star of the West" in January, 1861. But, of course, forcefully taking federal weapons, firing cannons at a northern ship, and putting a federal fort under siege are not aggressive actions and northerners are lunatics for thinking so..
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 South Carolina as a state in the Union ceased to exist in the views of the Confederacy.
I have no problem aiming cannons at Sumter if they arent going to stand down. The Star of the West was a civilian ship, not a a military transport. Mjr Anderson sent a dispatch to Sec of War Joseph Holt saying that supplies were not needed and that SC was building gun emplacements. Anderson then assumed the ship would not come. Holt then realized that this could be a bad idea
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "I have no problem aiming cannons at Sumter if they arent going to stand down."
Typical thug mentality. You have no problem pointing a gun at someone's head if they don't give you what you want. Were you raised by wolves or something?
"Star of the West was a civilian ship"
That makes it worse, retard
"Holt then realized that this could be a bad idea and tried to recall the ship, but failed. When the ship entered the harbor the cadets on Morris Island opened fire"
Your point?
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Hahaha, yeah Im a "thug" alright. Never can trust them former boy scouts. No, but the people who wrote history characterized my parents as savages. I have no problem aiming a gun at someone who does not remove the gun from my head.
It was a civilian ship thus unafiliated with both sides so the Union cant claim SC fired upon a Union ship but a civilian ship. Its still the fault of the civilian ship because they should have known better than come in between two
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevBillyRayCollins "I have no problem aiming a gun at someone who does not remove the gun from my head."
Your analogy fits the perspective of the federal troops inside Fort Sumter.
"they should have known better than come in between two opposing forces and then attempt to help out the otherside and excpect no form of consequences."
So you side with the Germans who sunk the Lusitania during WW1 and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor during WW2?
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 opposing forces and then attempt to help out the otherside and excpect no form of consequences.
My point is that the Union tried to reverse their actions because they knew what might happen, they didnt say "This boat is going through do not fire." They tried to stop it.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevBillyRayCollins "My point is that the Union tried to reverse their actions because they knew what might happen, they didnt say "This boat is going through do not fire." They tried to stop it."
So what? How does that make it okay to open fire on it? If it's a civilian ship, doesn't that imply that it shouldn't be shot at?
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "The contract was between the Federal Government and South Carolina."
Did either one of those entities cease to exist?
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 and tried to recall the ship, but failed. When the ship entered the harbor the cadets on Morris Island opened fire. Anderson did not return fire on the cadets.
Its like that scene from the film "The Rock" starring Sean Connery. The FBI agents break into the shower room where the badguys are waiting for them. Ed Harris' character tries to tell the FBI men to stand down, but they refuse. They open fire and kill them. As he points out, they brought it on themself.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Your "The Rock" analogy is probably your most accurate analogy ever. Unfortunately for you, it hurts your argument. Ed Harris was a total nut who illegally took control of government property and held a bunch of innocent people hostage. The FBI agents had a right to be there, Ed Harris and his goons didn't.
If two people rob a liquor store and the cashier kills one of the robbers, the surviving robber gets charged with murder, not the cashier.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I feel so appreciated that one of my analogies has finally been accepted. But I see it a different way, Ed Harris' character in the film, and its one of my favorite movies, had a very noble cause, he was angered that the govt was shadowing the deaths of fallen comrades and refusing to pay benefits to the families of the war veterans who died in covert ops. Near the end, he 'comes to his senses' and helps saves the day, but it was his men who were sadistic.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "If two people rob a liquor..." Is that how are messed up judicial system works? I wouldnt be suprised, but I wouldnt charge the robber with murder if he didnt murder anyone, but I wouldnt charge the cashier with murder so long as their is sufficent proof that the cahier was acting in self defense and didnt intentionally gun the guy down if it wasnt necessary, but even then I probably would charge him with the crime of murder.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It's the robber's fault for robbing the store in the first place. If you instigate a crime, you're responsible for any shit that goes down while you're committing the crime. If you try to steal someone's property, you run the risk of getting killed. That's what the Revolutionary War was all about.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Well sure its the robbers fault for robbing the sore, but I wouldnt charge the guy with murder if murder wasnt what he did. I mean, if a guy robbed a store and in a completely unrelated nature the toilet overflows and messes up the plumbing, with no relation to the robbery, I wouldnt force the robber to pay for the plumbing bill.
Well I dont personally know that many people who would automatically consider killing someone if they try to steal your stuff.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins There you go again with your awful analogies. That didn't last long. The murder wouldn't have happened if the crime hadn't occurred. The toilet would've overflowed regardless. And clogging a toilet isn't a crime.
Research the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 My awful analogies? Ha, I find them to make sense.
Well granted, the guy wouldnt have been killed. But I wouldnt charge anyone with the crime, 1) the other robber didnt commit the murder, and 2) the cahier was acting in self defense.
Well yes the British went into Concord to capture and destory the colonists military supplies, but the overall scope of why was the war fought goes deeper than that. Thats what caused the first shots but thats not why they fought.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins The concept of "No taxation without representation" is about taking American property without their consent. Taking something without consent is theft.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 In my opinion any form of taxation is theft.
I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence, they spell out the reasons for the new nation and split from England.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I've read it. Why don't you read the southern Declarations of Causes for Secession because you keep saying that they didn't secede over slavery. No one who has read the Declarations of Causes for Secession would say that.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Way to change the subject, I guess the conversation was turning in my favor so you got out of there as quick as you could.
I have actually already explained how if one were to only look at the decs of sec then you cant come to any conclusion other than slavery, for the deep south that is. However, there is much more evidence to prove otherwise such as numerous comments from CS officials, during and after the war, and the growing conflict before the war, but the
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "Liberty Constitution Liberty Constitution Liberty Constitution. I win the debate." -- You
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I dont recall saying that. Though I do champion personal liberty and the Constitution. And I dont see anything wrong with that.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to back out of contractual obligations. There's southern honor for you. You're a joke.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 The problem that you are not seeing is that SC percieved the Federal Government broke the contract first.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins The Constitution isn't the legal document that transferred the title of Fort Sumter to the federal government.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Of course not, but SC saw that the Feds broke the agreement to fulfill the general welfare of South Carolina, so they revoked all relations with them.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins If you sell something to someone, you can't take their money and then take back what you sold them. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Under most, if not all, circumstances that is true. But SC ceased its existence as a state of the union when she seceded. When you get divorced, your marriage license is no longer valid.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins If it's true under all circumstances, why wouldn't it be true regarding the USA and South Carolina? If you sign a separate contract with your wife (i.e. not the marriage license), and then you get divorced, the contract is not invalidated.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Who the hell signs such a contract with their wife? The contract can be voided if both parties agree; one could argue since Anderson surrendered the fort over to SC he "agreed."
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevBillyRayCollins "The contract can be voided if both parties agree; one could argue since Anderson surrendered the fort over to SC he "agreed.""
Hilarious. You're obviously just fucking around now.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 number one example to prove my case, as one Confederate official or officer said (whose name I'll get back to you on) is that slavery was more secure in the Union than when the south seceded and formed the CSA. Had the south of stayed, slavery would have stayed, for Lincoln would have pushed for the passage of the amendment that would prohibit interference of southern slavery.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 What do you mean thats what the Revolutionary war was about? Im not following you there. I dont think it was about the idea that if you steal someones property, then be ready to face death.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983
Hey KB, we should 'secede' and take BillyRay's property and see how he feels about it.
Rundstedt1 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "Lincoln sent supplies to federal troops on federal property." Which he was advised by nearly everyone in his cabinet not to do including Winfield Scott. "When the President determined on war, and with the purpose of making it appear that the South was the aggressor, he took measures.” -John G Nicolay and John Hay.
Along with the ship to "provision" Sumter were several armed warships with heavily armed troops. Hmm... Not to mention no one ever fired back at SC,
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 why? Because "it is very important that the Rebels strike the first blow in the conflict." -Lincolns Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles.
But the troops at Sumter were hardly starving. Up until April 5 CS General PGT Beauregard allowed Anderson to purchase groceries in Charleston. Everyday "the people of Charleston sent to Sumter a boat load of food supplies, freah meats, fowls, fruits, vegetables, etc." Hardly starving as Yankee newspapers wrongfully said.
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You still can't grasp the concept of property rights, can you? You're just like your confederate ancestors. You're a hypocrite to the extreme. They supported states rights and property rights only when it benefited them. But if those rights stood in the way of something they wanted, they had no problem trampling all over them.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Im a champion of states right and the tenth amendment. I have not been a hypocrite when it comes to that. Mind you I didnt live during the 1860s. In terms of property rights, I dont see how someone has the right to have property on someone elses land. I would not tolerate a sqautter in my yard, the taliban would not tolerate US military bases in the middle east.
"only when it benefited them." No ones perfect.
RevBillyRayCollins 5 days ago
Comment removed
thecommish2012 6 days ago
@thecommish2012
Look compensated emancipation was suggested many times right before and after the outbreak of the war, and even as late as the Hampton roads conference in 1865, the south still turned it down. They were not about to give it up no matter what. Not only was it integral to their economic system, it was ingrained in their culture. Freeing the slaves would have disrupted the hierarchal system of aristocratic white supremacy, the so called 'southern way of life'
Rundstedt1 5 days ago
Comment removed
thecommish2012 5 days ago
@thecommish2012 (1/4)
Why should I prove anything when you prove nothing? And I've already given you the Hampton roads conference. (that you obviously never heard of). and again come on prove your shit about taxes, you can't becasue its all made up garbage. Yea and there's taxes that effect a welder more than a cotton grower, since most of the economic activity happened in the north the North actually played most of the taxes.
Rundstedt1 5 days ago
@thecommish2012 (2/4)
"Abraham Lincoln hoped that a grand plan of compensated emancipation might bring a speedy end to the rebellion. Though Senator Charles Sumner doubted the plan’s success, he worked with the president and his cabinet.
On March 6, 1862, the president sent a special message to Congress, calling for a joint resolution offering “pecuniary aid” to any border state that would initiate a gradual plan of compensated emancipation.
Rundstedt1 5 days ago
@thecommish2012 (3/4)
On March 14th 1862, Lincoln tried to convince Senator James A. McDougal to support “gradual emancipation with compensation.” Lincoln spent the rest of March trying to garner Congressional support. Though he was unsuccessful, he did not entirely abandon his plan of compensated emancipation.
Rundstedt1 5 days ago
@thec (4/4)
That July, Lincoln called border state representatives to the White House and again tried to convince them to accept some form of compensated emancipation, but again with no success.
The plan appears again in his Annual Message to Congress in December 1862." - Lincoln Studies.
Now go read a book, I recommend McPherson's "Battle cry of Freedom" But with your obvious lack of literary skills it will take you some time to go through the 800 pages and look up all the words you don't know
Rundstedt1 5 days ago
Comment removed
thecommish2012 5 days ago
@thecommish2012
It was also offered to all of the states that would accept it, it was only offered directly to the border states, but it was open to all. Yes the bills failed because the slave owners or the state itself would not give up their slaves. And I don't need a google search I have degrees and books. Come on and where's that stuff about taxes? Sorry all of he qualified historians in the field are on my side.
Rundstedt1 5 days ago 3
Comment removed
thecommish2012 5 days ago
Comment removed
thecommish2012 5 days ago
Comment removed
thecommish2012 5 days ago
@thecommish2012
Exactly what taxes did the South pay that the North didn't? And just a warning, if you try and say tariffs I'm going make you look like a fool.
And the 'states rights' was the right to own slaves.
"Federalism and "state sovereignty," as Southerners tended to call it, demands an understanding beyond slogans and uses that often skirt the deeper issues at stake in the 1850s — slavery, race, and the future of labor in an expanding republic." - Professor David W. Blight, Yale
Rundstedt1 5 days ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Those Damned Confederate Nationalist Spammers LOL!
MikeJGallagherJr 1 week ago 4
Oh, no!!! Billy the neo-Nazi is upset!!! Somebody get that little coward a tissue---I think he's going to cry!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! What a moron!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 week ago
(1/2)
Geeze what dishonesty again by the NeoReb spammer. He has been corrected on this over and over again yet he continues to lie. He takes the amount of slave owners and tries to divide that by the entire white population to say hay look there's only X % of slave holders, when by doing so he is including little children who are the children of slave owners, women who are wives of slave holders, and others in slave holding families, and trying to say that they were not involved in slavery.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago 2
(2/2)
It's pure trash. As we have repeatedly pointed out to him, the proper way to look at it is by family. And on average, 1/3 of southern families owed slaves, and this rose to about 1/2 in the deep South. But no, he continues to misuse a basic demographic. He's been told, and I'm sure he understands the misrepresentation, but he continues. He deserves no respect, no matter how polite he tries to come off. He's a lying sack of shit without scruples trying to support the unsupportable
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
Of course West Virginia was created legally. See Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871).
It's HILARIOUS when stupid neo-Nazi spammers decide to lecture the entire world about a subject as complex as Constitutional law without ever stepping foot inside a law school, much less graduating from one!!! It's hilarious that they are so ashamed of their real beliefs, and so intellectually incapable of arguing them directly, that they instead lecture about subjects they've never studied!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 week ago
What a dumb fuck
bbnatedogg 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck yeah!!! If even one confederate would have accepted compensated emancipation, then America should have surrendered to the racists and allowed the rest to enslave and segregate millions of innocent black people until the end of time!!! That's a BRILLIANT argument!!! Either you think slavery is morally wrong or you don't. Nothing else matters.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The united states government is constitutionally charted to print money on the good faith and credit of all of us, and not pay interest why are we being such fools?"
"The bottom line is it that central banking (The Federal Reserve) is an evil cancer, these people are selling us credit they don't have, so they can take profits they don't deserve out of our pockets, that's nuts."
Robert D. Steele (Marine corps intelligence officer)
VictoryReef2012 1 week ago
Slavery never happened b/c of hatred for a race. It happened b/c of greed.Slavery was the best/easiest way for the colonist to mass harvest a crop.Slavery was only gone in the north b/c they had already found a better, more efficient way to make money...machinery! The notion that we would still have slavery today without the civil war is simply preposterous.The people that agree with the top comments needs to get their head out of their ass and read a history book.
jcaled24 1 week ago
@jcaled24 (1/3)
Even by 1820 there were only about 3000 slaves left in the North, this is well before any machinery took the place of labor, let alone farm labor. No; the ending of slavery in the North had as much to do with moral forces and the 'great awakenings' as anything else such as trade, and it was actually machinery in the form of the Cotton Gin that made slavery quite profitable. Oh and by the way, I suggest YOU read a history book, as the historians would agree with the top comment.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@jcaled24 (2/4)
"...the war ended the institution of chattel slavery. that was an institution that the country could not have carried into the twentieth century without suffering a crippling handicap. It is not easy to see how the institution could have been disposed of, except by violence. It had imbedded itself too deeply, not only in the Southern economy and by indirection, in the Northern economy as well, but also in human emotions.
Bruce Catton, "reflections on the Civil War" p4
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@jcaled24 (3/4)
So while we may not have had slavery today, it most probably would have lasted until the turn on the 19th century, and perhaps into the 20th as it was quite profitable for the aristocracy in the South. The South was not about to give up slavery, they would not even broach the topic as evidenced by Mississippi's statement.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@jcaled24 (4/4)
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@jcaled24 Of course it wasn't because they hated blacks. The large quantity of mulatto slaves can attest to that (411,613 mulatto out of 3,953,760 slaves, 10.4%). Whites thought they were superior to blacks. They believed that most black people couldn't take care of themselves. They also believed that living as a slave in America was better than living in Africa. The bible also says that humans can own other humans as property, for life, which their children can inherit (Leviticus 25:44-46).
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jcaled24 The north outlawed slavery altogether, they didn't just replace their slaves with machines. Slaves didn't only work farms and plantations. They were butlers, maids, chauffeurs, handymen, etc.
"The notion that we would still have slavery today without the civil war is simply preposterous."
I agree. The top comments have nothing to do with that, though.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@jcaled24 Many history books would agree with the top comments because the people who posted the top comments got them from incorrect history books. Such as highschool texts which leave out SO much important information, hardly any books, unless they are critical of Lincoln, ever show the many bigoted statements by him. But the history books that actually use primary sources and evidence from the time are the better books, and are neglected by many people on here. Theyre revisionists.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "Such as highschool texts which leave out SO much important information, hardly any books, unless they are critical of Lincoln, ever show the many bigoted statements by him."
You think Lincoln's opinion of black people is important information? It's a fact that southern slave owners refused to sell their slaves to the government. So you'd prefer a history book to have opinions instead of facts?
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Yes I think it is very important, because it is the truth. Many texts portray Abe as before his times in terms of racial equality, and that just isnt so. He really was no different than every other white man of the time.
Before you make such claims, were EVERY slave owner against compenstated emancipation? Were EVERY one even asked? Im not so sure, and I wont claim it such in either direction.
I would rather have text that shows ALL the facts instead of a select
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins LOL... Yeah, I know! When I said read a history book I was definitely talking about the ones you were referring to... The factual kind, not the the collective pages of BS they hand out in high school... Now I've got some of these people trying to give me a history lesson using their "politically correct" version of history, and not actual history..... I can't figure out whether it's more funny, or just plain sad.
jcaled24 1 week ago
@jcaled24 "Slavery was only gone in the north b/c they had already found a better, more efficient way to make money...machinery!"
As Rundstedt1 has already pointed out, machinery had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery in the north. Slave labor is less efficient than free labor. Individual business owners may make more money using slave labor instead of free labor, but, as a whole, an economy is more productive if it uses free labor. Also, using black slaves meant fewer jobs for whites.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago 4
@KayBeeEee1983 No... See the North and the South had different types of economies. The Norths economy was driven by factory wages, earned by everyday people. The Souths was based on cotton. Slaves were the most efficient way to harvest cotton at the time, thus making the owners the most money. You are crazy if you think that as soon as machinery became the best way to make money, they would have been aaaallllll over it. Just like they had already started doing in the West with
jcaled24 1 week ago
@jcaled24 The north didn't just replace slaves with machines until there weren't any more slaves. Every state north of the Mason-Dixon line abolished slavery by 1804.
"You are crazy if you think that as soon as machinery became the best way to make money, they would have been aaaallllll over it."
You're crazy if you DON'T think that. Why wouldn't a slave holder switch to machinery if it were more profitable? There were so many slaves in the south because there was no mechanical cotton picker.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "Every state north of the Mason-Dixon line abolished slavery by 1804." WHAT?! As I told UnionStatesHeritage, that is a blatant lie! New Jersey full abolition 1846, Rhode Island 1842, Connecticut 1848, Pennslyvania 1850, to name a few. That was when slavery was officially abolished.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins They passed laws for gradual abolition, retard. All the northern states made the decision to abolish slavery in their state by 1804 when the industrial revolution had barely begun.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Slavery was not OFFICIALLY abolished in those states until the years I listed. You are being intellectually dihonest. Yes they started emancipation, Virginia's first bill to abolish slavery was in the late 1700s. Didnt pass but thats when it started. Please refrain from using offensive langauge, its a little immature.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 their production of wheat! ..... Oh and what do you think was in the factories that the Norths economy was based on at the time..... MACHINERY! :P
jcaled24 1 week ago
It's hilarious when racists pretend to be offended that slaves in the Border States weren't freed until 1865 while they simultaneously champion the confederate alternative of NO freedom for millions of innocent black people, or any of their descendants, until the end of time. What's next? Neo-Nazis pretending to be offended by anti-Semitism in Allied nations?
Either you think slavery is wrong or you don't. Either you think the Nazis were "right in their opinion" that Jews are evil or you don't.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 week ago
Ron Paul is a bitch.
Ruttie2 1 week ago
@Ruttie2 Yeah, people don't like hearing the truth, bad for morale.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Exactly, when will people learn they govern themselves, not a zionist?
Ruttie2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ruttie2 I was actually being sarcastic, sort of. But who is the zionist?
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you think this video is going to go viral - "Best Paul Commercial"
youtube.com
/watch?v=WtWhmx2-zWs
RonPaulSwag4life 1 week ago
The Civil War was unnecessary. If we would have tried bargaining with the South *FIRST*, instead of pushing them directly into war, it could have possibly been avoided. Had that not worked, then just go in and take the slaves away from them, and if they rebel, *THEN* solve it through the necessary means.
America is so blood-thirsty. Always has been, (likely) always will be.
Plus, if you choose not to vote for Ron Paul based on his stance on a historic war, you're very ignorant.
AlexWerkmeister712 1 week ago
@AlexWerkmeiste
You don't know one bit of what you are talking about, there was bargaining even after the war broke out to try and stop it, and in the decades leading up to it there was compromise after compromise dealing with it. And the gov't just can't take away property without due process or a law being passed. And in this case that meant an constitutional amendment as the states claimed slavery the right to slavery and the institution is alluded to in the Constitution with the 3/5s clause
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1
Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I know all about the Civil War, thank you very much. I know of the bargaining, I know of the decades of compromise, but the North was all too soft about it. Slavery could've been killed at the roots, but the North let it go on far too long.
If something of similar happenings were to occur in this day and age, I know the matter would be handled much more swiftly and aggressively (not violently), from the beginning.
Just my $0.02.
AlexWerkmeister712 1 week ago
@AlexWerkmeister712 (1/2)
There was no such constitutional authority to do as you assert, and you are asking the people at the time to act unrealistically and somehow be able to see the future.
I could say, well they should have given the women the vote then too, but that doesn't make it possible just because I will it to be.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@AlexWerkmeister712 (2/2)
The events happened in a particular atmosphere that must be taken into account. Because it was so much part of Southern culture as well as the economy, ending slavery without violence here was near, if not totally impossible, as it indeed proved to be.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1
Very much so agreed, but you still can't deny the fact that had the North responded and intervened faster, fewer lives would have been lost. Can we agree to this consensus?
Also, it wouldn't have been the first time the government has ignored constitutional laws (ex. going into undeclared wars)
AlexWerkmeister712 1 week ago
@AlexWerkmeister712
What undeclared wars? Tribal wars? Not really relevant as they were not classified as nations in the western sense. (there was the skirmishes against France, but that was not something the US, but France started, and was ended before a war could break out. Making declaration of war is not always a good thing in situations like that as it makes it harder both sides to cool down and usually brings non-violent diplomacy to a crawl and raises other barriers.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1
The undeclared war I was speaking of is a very recent one. Iraq ringing any bells?
But I see your points. However, no matter what Ron Paul thinks of the Civil War, that doesn't render him unfit for presidency in any way, shape, or form.
We all have opinions, and of course, all of my solutions are just hindsight, and things we could've done better.
Slavery should have never came into existence in the first place. Would've figured America was too "humane" for that. Haha, nope.
AlexWerkmeister712 1 week ago
@AlexWerkmeister712
And no declaration of war was needed as the South was not another nation but parts of the country that was in rebellion. The president doesn't need a declaration of war to put down a rebellion.
And if you want to up a total hypothetical sure, and they could have ended it even faster and with greater aplomb with Helicopter gunships, that doesn't make that tidbit historically accurate of historical concern.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1
And I never said that a declaration of war was necessary in the Civil War. I was just using it as an example of something our government has done illegally and in complete ignorance of the constitution.
I never implied that a bunch of gunships should've just swooped their asses in and obliterated everyone right away, either, so don't compare my hypothetical with something of ridiculous proportion. All I was suggesting is that the faster you act, the quicker you can remove the cancer.
AlexWerkmeister712 1 week ago
@AlexWerkmeister712 "you still can't deny the fact that had the North responded and intervened faster, fewer lives would have been lost."
Are you suggesting that the North should have invaded the South as soon as the first state seceded? Or are you suggesting that the North should have militarily forced the southern states to abolish slavery sometime before the war?
And when did the gov't ignore the constitution before the Civil war? I get the feeling that you meant "only" instead of "first" tho
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983
The latter.
And yes, I meant only.
AlexWerkmeister712 1 week ago
@Alex
*The Civil War was unnecessary.*
Preaching to the choir. The South, however, disagrees with you.
*If we would have tried bargaining with the South *FIRST*,*
Stating Congress should have tried "bargaining" shows ignorance to the many years and ways they had tried to do exactly that. The South was vehemently opposed to all of it.
*instead of pushing them directly into war,*
The South Seized Federal Property, Fired on Federal Property and Forcibly Removed US Citizens.
MikeM2608 1 week ago
@MikeM2608
"First," as in a time when slavery was just being introduced.
I acknowledge that the South were drunk hicks that started firing first, but as I said, it could've been avoided with immediate intervention from the North, much earlier to when they first started.
All of what I'm saying is hypothetical, obviously. The war is long gone, and highly unlikely to repeat itself, so it's nothing to fret about. Just suggesting alternatives.
AlexWerkmeister712 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlexWerkmeister712 This southerner does not drink alcohol, nor am I a hick. The south was provoked into firing first, Lincoln admits to this, he is the aggressor. The south did not want a fight. Lincoln did.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
I said "was" not "is."
The South had slavery, the North gave the South many chances to agree to sell the slaves to abolish slavery, but the South refused.
Of course the South didn't want a fight. They knew they were outnumbered in men, guns, and other resources, and they wanted to keep slavery, which didn't turn out very well for them, obviously.
Don't take the "drunken hicks" comment personally. I was referring to the drunkards that aided the South in losing the war.
AlexWerkmeister712 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlexWerkmeister712 And the north had 5 states which had slavery as well, most werent freed until 1865.
Those "drunkards" are relatives of mine.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@AlexWerkmeister712 "I acknowledge that the South were drunk hicks that started firing first, but as I said, it could've been avoided with immediate intervention from the North, much earlier to when they first started."
That was an impossibility. The "Slave Power" controlled all 3 branches of the federal government up until the election of Lincoln in 1860.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 "The "Slave Power" controlled all 3 branches" Not sure who the slave power is, but if we are referring to southerners, who were mostly Democratic, then it must be stated that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives in the 36th Congress of 1859-61. As for the Supreme Court, in 1860, 2 were avid unionists, 2 did the best they could to avoid confrontation btwn the north and south, 3 others were from the north, and the other from VA.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "Not sure who the slave power is"
Once again you show your blatant ignorance of civil war history. The "Slave Power" were the pre-civil war politicians who were pro-slavery or sympathetic towards slavery. This included all southern politicians and a lot of northern politicians, mostly from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Examples include Presidents Van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan, and Supreme Court Justices Samuel Nelson and Robert Grier.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Considering it wasnt a civil war in my opinion, I must plead guilty. I must also say I have never heard that term before, "Slave Power." I've heard pro-slavery and slave states but never slave power. Which reminds me....
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago