War Between the States 1861 - 1865

War Between the States 1861 - 1865

Category:

Education

Tags:

• War
• Between
• the
• States
• 1861
• 1865

[jamesrlee]

So Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery, the US Congress said it wasn't about slavery. Lincoln made exceptions to allow slavery in the US in the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln did nothing to get rid of slavery in the north during the whole war. The northern USA states kept their slaves until the 13th amendment, 6 months after the war. It wasn't about slavery.

[jamesrlee]

Read the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln made sure that northern slave states could keep their slaves. Read the exception clauses.

"and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."

Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863

[guitargold77]

@jamesrlee And Geroge Bush senior said no new taxes. The guy who gets elected class president says free sodas at lunh time. Nit pick all you want from printed jibberish, Lincoln new what is obvious, except to fooks then and now, slavery is a aberation of humanity a homage to idiocy and arrogance

[guitargold77]

@jamesrlee its always about slavery, no matter what dribble you pull up that you may or may not have found in print. Politics and heart are also 2 different things, Obama cant say that the jackaz idiot Bush put us in a usless war that killed thousands. He has to spin it, just like your type does when your hidden agenda is racism. But I dont care if you a KKK member u have to hate slavery since what makes it, money over lives, is alive and well

[KayBeeEee1983]

@PatchesRips "You say I've missed a lot? I think you IGNORE a lot."

Yes, notice the gator makes no mention of the Mississippi Declaration of Causes for Secession, which is ENTIRELY concerned with slavery.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@hungarygator Nothing "the north" passed was ruinous to the southern economy. SLAVERY was ruinous to the economy. Slavery destroyed the middle class. If you lived in the south and weren't part of a slave-holding family, or worked for a slave-holding family, you were a dirt-poor farmer.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@hungarygator It doesn't matter how many slaves were in the west in 1860, it just matters how much pro-slavery territory there was.

Yes, West Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona didn't have good land for slaves, but the vast majority of Texas is perfect for plantations. The slave population of Texas was growing faster than the free population. Same with Arkansas. Oklahoma was unorganized "Indian Territory" so there's no records for slaves. The rest of the plains was above the Missouri Compromise line

[KayBeeEee1983]

@steve0448 "The cotton gin idled 80 people for every one left working since one gin could do the work of 80 slaves....Over 250,000 had already been freed before 1860"

Who the hell told you that? The cotton gin increased the need for slaves. The slave population grew from 2.5 million in 1840 to 3.2 million in 1850 to 4 million in 1860. In Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the slave population grew faster than the free population.

[PatchesRips]

@hungarygator (cont'd) Also, please explain away the rather odd timing of the secessions -- seven of which took place between the time Abraham Lincoln was elected and actually took office. That's a little hard to explain away if your position was "it wasn't about slavery", but rather evidence to the heart of the matter if your position is that it was.

You say I've missed a lot? I think you IGNORE a lot.

[PatchesRips]

@hungarygator Yes, no, yes, yes, no. What I can tell you is that the word "tariff" appears in none of the declarations, but the word "slavery" does, 38 times. I also know that the bulk of the "economic policies" also lead right back to a defence of slavery.

I've pointed out where they say flat out it was about slavery. Please point out where they say something like "our position is thoroughly identified with the avoidance of the Morrill Tariff".

(cont'd)

[hungarygator]

@KayBeeEee1983 If the expansion of slavery for economic interests were important, they sure did a poor job of it. Look at how many slaves there were in the various western territories or even West Texas. The plantation economy was not viable in those places. Expansion was important to them only in so far as it meant 2 extra Senators and some extra representatives in the House to prevent the Northern states from passing bills even more ruinous to the Southern economy.

[hungarygator]

@PatchesRips I've read the declarations. I've read the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to South Carolina's declaration. I've read the Georgia and Texas declarations which list multiple other causes chief among them the economic policies of the federal government. I've read the declaration of the causes of Secession by the Cherokee. Have you? If so you have missed a whole lot obviously.