Started By
Message

re: Ole Miss student senate votes to remove state flag.

Posted on 10/22/15 at 1:48 pm to
Posted by oneusairman
somewhereville
Member since Apr 2009
568 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 1:48 pm to
quote:

The Civil War was about slavery, period


You would be wrong, the South didn't want war but succession. The Civil War was actually more about Lincoln's legacy then slavery. Lincoln didn't want to be remembered as the president that ended the United States.

Again answer me these questions.

Why did the north have slaves?

Why did the emancipation proclamation come 3 years after the war? (this ones easy tho, to gain support from foreign aid)

Why did the north return slaves (Obvious answer they didn't want them.)

You guys want to view the North during this period as some altruistic hero's and that is how history is written but go beyond that and you can find some truth. I don't expect you to just saying.

Want to look at why the succession actually happen just read Lincolns address

Lincoln's inaugural address to collect import tax review. Here it is for you. " In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." These United States, not the United States.





Posted by WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
44071 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 1:50 pm to
Your questions are pedantic.

quote:

Why did Lincoln wait until after the start of the Civil War to make the emancipation proclamation?

Here's the timeline of events:

November 6, 1860 - Lincoln elected 16th President of the USA
December 20, 1860 - South Carolina secedes
January 9, 1861 - Mississippi secedes
January 10, 1861 - Florida secedes
January 11, 1861 - Alabama secedes
January 19, 1861 - Georgia secedes
January 26, 1861 - Louisiana secedes
February 1, 1861 - Texas secedes
March 4, 1861 - Lincoln inaugurated
April 12, 1861 - Hostilities begin with the bombardment of Fort Sumter
April 17, 1861 - Virginia secedes
May 6, 1861 - Arkansas secedes
May 20, 1861 - North Carolina secedes
June 8, 1861 - Tennessee secedes

1. By the time Lincoln actually takes office, 7 states have already seceded. By his own words Lincoln's MAIN concern is to hold the Union together. Just over one month after his inauguration, hostilities begin. He didn't have any time "before the war" to proclaim the slaves emancipated.

2. The "proclamation" didn't have any weight of law, and it only applied to those states in rebellion. It was issued as a way to further subvert the southern war effort. The slaves weren't actually freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified.

quote:

Why did the north at the time specifically New Jersey have slaves as well?

Because, contrary to the Confederate Constitution, the US Constitution left that up to the individual states. Let me spell that out for you: IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EACH STATE HAD THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT OR ALLOW SLAVERY, IN THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATES DID NOT HAVE THIE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT OR ALLOW SLAVERY.

Are you going to continue to ignore this fact?
quote:

why did the North give the slaves back to the Southern states during the war when they fled across the boarder?

Because it was THE LAW under the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. The southern states had extorted these acts from the northern states to form the Union in the first place. The Federal government wanted to keep the Union whole.

But I assume that, even having answered your question exhaustively, you will deflect, deny and delude yourself.

But remember what the dormouse said:

quote:

Without slavery in the mix the war never happens


..or was it
quote:

feed your head
?
Posted by WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
44071 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 1:56 pm to
quote:

You guys want to view the North during this period as some altruistic hero's

That's your prejudicial assumption.
quote:

Want to look at why the succession actually happen just read Lincolns address

Well, you just blew it. Not that I had much repsect for your academic bone fides on the issue (no one considered an actual Civil War scholar would write, "Boarder States") but that you don't even realize most of the states had already seceded by the time Lincoln gave his address makes you...

...suspect.


Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46590 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 2:11 pm to
quote:

You would be wrong, the South didn't want war but succession


It's "secession" you drooling neanderthal, and the natural progression from it was war.

quote:

Why did the north have slaves?


Because in the United States at the time each state had the right to allow or prohibit slavery, a right which the Confederate States of America did not have.

quote:

Why did the emancipation proclamation come 3 years after the war?


It didn't, it was issued in 1863. The war ended in 1865.

quote:

Why did the north return slaves


Because it was federal law under the fugitive slave acts. To not return escaped slaves was a federal crime with very harsh sentences.

quote:

You guys want to view the North during this period as some altruistic hero's


Again, it's "heroes" big guy. And nobody with any knowledge of history views Lincoln or the north as altruistic. Prohibiting slavery was the only way to retain the union due to growing opposition in Congress. Lincoln was far more concerned with keeping the union intact than freeing slaves, it was a means to an end. That doesn't change the fact that it was THE reason why the south seceded.
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 2:14 pm to
RK pinning fools' ears back itt
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 2:16 pm to
quote:

the South didn't want war


You do realize the South literally fired the first shots of the war, right?
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46590 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 2:19 pm to
I really don't understand his mindset. Many southerners, for a reason I'll never understand, think it somehow speaks poorly of them if their ancestors 150 years fought and died for the right to own slaves. Even if it DID somehow reflect on them, the fact is that it wasn't morally shocking back then. It was a different world and fighting for slavery wasn't the jaw dropping, impossibly abhorrent idea that it is today.
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 2:24 pm to
Exactly.
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
32424 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 4:52 pm to
quote:

think it somehow speaks poorly of them if their ancestors 150 years fought and died for the right to own slaves. Even if it DID somehow reflect on them, the fact is that it wasn't morally shocking back then. It was a different world and fighting for slavery wasn't the jaw dropping, impossibly abhorrent idea that it is today.

Only 6 percent of Southerners owned slaves so the majority of the confederate soldiers fought because they were told to. Since the majority didn't own slaves and never would, how exactly did they "fight for the right to own slaves"? It was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
Posted by oneusairman
somewhereville
Member since Apr 2009
568 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 5:02 pm to
quote:

You do realize the South literally fired the first shots of the war, right


You do realize that was a skirmish and not a battle right?

the Constitution of the United States was the supreme law of the land in these states as a concept.
The seceding states considered that 1. Yes, the Constitution was the supreme law of the land; 2. the Federal government was attempting and had attempted for some time to be usurping and negating aspects of the Constitution, e.g., slavery; and 3. they had a right, a moral right, a civil right and a legal right, to remove themselves from the Union if the Federal government was not going to uphold the Constitution and the laws generated by it.

Even Lincoln said, ""This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." He also said, "What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."

Further, the Constitution of the United States says in Amendment X, the Bill of Rights,"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution does not specify that the Union is indivisible, nor does it prohibit a state from withdrawing from the Union of States, therefore, by not including the rights of secession of any state, they are not excluded...or so the thinking went.

As for the overthrow of the Federal government, the States of the south were seceding because they strongly favored the concepts of State's Rights, a position that meant a Federal government that was not all powerful (like today's Federal government). To this extent, the secession of the states was their attempt to move toward State's rights, not an overthrow of the Federal government.

But of course you think its all about slavery.

This post was edited on 10/22/15 at 5:03 pm
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 5:47 pm to
quote:

You do realize that was a skirmish and not a battle right?


Holy nitpicking, batman!

You do realize I said the south fired THE FIRST SHOTS, right? Whatever arbitrary label you slap on it does not change the FACT that firing upon a federal installation is an act of WAR.

So don't trot out this weakass "the south didn't want war" bullshite when they literally started it
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 5:50 pm to
quote:

the overthrow of the Federal government, the States of the south were seceding because they strongly favored the concepts of State's Rights, a position that meant a Federal government that was not all powerful (like today's Federal government). To this extent, the secession of the states was their attempt to move toward State's rights, not an overthrow of the Federal government.


Good God that's some damn fine semantics there, too.

If you're attempting to secede from the federal government and set up and independent government, you are indeed attempting to overthrow the federal government in the territories in question.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46590 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 5:50 pm to
quote:

Since the majority didn't own slaves and never would, how exactly did they "fight for the right to own slaves"? It was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.


Slavery sustained their economy and prevented even the lowest class of whites from being on the bottom of the social ladder.
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 5:52 pm to
quote:

of course you think its all about slavery.



I never said this, personally. For every war ever fought, there are a litany of grievances at hand.

However, one of those grievances is usually the linchpin for the rest of the conflict. For the civil war, slavery was indeed that linchpin issue. And that's coming from confederate leadership itself (as was already laid out on the previous page of this thread).
Posted by jj06
atlanta..God’s city
Member since Jul 2013
2295 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 6:13 pm to
quote:

Prayers sent for living close to Jonesboro.


Jonesboro is a good place man.
You should have said Riverdale, Ellenwood and College Park
Posted by AU86
Member since Aug 2009
22471 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 6:15 pm to
Frick the PC student senate.
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
32424 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 6:22 pm to
quote:

Slavery sustained their economy and prevented even the lowest class of whites from being on the bottom of the social ladder.

Yeah - these 17 year olds all held degrees and fully understood macroeconomics.
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 6:51 pm to
quote:

these 17 year olds all held degrees and fully understood macroeconomics.


You don't need a degree or an understanding of macroeconomics to understand not being at the bottom of the social ladder
This post was edited on 10/22/15 at 6:52 pm
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
32424 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 7:14 pm to
quote:

You don't need a degree or an understanding of macroeconomics to understand not being at the bottom of the social ladder


Counter intuitive. Abolish slavery - free up tons of jobs that now demand a wage and the young confederates that didn't die in the most stupid war ever fought get the jobs over the former slaves.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46590 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 7:17 pm to
You don't need a degree to know that prices on goods go up when labor stops being free, either.

The average southerner with no slaves still had a very vested interest in slavery. This was amplified by a southern fear campaign in the 1850s telling of how their economy would collapse of slavery was outlawed.
first pageprev pagePage 13 of 16Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter