Posted on 01/19/2013 2:20:42 PM PST by BigReb555
Again Reb, go back and read the history. The colonists did far better than your ancestors did, now didn’t they?
Listen pal, I don’t know what geography has to do with a particular political bent but the northeast is not all dominated by liberals. Rationalize it anyway you want, the CSA were Democrats. When they could no longer keep blacks on the cotton plantation they put them on the welfare plantation.
Again Reb, go back and read the history. The colonists did far better than your ancestors did, now didn’t they?
Sorry to break this to you but the CSA had the help of the Frence also maybe you need to revisit a history book before you show your ignorance any further!!. And as far as the colonist doing better with their war than the south....well yea!!...what the hell has that got to do with the discussion.
Are you delusional or just stupid...Of course the Northeast is dominated by liberals who else is voting these people into office...all northeastern people aren't liberal but the majority certainly are or they wouldn't all be run by liberals!!!
It’s really nothing more than a strawman to talk about what Lincoln said, implied, or thought about slavery because HE DID NOT INSTIGATE THE WAR.
The seminal reason for the friction between the north and south, the sectionalism that resulted, and the souths instigating open warfare against their own country was the institution of slavery.
Lincoln merely responded to the insurrectionists.
The Colonists did not have a standing navy as such because, well because they were colonists. But they did have a navy of sorts. And they issued Letters of Marque to Privateers, who created havoc all across the Atlantic. The Privateers were wildly successful during the Revolutionary War. Interestingly, they didn't do so well during the War of 1812 and the enterprise was outlawed (with the United States as a signatory) in the Declaration of Paris.
When the rebels pretended to their secession they had no navy and not much in terms of shipping at all. Remember that they had been willingly reliant on the Northeast for most of their shipping needs. So the confeds issued Letters of Marque in defiance of international treaty and encouraged as much piracy and blockade running as possible.
They asked the Privateers to bring them badly needed weapons, armaments, firearms, ammunition, and medical suppies as they also neglected to build their own foundries, factories, and manufacturing facilities as well.. But the Privateers saw that there was more money to be made smuggling the fineries that the southern aristocrats craved. Silk and Champagne, and other luxuries from Europe that they were accustomed to having.
The confed Privateers were pretty thoroughly chewed up and a bitter disappointment to davis.
Now I suppose one could try to draw a comparison between the two instances but I don't think that the analogy works.
I am kindly directing this comment to both/all involved....we do a disservice to our arguments when we attempt to view history through a contemporary lens. If we are to discuss the WBTS we should remove references to the current geo-political landscape - because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Of course it is, it does not fit into your narative. Why would he have said such things if he was willing to go to war for such a noble cause. Really doesn't compute does it!!!
The seminal reason for the friction between the north and south, the sectionalism that resulted, and the souths instigating open warfare against their own country was the institution of slavery.
Less than 1% of the south benefitted from slavery. It is just simply wrong to say it went to war for that reason. And Lincoln's own words tell us it wasn't worth going to war for him.
Because Lincoln didn’t go to war to protect slavery or to outlaw it - he went to war as a result of the souths actions. The south went to war to protect slavery. Lincoln went to war to protect the nation.
It is directly relevant to my argument. The suppression of states rights is in direct line with the increasing power of the federal government. That seizing of power by the federal government began with the civil war and has continued since. It was not given as a reason for the war but no one can deny the results. The south was guilty of practicing slavery which at the time was legal. The south was guilty of a moral sin. Slavery could have been solved without a war the usurping of states rights could not. We are engaged once again with that problem. The man who is supposed to be president of all the people is attempting to impose his will on all the people though a power “executive order “ that does not exist in the constitution. The people attempting to do this are politically the same people. Big government ideologues their party affiliation is a ruse!! At that time they were in the northeast...they have since spread to the west coast but are still in power in the northeast.I know you don’t like it but it is certainly true!!
The suppression of states rights (again a misnomer) came as a result of insurrection against the United States.
The south didn’t have to go to war to protect slavery. It was legal. They did have to protect the states right to govern themselves which the federal government was usurping. We are witnessing that usurpation right now!!The fact that slavery was repugnant doesn’t change what principle was lost. The slavery question could have been solved with out a war but the north would have had to let their greater goal of gaining control for the central government go and they weren’t going to “let a tragedy go to waste”.
The 1% even then! And the other 99% of dumb white southerners did the fighting and dying. Is it any wonder the symbol of the Democrats is a jackass!
Yea, I know - pretty stupid of them, wasn't it?
They did have to protect the states right to govern themselves which the federal government was usurping.
Incorrect.
The slavery question could have been solved with out a war but the north would have had to let their greater goal of gaining control for the central government go and they weren’t going to “let a tragedy go to waste”.
This is a complete misread of the history (I suspect intentionally so). Slavery was on a dead-end street. It had already been outlawed in virtually of the recognized "civilized" countries. It had already been outlawed - or a pathway to emancipation designed in every northern state. There were many attempts put forth to peacefully resolve the issue but any such talk was immediately and forcefully rejected by the slavers. The southern slavers ruled the roost. they held the money, the power, and the influence in the south - and for most of our nations history the country. What they said went. They said "no" to the end of slavery and went to war to underscore that rejection.
Ok stupid. California is the largest state in the nation. Liberal to the core. Jersey’s puny in comparison.We have a RINO for a governor. A RINO for sure but not a true democrat.You live in the Northeast do you? I’ve lived here all my life. Dems have an edge but they don’t entirely dominate.
So the north was so anti slavery that it’s president when he issued the emancipation proclamation chose only to apply it to the states in the CSA conveniently letting it stand in the northern sympathizing states. By the way Britain and France abolished slavery in their prospective countries only not the territories they controlled untill after the United States. Germany did so after their defeat in WWII. So once again you speak of that you do not know, unlike you I assume you just don’t know, not that it is intentional.
Legally the Emancipation Proclamation could only apply to the states in rebellion. Federal emancipation came with the 13th Amendment. I thought you knew that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.