Posted on 06/17/2017 6:14:26 PM PDT by plain talk
Let's see now. In the United States of America from 1776 to 1868, slavery was the law of the land. That's 92 years you need to excuse our government. But only if you are human scum.
“Slavery was evil. Anyone who supports slavery, or excuses a government which supported or allowed slavery in any way shape or form is human scum.”
Is this a reference to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?
Bmk
The U.S. was never going to survive as a unified country as long as you had a scenario where the southern states could control the flow of trade through the Mississippi River system (including the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio Rivers). The power brokers in the mid-19th century also recognized that the future settlement of the West would be hampered unless the powers of state governments were diminished and the Federal government was given a level of authority that had no solid foundation in constitutional law. The power to charter national corporations and establish a standard railroad gauge, for example, was absolutely essential for the country to be settled and developed as quickly as it was.
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
did a quick look: I see in the confederate succession of Georgia they talked about the act of 1846 which lead to the Morrill Tariff.
The killing of the settlers by the Sioux was also called, at the time, the “Minnesota Massacre.”
I have a bound “Harper’s New Monthly Magazine” from the early 1860’s that has an illustrated magazine article about this rampage.
This was a big news story at the time (1862) and pushed the Civil War news off the front pages of many newspapers.
How about supporting indentured servitude, or importing immigrants whose sole function was to work in dangerous, inhumane conditions building railroads or digging coal out of the ground?
Not to mention him having the Navy bomb the crap out of New York City when they refused the draft!
It would be awesome if we had the national fortitude to do the same to MS-13 leaders.
Correct. In more general terms, the North fought the war because they thought it was in their best political and economic interests.
But it makes people feel better to think that Lincoln “fought to free the slaves.”
Some of those slaveholders no doubt referred to biblical passages where slavery is condoned ,and certain explicit instructions on how to treat slaves.
Then again , the “free” men were forced to take arms and risk death in battle or disease on pain of imprisonment or execution if they declined to kill and destroy as ordered. The Union Army destruction of Southern cities and property was one-sided. I fully understand why many Southerners call it the War of Northern Aggression.
There had to have been better way that would not have wasted Hal a million lives and hundreds of millions of real dollars.
“I’m sick enough of historical revisionism to support making it a capital crime.”
I’m with you!
George Washington ordered the destruction of the Iroquois towns during the Revolutionary War. But neo-Confederates like to pretend he was a Jeffersonian, so they say nothing, just as they forget he was a Federalist who believed in implied powers and signed the First Bank of the United States into law.
I'm getting so sick and tired of all this Lincoln bashing (especially by people who call other people "RINOs"). So no history book prior to 1960 considered slavery a factor in the Civil War? At all?? Really???
This is getting ridiculous.
But the glue that bottomed out Union desertions was abolitionism.
The question “Lincoln and what army?” Could very well have ended the war had the South freed their slaves...because the North could not have kept a large enough force in the field after the early battles without abolition to galvanize the Union forces and because opposition to slavery kept England from allying with the Confederacy.
Lincoln’s statements were not backed up by the reality of maintaining a force in the field.
Checkmate.
*** “It undermines the credibility of the site” ***
It is a Gullibility test! ask Cliff
Well ya see, Norm, it’s like this… A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few beers.”
“The South seceded to preserve slavery.”
Was the North about to pass a constitutional amendment in 1861 to end slavery?
I am under the impression that the U.S. constitution to which Lincoln swore an oath to defend (twice) enshrined slavery?
*** “It would be awesome if we had the national fortitude to do the same to MS-13 leaders” ***
I think Islam is a much larger group and therefore won’t be restricted by size, daily limits, tagging nor the need for a Special License or Season.
“Could very well have ended the war had the South freed their slaves...”
This raises the question: If the North wanted to free the slaves, why not introduce and pass a constitutional amendment in 1850, or 1860, or 1861 to abolish slavery? Then the war and all the killings and all the destruction and all the hard feelings could have just been skipped.
Not "the" reason to secede. Those who say it "wasn't about slavery" and those who say it was "all about slavery" are both wrong. There were many reasons. The fact remains that Lincoln destroyed the Union to save it. What existed after the Civil War bore little resemblance to the original. A once "union of independent sovereign states" was now a union of subsidiary political units, no longer sovereign.
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.