Posted on 08/12/2020 2:31:56 PM PDT by Jonty30
I think we can agree that it had nothing to do with caring about the slaves.
I was thinking that 4 million sudden extra bodies in the poor southern economy would have the same effect as high immigration, keeping the wages of the poorest workers suppressed and it would keep the South from developing economically, while the North would benefit from their ownership of Southern industries.
Does that sound about right or am I wrong on this?
This constant picking at this scab has got to stop.
It is time to choose. Which side are these people who like to pick, on?
As I stated before. This president has said that Abe Lincoln was one of the greatest of American presidents.
So, are they supporters of Trump? Or are they supporters of what?
As for Lincoln. He was a politician. I will refer you to what US Grant thought of him, who was truly one of the greatest hero’s in American history, especially during that period.
Yet, even as the North did not want a mass migration of freed slaves, the North long had a substantial and prosperous population of free Blacks before the Civil War, sometimes with remarkable biographies impossible for free Blacks in the Old South.
There are, for example, Pierre Toussaint, a former Haitian slave. A hairdresser in New York, his talent and good spirit made him prosperous and his devout Catholic faith led him to a life of virtue and generosity. He is now honored as Venerable and on the path to full sainthood. Pierre Toussaint's remains lie in the crypt below the main altar of Saint Patricks, the first layman interred there.
Or consider Solomon Northup, a free black from Maryland who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the South. Eventually, after twelve years, he was able to get a letter to his family. They mobilized Maryland's officials on his behalf, and Louisiana authorities helped by issuing writs and sending deputies to rescue Northup. He returned home and wrote a remarkable and lucid account of his experience.
Instead of secession and a civil war, the South ought to have remained in the Union and sought a national plan for gradual, compensated emancipation. Out of pride and arrogance though, the South rejected the Constitution because Lincoln was elected with a platform that would have mildly limited the expansion and enforcement of slavery.
In defeat, the South's partisans spun an elaborate false tale of the South as a victm of unconstitutional machinations. Go back and read the speeches and articles of secession by the Southern states. They make quite clear that secession and the civil war were about keeping slavery without compromise and little else.
And just what was the party campaign slogan for the 1868 democrats?
Huh?
What did the democrat party platform say for the 1864 campaign?
Huh?
Want to go look at some of the campaign posters from the democrat party in those days?
” he Dems of the 1800s are basically the Repubs today? “
WTF?
Today’s Dems view the Negro as inferior- as their Dem predecessors did.
All that’s changed is what to do about it.
the Republicans have consistantly supported equal treatment for the Negro since the Party’s founding.
Probably similar to Jefferson Davis’s view on the subject.
Exactly so and thank you for saying so. Lincoln so badly wanted to shore up the Union, he took actions like suspending habeas corpus, fired on Ft. Sumter and sent 6,000 Americans to the deaths to do so.
The Deep State is not a new thing. Plenty of it in the Union back rooms in the 1850s-60s as well and plenty of rail and bank barons calling the shots.
Exactly so and thank you for saying so. Lincoln so badly wanted to shore up the Union, he took actions like suspending habeas corpus, fired on Ft. Sumter and sent 6,000 Americans to the deaths to do so.
The Deep State is not a new thing. Plenty of it in the Union back rooms in the 1850s-60s as well and plenty of rail and bank barons calling the shots.
Not sure how “picking at scabs” relates to my posts.
Economic factors were very important to the cause of the war, and greatly ignored.
All Dems do base and have based their policies on the inferiority of the Negro- all that’s changed is how they deal with it.
” It’s likely that some other event would have precipitated the conflict had Sumter not been attacked “
Yeah, 100% likely LOL!
It doesn’t matter “Who started it?” no more than in a children’s fight.
But there were good reasons for the unfortunate hostilities that we can learn from if we’re honest.
Dinesh D'Souza, carefully, with great precision, and referencing the actual historical record, proved that statement entirely false
Not really the case. The 1860 census indicate that blacks owned about 30,000 slaves in the Unites States. Whites on the otherhand owned about 3.2 million slavbes.
“One of the greatest ironies of the lie that the war of northern aggression was fought to free the slaves was, while Lincoln was reading his FIRST emancipation proclamation, slaves in Maryland (and still Delaware, IIRC) were loading federal trains with munitions to prosecute the war.
That’s a stone-cold fact.
Slavery ultimately becomes a net economic loss. Had the war truly been about slavery, Lincoln would’ve manumitted the NORTH’s, the Union’s slaves FIRST.
It was about control of sugar, tobacco, corn, fiber (cotton), the prices, the cut, and distribution by wealthy northern globalists.
The “Civil War” was America’s Second revolutionary war and the good guys lost.”
Indeed. Thank you!
Anyone insisting they are an expert on the causes of the War Between the States should remember that in all wars, it is the winners who write the history books.
(8th Florida, Hardees Brigade)
What a great reply!
I even think the Erie Canal ‘decided’ the Civil War.
It tied the Northwest Territories, though they were settled to a great extent by Southerners, to the Northeast.
Slaveholding capitalists had no reason to invest in such transportation projects to the west.
Slavery was a failure in very many ways.
“...It was about control of sugar, tobacco, corn, fiber (cotton), the prices, the cut, and distribution by wealthy northern globalists.
The “Civil War” was America’s Second revolutionary war and the good guys lost.”...”
Yes, and while the South advocated low tariffs the North enforced high protectionist tariffs which transferred more of the South’s wealth to the industrial states.
And won the war.
One thing is for sure. The question of the whys and wherefores that created the War of Northen Aggression will forever be in question among those on both sides of the issue.
The north voted for the original thirteenth amendment which would have enshrined slavery forever in an effort to keep the south from leaving the union. Slavery was NOT why the south left. They also knew that war with the north would be futile so they did not want war either. The north did not want to see it's cash cow leave the union and decided that forcing the issue into a war was the answer to it's problem. This is the truth of what happened no matter how you try to spin your account. The north won and EVERYBODY lost.
You mean the War of Southern Treachery?
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.