Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/30/2012 2:41:06 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
To: rustbucket; central_va; lentulusgracchus

ping


2 posted on 08/30/2012 2:43:24 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

It just wouldn’t be Wednesday of we didn’t again re-fight the War Between the States aka The Civil War aka The War of Northern Aggression.

Actually, it has been a little while since we saw some Southern Dander up.

Got my popcorn...


3 posted on 08/30/2012 2:43:56 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (obozo could bring back literal slavery with chains and still he will get 97+% of the black vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

All hands to Quarters. The Threadnaught is leaving the harbor.


4 posted on 08/30/2012 2:44:53 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

“In this corner, the War Of Northern Aggression team! In the opposite corner, the Treason Of The Slaveholders team! Touch gloves, boys, keep it clean, and go to a neutral corner in the event of a knockdown... No LET’S GET READY to RRRRUUUMMMMMBBBBLLLLLEEEE!!!”


5 posted on 08/30/2012 2:47:25 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge
......In fact there were many questions that divided North and South, of which the existence of slavery was actually one of the least important.

Foremost among these questions was the question of states’ rights. Did the Southern states have the right to take their ball and go home like a bunch of whiny spoilsport crybabies the first time the country elected a president who publicly opposed slavery? On this question the North and South could not agree. The Southerners insisted that the individual states had the absolute right to withdraw from the Union whenever they desired to do so, and in general took an uncompromisingly strong stance on states’ rights.

There was also the question of enforcement of federal laws. Did the Northern states have the right to pass laws that hindered the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? Here again there could be no agreement: the Southerners insisted that the federal law must be supreme, and in general took an uncompromisingly strong stance against states’ rights.

Then there was the question of the territories. Should slavery be allowed in them or not? Should they be admitted to the Union as slave states or free states? Many Southerners vehemently opposed the Missouri Compromise, which roughly divided the territories between free in the North and slave in the South, on the grounds that each newly admitted state should be allowed to decide the question of slavery for itself. Likewise, Southerners were appalled when California, at its own request, was admitted to the Union as a free state, on the grounds that the admission violated the Missouri Compromise.

So you can see that slavery was in fact the least of the difficulties dividing North and South.

- Dr. H. Albertus Boli

6 posted on 08/30/2012 2:47:25 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

I would suggest one read the articles of secession by the Confederate States before answering. (if it wasn’t the primary reason, it was a close second or a catalyst reason).


9 posted on 08/30/2012 2:52:20 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

No


11 posted on 08/30/2012 2:53:16 PM PDT by strongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rockrr; Ditto; Huck
Don't see what the fuss is about. Everybody understood that Republicans in office would mean the eventual extinction of slavery. "House divided" and all that.

There was nothing truly radical about it, though. Even the Founding Fathers looked forward to the eventual end of slavery.

In the short term, however, Lincoln and the Republicans weren't going to rock the boat with sudden moves or lunges.

14 posted on 08/30/2012 2:56:21 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

Here we go again...


17 posted on 08/30/2012 2:58:47 PM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

Well considering that Salon.com brought it up again ad nausea, nope. But every so often here, the war has to be fought again and again.


18 posted on 08/30/2012 3:00:39 PM PDT by SkyDancer ("OF COURSE I TALK TO MYSELF - Sometimes I need an expert opinion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

[Disclaimer: My use, below, of the words “meme” and “multifactorial” should in no way suggest that I might be a pointy-headed liberal.]

As a proud Southerner boy, both by heritage and inclination, I had long bought the “states’ rights” meme. In recent years I have looked into the matter quite a bit more deeply for myself, and I have to say that, while the underpinnings of the conflict were multifactorial, the prime cause was slavery. I must also say that this shift in understanding in no way diminishes my hatred of the North or of Lincoln for the conduct and aftermath of the war.

This will be my sole contribution to the Afternoon Delight that now stretches out luxuriously before us.


21 posted on 08/30/2012 3:04:55 PM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge
Was the Civil War Actually About Slavery?

Let's just cut to the chase.

For the North, the answer is: mostly yes

For the South, the answer is: no

24 posted on 08/30/2012 3:10:57 PM PDT by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

The Civil War was actually about making the rich pay their fair share.

Now why don’t you go pay your taxes? Your government is broke. :)

/sarc


25 posted on 08/30/2012 3:14:24 PM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

If anyone has any doubts, they should set aside a few weeks to read the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates. Unthinkable in our day and age, Lincoln and Douglas toured around Illinois, their arguments evolving over time, yet remaining polite, and they went in depth to the issues of the day.

The amount of brain power involved in that effort was staggering, but the end result was extraordinary. At the time the debates were published in newspapers around the country and made Lincoln a star.

Yes, it was almost entirely about slavery.

Because of the debates, Douglas became senator from Illinois, and Lincoln, president.

After losing the senate race, Lincoln did a pretty fair edit and published the debates in a book.


27 posted on 08/30/2012 3:17:34 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

Actually, Lincoln went back and forth with the South, finally offering for the South to keep their slaves in exchang for not seceding. The South refused, still wanting secession.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/march/slavery-compromise.htm


29 posted on 08/30/2012 3:19:56 PM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

Well, isn’t this just perfect timing? /s

The war of northern aggression was *not* about slavery. It was about state’s rights. I believe it was over taxes/ tariff’s imposed on Southern crops.
When will *someone* recount the actual, factual details of how slavery happened, *who* the slavers were, & who forced their own people to be sold as slaves? Nobody is going to do that because it would pretty much destroy the narrative that is, apparently, working so well. How many generations have passed?
Why weren’t these folks repatriated to their homeland & their family ties? They had been here for barely 2 generations. Wouldn’t that have been the decent & logical thing to do?

As far as the left is concerned, *everyone* who doesn’t go along quietly with their communist “transformation” of America- & especially those of us in the South- all of us, are racist. Look at what was said about Mia Love, Allen West, Herman Cain, JC Watts, & Condi Rice. It’s perfectly okay then.

There is *nothing* we can do or say to prove otherwise & it doesn’t even matter if it’s true or not to any degree. We can slit our wrists en masse & bleed to death but It. Will. Never. Be. Enough.


32 posted on 08/30/2012 3:21:42 PM PDT by KGeorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

It was about the expansion of slavery.


34 posted on 08/30/2012 3:24:06 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

41 posted on 08/30/2012 3:27:36 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Tyrannies demand immense sacrifices of their people to produce trifles.-Marquis de Custine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

These threads are better than the Hatfields and McCoys mini-series.


42 posted on 08/30/2012 3:29:42 PM PDT by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge

Slavery was an issue of State’s rights, but many things other than State’s rights also contributed to the war, including the economic tyranny the southern States were receiving in the Congress from the northern States. Lots of hatred went into that war, same as today.


45 posted on 08/30/2012 3:31:18 PM PDT by CodeToad (Be Prepared...They Are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson