Posted on 06/01/2006 9:07:55 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
due to improvements in agricultural mechanization the PROFIT was disappearing from slavery. remove the profit from slavery & the slavers would have freed their slaves; the slavers care about NOTHING but the $$$$$$$$!
absent the war, slavery MIGHT have survived another 10-15 years. my GUESS, based on my research, is five-ten years until slavery was UNprofitable and soon thereafter, DEAD.
even if the 10-15 year estimate, absent the IMPERIALIST war promulgated by lincoln's "merry band of thugs/crooks/cheap politicians", is correct (and my guess is wrong), KILLING a MILLION people (many of the victims of the invading yankee army WERE slaves! btw, a MAJORITY of the UNarmed CIVILANS who died in dixie during the war were: AmerIndians,Asians,Blacks,Jews,Latinos, Roman Catholics, other religious minorities & the "poorest of the poor" whites. VERY few of the slave-owning elites lost their lives, as they were PROTECTED from harm by the military!) seems a REALLY high price to pay for ending the evil of slavery 10 years earlier than 1865.
as i've said before, your eyes/MIND are CLOSED to the truth, as you've been LIED TO repeatedly & made a FOOL of in school & by the main-SLIME, elitist, media spin machine out of DAMNyankeeland.
free dixie,sw
due to improvements in agricultural mechanization the PROFIT was disappearing from slavery. absent the war, slavery MIGHT have survived another 10-15 years. my GUESS, based on my research, is five-ten years until slavery was UNprofitable.
even if the 10-15 year estimate, absent the IMPERIALIST war promulgated by lincoln's merry band of thugs/crooks/politicians, is correct (and my guess is wrong), KILLING a MILLION people (many of whom WERE slaves) seems a REALLY high price to pay for ending the evil of slavery 10 years earlier than 1865. as i've said before, your eyes/MIND are CLOSED to the truth, as you've been LIED TO repeatedly in school & on the main-SLIME, elitist, media spin machine.
free dixie,sw
you win the "pink lolly-pop award" for today's SILLIEST post.
laughing out loud AT you.
free dixie,sw
But again and again Lincoln says that he has no intention of interfering with slavery where it exists. Are you claiming that the continued economic vitality of the south depended on the expansion of slavery into the west? Usually you guys are claiming that slavery was on the way out anyway.
The funny thing aboout your argument is that it turned out that slavery was not essential to the southern economy. Cotton production had returned to pre-war levels by, I believe, 1870. Of course the prices of cotton had dropped by that time, as Indian and Egyptian cottton came on line.
Of which you cannot provide a single one.
due to improvements in agricultural mechanization the PROFIT was disappearing from slavery.
And therefore would have been gone by 1940 when the first commercially successful cotton harverster was introduced? remove the profit from slavery & the slavers would have freed their slaves; the slavers care about NOTHING but the $$$$$$$$!
So why would they have freed their slaves if they cared about nothing but $$$$$$$$$? Wouldn't they have sold them for what they could get? And what about the cooks and maids and butlers and gardeners and grooms and porters and what-have-you that were slaves? Why would they be freed?
Again he is speaking of the courts and not the federal government. Congress has the duty to ensure that the state government is legal.
There is an important dynamic that you are omitting: the regional bitterness that existed between north and the South. Southerners then, just as now, didn't want the country to be governed by the yankees.
Usually you guys are claiming that slavery was on the way out anyway.
It was. Just as using horses was replaced by tractors.
The funny thing aboout your argument is that it turned out that slavery was not essential to the southern economy.
Of course it wasn't. Just like union workers aren't 'essential' to manufacturing. But I dare say that the union worker would argue that point.
in point of fact, you as the Minister of DAMNyankee Propaganda, just cannot stand the thought of me telling the TRUTH about the "coming death of slavery, absent the war", as it makes the DAMNyankees war against the new southern republic look like what it WAS:
an UNjust,IMPERIALIST war, that was fought ONLY because lincoln, the TYRANT, was UNwilling to let the south go in peace. as a result of his lust for POWER & $$$$$$$ (for himself and his northern cronies of the financial/industrial elites), a MILLION people NEEDLESSLY died.
from the DY perspective, there was NO REASON for the war except GREED & a LUST for more political/financial POWER. THAT is the TRUTH about the war, that you won't/can't face.
free dixie,sw
In other words, they were only loyal to the United States as long as they were in charge. As soon as an election didn't go their way, they wanted to take their ball and go home. You make southerners sound like a bunch of spoiled brats. Why did they agree to the Constitution in the first place? Didn't they read the part about elections? Did they have their fingers crossed when they ratified, just in case an election ever went against them?
I dare you to go to the black part of town with a confederate flag and start telling everyone that the number of people who died in the civil war was too high a price to pay for the accelerated end to slavery. I'm sure they will be very receptive, after all it would have happened eventually, whats a few more years in chains and bondage?
You say you don't gloss over it and you say that you don't speak glibbly on the matter but you do, in every post
There is no way to avoid oversimplification of a subject this complex in cyber text bites. There have been thousands of pages written about the events leading up to the war. Either you know this or you don't.
If you do know this, you're simply being antagonistic. If you don't know this, then it is an utter waste of time debating you.
Of course, knowing you, it's a bit of both.
Why did they agree to the Constitution in the first place?
Agree to it? Hell, we wrote it!
Bottom line - War Between the States (you like simple, here it is):
South fought for state(s) rights.
North fought for preserving the union.
Indeed, but for me it seems to come down to justification for secession. Had there been actual oppression of the south by the north, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to them. But I have yet to see anything done by the Lincoln administration or by the north in general that justified unilateral secession and the shelling of US forces. You say it was a states rights issue, but you can't point to anything that had violated their rights. Had Lincoln moved to end slavery when the south bombarded Sumter? Had he raised the tariff? No. In the Alexander Stephens Georgia speech, he nicely outlines why Lincoln won't be able to do much of anything in the face of southern opposition in the House and Senate.
The southern position seems to boil down to "it was sufficient cause to us," precluding any value judgement about those causes.
What the south did was not a rebellion, it was secession. A legal withdrawal from voluntary union by legally constituted authority. What the north did in response was invasion and conquest.
Home rule and sovereignty are conservative principles regardless of political party.
The key phrase: "at the expense of other faiths". There is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit a display of the Koran. As long as you were still free to ignore it, you would still be free.
Interesting. However the finding has more to do with the process that was used rather than the principle of secession itself.
Can't remember what you made up at the time?
just cannot stand the thought of me telling the TRUTH about the "coming death of slavery, absent the war"
I'm not sure my system could stand the shock of you telling the truth on anything.
Except that it wasn't a legal withdrawl.
Trashing the constitution, nationalizing businesses, seizing private property without compensation, excessive taxes, and martial law are not. Regardless of political party.
Is government displaying the Koran?
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.