Posted on 02/24/2022 6:58:05 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
How does that work with the Hells Angels? Are you comparing the Union to a club?
Money. Free labor.
That the North developed a conscience about it...
After they brought all the slaves to America in their ships. I noticed their conscience didn't extend to the point of giving back the money they made.
Also it was pretty easy for them to give up their slaves, because they weren't making very much money from them by that point. Slavery was in decline in the South too before Whitney invented the Cotton gin.
Suddenly slaves became very valuable in places that could grow cotton. They remained of little value in Massachusetts. Had they remained valuable, I bet they wouldn't have given them up. People always can be persuaded to do the right thing when it doesn't cost them dearly.
doesn’t make them worse than those whose conscience was seared to their inhumanity.
I dunno, telling me they cared so much about slaves that they were willing to kill their countrymen sounds a lot like a misplaced value system.
Couldn't they have just bought the slaves and set them free?
Killing and taking things sounds like what the Socialists always want to do.
And we are still beating the same dead horse...
Well as I have said, the stink of the horse is still causing problems for us today. Perhaps we shouldn't have killed that horse in the first place?
I think it was Will Rogers who said “Its not what they call you... it’s what you answer to.”
We can pretty much say for certain that the Union is a "club", and one which they will beat you with if you challenge the power of the corrupt government.
Now you are beginning to sound like a 1619 Project type, since if there weren't slaves, there wouldn't have been a political compromise to keep slaves at the founding of the US, the Civil War, the 14th amendment, etc.
The "horse" is the civil war. It is not the advent of slaves.
Slavery was going to die out anyways. It was declining even in the South. Land was getting farmed out and there was no new territory into which this sort of farming could expand.
People who think the civil war was about slavery have simply been misled by the propaganda still emanating from that war. But for those who believe that slavery was the cause, the evidence indicates it was going to wither and die in a matter of time anyways, so the war was unnecessary.
LOL!
Lincoln hated slavery.
No slaves, no Civil War.
People who think the civil war was about slavery have simply been misled by the propaganda still emanating from that war. But for those who believe that slavery was the cause, the evidence indicates it was going to wither and die in a matter of time anyways, so the war was unnecessary.
You keep saying that, but you also said that the expressed reasons may not be the real reasons, and that you don't trust people to give the real reason, did you not? So it could have been about slavery.
Second, the final precipitating event of the Civil War was the South's leaving the Union after Lincoln's election. Had they tried to work within the system, there may have been ways to resolve this. But Democrats refused to work with a Republican president.
Finally, your evidence presented in this discussion also suggested that slavery was dying out before the invention of the cotton gin. It is quite possible that other needs for slaves may have been found after the 1860's had slavery persisted. We will never know, because history is not a repeatable experiment.
My reply was to the comment “I am pro Confederacy, myself.” The protections for slavery went way back long before the CW, but most of the Union states had abolished slavery by then. They couldn’t do it in the Constitution without getting enough of the Southern, formerly Confederate, states states to ratify the 13th Amendment. Enough did, so even they didn’t agree with the Confederacy’s Constitution.
The English had a civil war. I don't think it involved any slaves. Some say the American civil war was just a continuation of the English civil war.
You keep saying that, but you also said that the expressed reasons may not be the real reasons, and that you don't trust people to give the real reason, did you not? So it could have been about slavery.
The evidence says otherwise. The money evidence shows it's about money, the "Corwin Amendment" shows it wasn't about slavery, the slavery in the Northern states shows it wasn't about slavery, Lincoln's statements on numerous occasions said it wasn't about slavery.
I would think any one of those things would be sufficient to break the theory that the war was about slavery.
Second, the final precipitating event of the Civil War was the South's leaving the Union after Lincoln's election. Had they tried to work within the system, there may have been ways to resolve this.
They had been working to resolve it for decades. It wasn't working. The election of Lincoln demonstrated to them that no matter what they did, they would still be treated like a stepchild by Washington DC, and they would still have to pay most of the taxes to run the government while being disrespected in the other states.
Finally, your evidence presented in this discussion also suggested that slavery was dying out before the invention of the cotton gin. It is quite possible that other needs for slaves may have been found after the 1860's had slavery persisted.
Not for the numbers involved. Also the abolition movement was gaining adherents even in the South. If you will look at the chapter on Slavery in Charles Dickens "American Notes" you will discover that he spoke with numerous members of slave owning families who wanted out of the slave business but felt as though they were constrained by law and by social pressure.
I try to look at the bigger picture. Where slavery was the least useful, it died out first, but where it was the most economically beneficial, it persisted. As the economics waned, and the social pressure waxed, the two factors would eventually come into equilibrium and people would suddenly "discover" that they should do the right thing and free their slaves.
This would have started among the upper class rich people, and eventually it would have became the "thing to do." Eventually the pressure from the wealthy would cause the enactment of laws to speed it along for the lesser wealthy so they would be forced to stop embarrassing their "bettors" by continuing to keep slaves.
Social pressure combined with economic pressure would have ended it without bloodshed, and there probably would have been a lot more consideration for all parties involved, and most especially the slaves.
He probably did, though I think Woodpusher has produced some text that indicated he may not have hated it so much as he has led everyone to believe.
This is exactly correct. There was insufficient political will in 1860s USA to abolish slavery. They simply did not have enough states to do that legally.
Enough did, so even they didn’t agree with the Confederacy’s Constitution.
Now I'm going to ask you to consider something in all earnestness. Do you think people who had fought and died for four years, ostensibly for the purpose of keeping slavery, would just vote to give it up?
The Southern states did not vote for the 13th amendment. The Puppet governments put in place by the armies of Washington DC voted to ratify the 13th amendment. This ratification was explicitly against the wishes of the people of those states in who's name it was done.
It was autocratic theater, and held no more meaning than a vote for Joseph Stalin did in the Soviet Union.
Some months back I noticed a comment from Glen Reynolds (Law Professor in Tennessee, Proprietor of Instapundit) regarding this topic , and he acknowledged that these amendments (13th,14th and 15th) have a taint of illegitimacy because of the way they were enacted, and this topic was much discussed in legal circles even to the present day.
I was specifically talking about the US Civil War. I thought that was obvious.
the "Corwin Amendment" shows it wasn't about slavery
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Sure sounds like someone wanted to keep slavery decisions out of the hands of the Feds. Ole James Buchanan (D) put his signature on it.
[The South] had been working to resolve it for decades. It wasn't working. The election of Lincoln demonstrated to them that no matter what they did, they would still be treated like a stepchild by Washington DC, and they would still have to pay most of the taxes to run the government while being disrespected in the other states.
And, according to you, their institution, on which their livelihoods depended, would have been eliminated eventually. So they were going to lose no matter what. It was just a matter of when. So they exited the US to try to prevent the inevitable, which then precipitated the US Civil War.
I’ll leave your last four comments for you and the other members of the Confederacy Amen corner to debate. In fact, I’ll look forward to that.
You show no connection. You just say that there is some connection between the people in power then and the people in power now. It's pointless. First, because there is always persistence, as well as change and circulation in elites. That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. Second, because elites are themselves divided. Wealthy people who you claim were in some conspiracy against the South often weren't and were willing to come to an accommodation with the Confederacy.
The evidence indicates they didn't do it because they were good guys. The evidence indicates they did it because they were "bad guys." They did it to keep the money and power they had acquired as a result of their influence on the government.
Again, you aren't providing actual evidence and building a serious case. You are just making assertions. And to do so you ignore other motives. You simply reduce everything to materialistic motives and then claim that you've proven something. You haven't.
I'm simply pointing out that this is not necessarily true. It could be true, because no slaves, no money to fight over, and without the money to fight over, there would have been no war.
Sure sounds like someone wanted to keep slavery decisions out of the hands of the Feds. Ole James Buchanan (D) put his signature on it.
Abraham Lincoln urged that it be ratified in his first Inaugural address. He also sent hand written letters to all the governors of all the states, including the seceded ones informing them this amendment had been passed through congress and was now in the process of being ratified by state legislatures. (The Constitution does not require this. Lincoln did this of his own initiative.)
Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, was the chief proponent of this Amendment in the Senate. Thomas Corwin was a Republican. There is some evidence that Lincoln even wrote the original version of this amendment.
So yeah, Lincoln's fingerprints are all over this thing.
And, according to you, their institution, on which their livelihoods depended, would have been eliminated eventually.
At this point, it was the livelihoods of the wealthy, and i'm sure the poor dears would have been fine with their accumulated profits.
So they were going to lose no matter what. It was just a matter of when.
I would think that makes a very big difference. If you know something is going to phase out in a decade or so, you can diversify into something else. We've done it with carriages, horses, wooden barrels, Ice Wagons, Milk delivery and a lot of other industries.
So they exited the US to try to prevent the inevitable, which then precipitated the US Civil War.
What precipitated the US Civil War was people not leaving them alone, but instead insisting on f***ing with them.
“ I may be mistaken, but if I recall properly, all the posts to which I have linked you deal with modern day corrupt of the deep state and crony capitalist influence over our government policies.”
Which is why I ignore them.
Was it my asking you to earnestly consider that one particular point that did you in?
I think perhaps your mind considered it for a split second, and then instantly recoiled at the thought that it might be true.
In fact, I’ll look forward to that.
Glad I could please.
Everything else is spin, argument, and individual opinions of various people. Not voted on, etc..
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.