Posted on 05/03/2019 7:54:25 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.
Two generations ago, most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.
I was much struck by Barbara Marthal’s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody’s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like “about slavery.” Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.
Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
Thank you, because the Confederates had made it quite clear before the ships were even sent, that if they attempted to resupply the fort, they would have been blown out of the water. Anderson knew this, and sent maps and drawings of the Confederate gun emplacements to Washington.
The mission would most assuredly go to plan B, which was to use their entire force to land men and supplies into the fort.
The did not have orders to attack the Confederate facilities in Charleston unless they met resistance to the resupply effort.
The "if" was already preordained, and everyone knew it. Lincoln's cabinet knew it because they explicitly told him those ships would trigger a war.
Lincoln willfully sent those ships anyway.
The peculiar thing here is that he sent them on a suicide mission. Anyone could have told him those ships would have been wiped out, but he didn't seem to care.
Lucky for him he accidentally sent the command ship to Florida under secret orders and disguised as a British ship. Had he not accidentally detached that ship, it would have arrived at Charleston, taken charge of the fleet, and then proceeded to get everyone killed.
Boy, that Lincoln sure was "lucky."
"Thank you! No further questions for this witness your honor."
:)
To test the assertion, it would be helpful to know what the cost of a slave (to compare like to like, let’s say a young male slave for field labor) was between (say) 1840-1861, adjusted for inflation or other changes to the value of currency. I’ll dig around to see what I can find.
Oh no! You found out i'm on the payroll of a government that hasn't existed for over 150 years!
And pointing out that the United States had legal slavery for "four score and seven years", and every intention of keeping it long past that, is not a "lie."
Ignoring moral and political aspects, from an economic standpoint slavery is simply indentured labor. An indentured worker could in principle do any work that a free contract worker does.
Do they pay you well?
We all know that it was Lincolns support and pushing that the 13th amendment was passed by Congress.
Hey look who signed the 13th amendment document that was sent to the States...
Approved February 1, 1865 by Abe Lincoln himself...
Rather nuts to send warships at it, isn't it? How odd that they never completed their mission because Lincoln had absentmindedly sent the command ship to Florida disguised as a British fishing ship or something.
I don't know why the Confederates thought they were going to be attacked. They must have been jumpy or something. They should have realized that those ships were never going to attack them, despite what their orders said.
Couldn't they tell that Lincoln was only joking?
Now, can you tell me what significance the signature of Abraham Lincoln has upon any document pertaining to the passage or ratification of any Constitutional Amendment?
I'm sorry to say, but I suspect you can't. Better get Googling on it.
Here is that cognitive dissonance again. You are saying they left the Union to preserve slavery, which would have been preserved anyways had they remained in the Union.
How does that make sense to you?
Was the slavery they had out of the Union some sort of super duper extra-slavey type of slavery, or was it the same old boring sort of slavery they had while they were IN the Union?
I feel like i'm talking to Yogi Berra.
Expand it to where?
... because the Confederates had made it quite clear before the ships were even sent, that if they attempted to resupply the fort, they would have been blown out of the water...
Yes he did. He had his armies point guns at the heads of people in the Southern states, and he *ORDERED* them to pass that constitutional amendment, which completely outlawed the thing your side keeps claiming they fought the entire war to keep.
Any of the youse guys on this guy's side want to loan this clueless f*** a clue bat?
Democrats wanted to expand slavery to wherever they chose to put their suticase.
Hush child. Adults are talking.
scal·a·wag
/ˈskaləˌwaɡ,ˈskalēˌwaɡ/
noun INFORMAL
noun: scalawag; plural noun: scalawags
A white Southerner who collaborated with northern Republicans during Reconstruction, often for personal profit. The term was used derisively by white Southern Democrats who opposed Reconstruction legislation.
Other than ordering the Soldiers in his Army to disenfranchise anyone who disagreed with his decisions, and only allow people who agreed with his decisions to vote.
No, Lincoln really did pass the 13th amendment. He did so with troops in all the Southern states, along with bribes and threats in the Northern states.
Yes, it was ratified after he had died, but he built the foundation of ratification for it.
The very notion that the Southern states willingly passed that amendment is ridiculous. They passed it to get the guns out of their faces. That is not how constitutional amendments are supposed to work.
My recollection from what I read is that a slave was worth approximately $100,000 in modern dollars, but cost around $1,000.00 in 1860 dollars.
I recall the riots in New York had men shouting the slogan "Our lives are not worth as much as a slave!" referring to the $300.00 cost of getting out of military service versus the $1,000.00 cost for buying a slave.
Forcibly conscripted men going to war solely to end involuntary servitude has always struck me as an odd thing to believe anyway.
Is that what you believe? Have you really never heard of the Treaty of Paris?
Round and round we go. Same talking points refuted but they just don’t learn.
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.