Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
Why not start by working to end slavery in African countries where it's still practiced, as opposed to complaining about its practice a century and a half ago in the US?
All true, but the issue is not moral righteousness, the issue is over who is to blame for the civil war. It is a myth that Lincoln wanted to end slavery in existing slave states. The worst that his government did was limit the spread of slavery via the Missouri compromise and his government's failure to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act (why do state's rights suddenly go out the window there)?
The proximate (though not necessarily ultimate or historical cause) for secession was not Lincoln imposing his will on slave states, but the slave state's desire to impose their will and laws on the rest of the nation, including free states.
I've seen no confirmed records of "THOUSANDS" of civilians killed anywhere, and only one report of hundreds of civilians killed: in Confederate Captain William Quantrill's raid into Lawrence, Kansas in August, 1863.
I've seen no reports of any similar Civil War Union army massacre of civilians.
I'd say: Paid in Full by Appomatox, in April 1865,
Paid with Interest in the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments,
Paid with penalties in LB Johnson's "Great Society"
Paid with usurious interest on the penalties in today's run-amuck, out-of-control, spend-like-no-tomorrow, Federal Government.
;-)
Very interesting post, thanks.
I have read your posts and you are quite unfamiliar with the monetary aspect of the Civil War.
The trade on the Mississippi was issue #1.
That's a little confusing. I'm pretty sure Southerners (or any Americans) back a century ago didn't "get past" anything racial.
Southerners get along fine with Southern blacks— so put that into the formula.
I guess "Southerners" means "Southern Whites." And that is the "formula." The other side of the coin is that young White and Black Northerners may get along with each other better than Southerners are willing to admit and they just might feel as out of place in a Southern city (or rural community) as Southerners, Black or White, would feel in a Northern city. At least many of the younger African-Americans that I've met didn't feel like Dixie was "home." A few did. Others didn't.
What gets left out, though, is that Harvard and Southie dislike each other more than most Northerners and Southerners do. That conflict has been going on even longer than the piddling Civil War has (unless the Civil War was simply the same conflict in another guise). Complaining that Harvard and Yale look down on you while looking down yourself on Southie, or Phillie, or Cleveland, or Brooklyn, or Bridgeport -- is playing a double game. Maybe it's better to admit that the old days of rich, arrogant Northerners and poor, victimized Southerners are gone for good.
Sense? You?
I want his take, but my impression of his position is that Virginia *does* have the unilateral right to secede, *IF* the rights of its citizens are being oppressed by the federal government. (He also says that the Fedgov was *not* oppressing citizens rights when Virginia Seceded.)
Waiting...
I don't know where you got that idea.
We gave up on fighting each other years ago. Maybe you should consider it today..."
First, thanks so much for you kind words, which I will take more sincerely than you intended. ;-)
Second, over the years there have been many, many Civil War related threads, where our Pro-Confederates have had plenty to say about it.
This thread merely attempts to summarize what I've seen as their most common myths.
Maybe we can put those to bed right here, FRiend?
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
You could have fooled me!
Nobody was tried for treason after the war, not even Jeff Davis who was being incarcerated and was asking for a trial.
The actual rifts started at the confluence of the Ohio and Tennessee. Tolls were being exacted on industry from the Great Lakes.
These tolls were mostly to stop Lincoln from exercising a “National” tax on products where the southern states felt no qualification for it.
ON April 4, 1861 the Virginia secession convention voted not to secede. The convention did not vote to secede until April 17, 1861 after Lincoln called for troops to invade the South. Virginia attempted to resolve the conflict by sending several delegations to Washington but in the end could not participate in the Unconstitutional invasion of the South.
Virginia’s population in 1860 was 1,596,318 and the number of slaveholders was 52,128, that works out to about 3.2%. The free population was 1,105,453 (not just white), so that works out to 4.7%-— my previous post was correct. Note, Virginia had more slaves that any other Southern state and more free blacks than any state with the exception of Maryland.
http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/state.php
You comments about the South’s invasion of Union territory is like comparing a camp fire to Dresden.
I wrote:
“I think your view that the war was only about slavery is as incorrect as the war had nothing to do with slavery.”
I did not write:
“I think your view that the war was only about slavery is incorrect, as the war had nothing to do with slavery.”
The money guys from both sides cost us 650,000 folks and severe destruction. It was a tax that started it. Make no mistake that slavery became an issue but it wasn’t the kindling that started the fire.
Who decides whether they are being oppressed?
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.