GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-10-2011, 23:27   #201
Gray_Rider
Senior Member
 
Gray_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jacksonville Fla.
Posts: 1,434
Blog Entries: 1
Blast.

When this nation openly presents the truth about Lincoln's War, we will consider "getting over" it.

Till then, don't hold your breath or stand on one leg.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Last edited by Gray_Rider; 06-10-2011 at 23:28..
Gray_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 12:46   #202
Gray_Rider
Senior Member
 
Gray_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jacksonville Fla.
Posts: 1,434
Blog Entries: 1
[QUOTE=clancy;17422358]1. Lincoln was far from the first to advocate the colonization of free blacks back to Africa. The first group that I am aware of is the American Colonization Society, cofounded by Henry Clay around 1816. As someone who seems to think they know a lot about American history, why would you make such a statement?

I didn't say he owned the idea. I mentioned this fact because it is ignored by history and Lincoln who was clearly a bigot (as were most whites of the era by the standards of today) had no love for blacks. Free or slave.
He is fondly remembered for "freeing the slaves". His famous proclamation was meant to turn slaves against their masters in the South. Most slaves stayed with their families, their homes, their lives, and their supposedly cruel and hated masters. They were entrusted with the lives of thousands of helpless white women, children, the enfebled, and the old. Most were true to their families and homes. IE Their WHITE FOLKS. Even when they could have fled or destroyed all the above.

2. Could you provide any documentation that Lincoln was murdered by his "people"?

See books listed. War for What? in particular.

3. Would you consider Jim Crow Laws, state sanctioned enforced segregation, lynchings, bombings, murders and the use of police dogs and firehoses against peacefully marching people benign acts of local and state governments? Would you consider Federally ordered desegragation of our Armed Forces and schools real trouble?

Sadly most of these were brought on by federal intervention in Southern states' affairs begining with (De) Construction in 1865. It wasn't pretty or fair, but the North got EXACTLY what it bought and paid for.

4. While you seem it appropriate to fly the flag of the Confederacy, a government that existed for only 4 years, why do you deem it so important to do so when the United States has been in existence for over 200 years?

Our Confederate heritage is under assault. Our symbols used to be everywhere. Now Confederate Battle flags are being torn from Confederate soldiers' graves, and the Southern Cross is villified for a pack of lies. Over 50,000 Confederate civilians died defending that flag. Don't ask me to forget that or "get over" that. "Died" includes death by starvation, cold blooded murder, and denial of medicines.

5. Do you feel it appropriate to call The Civil War just that, or do you prefer to use something like Lincoln's War, The War of Northern Aggression, or some other name? As Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Nathan Bedford Forrest referred to The Late Unpleasantness as The Civil War would you have disagreed with any of them, especially Bedford Forrest?

I prefer to call it what it was. Lincoln's war. The War of Northern Aggression, America's Holocost. It was an unprovoked unconstutional war against a people that did the North no harm and in clear violation of the Constitution and international law at that time. We asked only to be left in peace and to be left alone. I disagree with NONE of the above mentioned Generals. Please study all of these people carefully before you make any assumptions. N.B. Forrest for instance had fifty black Confederates that acted as his personal bodyguard. He said better Confederates did not serve than his black bodyguards. He worked to heal relations with blacks after the war and encouraged blacks to become whatever they could atain in life.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

P.S. My son is named for Jackson Forrest and Lee.
Gray_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 20:03   #203
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,976
1. In reply to your not saying it was Lincoln's idea to send the slaves back to Africa, please reference "that was Saint, Honest, Abe's idea". Such a statement does lead one to think you mean it was Lincoln's idea.

2. War for What does look interesting, and I shall indeed read it; But please understand I am not a "South hater". As a long time student of the Civil War I know that there is far more to the war then the pap being taught in schools. But let's face it, with the average school year being 180 days, and all the history that needs be taught, not much of anything is taught in depth, sadly.

3. I have to disagree with your statement regarding this point. It wasn't unitl 1877, when Democrats took over the House, that Jim Crow laws came into being. In the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Republicans tried to outlaw discrimination, but Southern democrats immediatly took steps to see that it was not enforced. The Slaughterhosue Acts and the Presidential Election of 1876 and The Compromise of 1877 cemented the control of the Democrats in the South, and effectively put the blacks in the South in a worse position than before 1865.

4. I still do not understand the loyalty to a government of loosely confederated states that more often than not worked against each other instead of together. I believe the only Confederate state that did not have troops that fought for the Union was South Carolina. There were whole areas of Confederate States that were loyal to the Union. Only a fool would argue the lack of bravery of the average Confederate soldier, and to desecrate their graves and memory should bean offense that should lead to, at the very least, an old fashioned ass kicking. The myth of a Southern Confederacy, working in unison to defeat the North is just that, a myth.

5. I have studied the lives of the aforementioned Confederate Generals. Even someone as awestruck as John Allen Wyeth has not mentioned Forrest's 50 black bodyguards. Having read everything I can find about Forrrest over the years, I have never heard of this, doubt it's veracity and further doubt Forrest's need for an official bodyguard at all. Every soldier he commanded would be considered such.

6. So far you have deigned not to answer my question concerning Southern Filibuster's attempts to annex Cuba and Nicaruaga, the question about the South seceding to preserve the instituiton of slavery, andf my question about Stte's Rights. To this I add another. If the South was so unified in it's attempt to begin a new country, could you explain why desertion was so rampant? Why was the South the first to institute the draft?

7. You seem to be very impressed with the battlefield success of the Southern soldier. I tend to think that is due to the incompetent leadership of the Army of the Potomac. My grandmother would have been successful against the likes of McClellan, Pope, Burnside and Hooker. I often wonder why it is, when discussing how great the Confederate Army was, only Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia is the topic, and not the Western armies under Bragg, Beauregard, Retreatin' Joe Johnston and John Hood.

As before, I look forward to your responce. I enjoy an informed, intelligent debate. I find I learn very little from people I agree with.
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 20:32   #204
Gray_Rider
Senior Member
 
Gray_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jacksonville Fla.
Posts: 1,434
Blog Entries: 1
[QUOTE=clancy;17422358]

6. You have referred to State's Rights. Could you give me an example of a right that the Northern States had that the South did not? As an advocate of State's Rights, would you say it wrong for the Southern States to push The Fugitive Slave Act into law? Other than the right to own another human being, is there any other "right" that is referred to in the phrase State's Rights?

The Northern majority changed our Constitutional Republic into a centralized national government via illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional
means into the centralized national government that has existed since before the war's end. This corruption changed the the nature of the government handed down by our forefathers from a voluntary compact of sovereign states to an empire established and controled by the Northern majority. This is what the fight over states rights was about. This was "The Cause" the South fought for.

As to the Fugitive Slave Act; Almost all of the slaves in the South were purchased from the North. Warts and all, these people were by law, property. Bought and paid for. They weren't bought to have a "sporting evening" with or to have someone to misuse. Southern plantations and other slave owners (mostly one or two slaves made up an average family farm's slave labor) depended upon said slave labor for their very survival. The average slave cost the modern equal of a new car. Try losing the cost equal of two to three new vehicles out of YOUR pocket because someone in another state says you don't have the right to own them. And, add in the fact that your provide for your family with said cars. Of course slavery was protected. Who wants to starve or see their homes and lands taken away to pay their debts? The industrial revolution took a long time to reach the tobacco and cotton fields. It required massive amounts of labor and slavery was the only answer for hundreds of years, even in 1861. Cotton and tobacco was the lifeblood of the country and slaves provided the labor that made the engine run. Too bad. So sad. But don't complain about slavery with your belly full and afordable clothes on your back.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
Gray_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 21:03   #205
Gray_Rider
Senior Member
 
Gray_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jacksonville Fla.
Posts: 1,434
Blog Entries: 1
I will attempt to answer some of your questions here but most require essay answers I don't have the time to complete. Please see the above mentioned books. MUCH untaught Southern history abounds in them, including Forrest's black Confederates and the use of black soldiers in Southern armies. I will attempt to look up the references concerning Forrest's people.

Blacks, free and slave, were treated terribly before during and after the war. The South's loss of the war only served to exaserbate the situation for over 100 years. Ex slaves had no where to go as their masters and their "white folks" were left utterly destroyed financially. The Southern economy in ruins and the North constantly stiring racial trouble that lead to the formation of the KKK. The North's ill treatmant and the abandonment of them by the Republician party (the liberals of the day) worked mountains of evil on them too.

All of the above could have been avoided had the North allowed the South to peaceably seceede and at least offer to come to some sort of recompense for their slaves.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Last edited by Gray_Rider; 06-11-2011 at 21:06..
Gray_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 22:19   #206
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,976
[QUOTE=Gray_Rider;17481908]
Quote:
Originally Posted by clancy View Post

6. You have referred to State's Rights. Could you give me an example of a right that the Northern States had that the South did not? As an advocate of State's Rights, would you say it wrong for the Southern States to push The Fugitive Slave Act into law? Other than the right to own another human being, is there any other "right" that is referred to in the phrase State's Rights?

The Northern majority changed our Constitutional Republic into a centralized national government via illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional
means into the centralized national government that has existed since before the war's end. This corruption changed the the nature of the government handed down by our forefathers from a voluntary compact of sovereign states to an empire established and controled by the Northern majority. This is what the fight over states rights was about. This was "The Cause" the South fought for.

As to the Fugitive Slave Act; Almost all of the slaves in the South were purchased from the North. Warts and all, these people were by law, property. Bought and paid for. They weren't bought to have a "sporting evening" with or to have someone to misuse. Southern plantations and other slave owners (mostly one or two slaves made up an average family farm's slave labor) depended upon said slave labor for their very survival. The average slave cost the modern equal of a new car. Try losing the cost equal of two to three new vehicles out of YOUR pocket because someone in another state says you don't have the right to own them. And, add in the fact that your provide for your family with said cars. Of course slavery was protected. Who wants to starve or see their homes and lands taken away to pay their debts? The industrial revolution took a long time to reach the tobacco and cotton fields. It required massive amounts of labor and slavery was the only answer for hundreds of years, even in 1861. Cotton and tobacco was the lifeblood of the country and slaves provided the labor that made the engine run. Too bad. So sad. But don't complain about slavery with your belly full and afordable clothes on your back.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
Again I ask, what State right did, say, New York have that, say, South Carolina did not? What right did South Carolina have that New York did not? Talking about changing a contitutional republic into a centralized national government is not answering the question, but avoiding it by talking in circles.

As for the Fugitive Slave Act, you are again avoiding anwering my question, do you feel it right for a Southern state to demand that a Northern state enforce that law, even though slavery may be illegal in that Northern state?

No informed person can deny that the North played a major part in the importation of slaves, prior to 1807. However, after Congress outlawed that, the North's participation in the slave trade effectively was eliminated. As far as this country being solely built by the institution of slavery, I disagree. The Irish, to name but one group of immigrants, had a to do with it, too. I have accounts of Irish day laborers being hired to do jobs that were considered to dangerous for valuable slaves to do, such as draining swamps.

As far as the Industrial revolution taking a long time to come to the South, don't you think that the rich plantation owners had a lot to do with that?

Prior to the invention of Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin, slavery was dieing out in this country, so your argument that slavery was necessary for centuries is specious, at best. It wasn't until cotton could be processed quickly and cheaply that cotton became "King". And when that happened, slaves became even more vital to the southern economy.

"Too bad so sad"? Come on man, you can do better than that to defend your position, can't you? And belly full and clothed, or hungry and naked, I will never condone the owning of one human being by another.
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 21:39   #207
rgregoryb
Sapere aude
 
rgregoryb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Republic of Alabama
Posts: 12,703


Quote:
Originally Posted by marksiwel View Post
You sir, make me ashamed that you are also a Fellow Texan
you are in Austin...that is not Texas it's eastern San Francisco
__________________
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."
Ludwig Wittgenstein

"demography is destiny"
rgregoryb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 09:31   #208
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
Wow! That's quite some vindication there. Still doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy enshrined in its constitution the EVIL, IMMORAL, CRUEL, and simply DISGRACEFUL institution of slavery. It had no intention of getting rid of it.
I take it you've never bothered to read the U.S. Constitution?

Hilarious.

One of the interesting points is that, while the U.S. Constitution allowed Congress to ban the importation of slaves, if it chose to do so, the CSA constitution outright banned the importation of slaves from outside the CSA/USA, and gave the CSA congress the power to further ban imports from the USA. As for being pro-slavery, all it did was give each state the right to choose its own laws on the issue, which wasn't much different than the U.S. Constitution had originally intended. The south clarified the language and also required each state to respect the property rights of the citizens of the other states in their slaves - much as the Supreme Court once said was required by the U.S. Constitution.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.

Last edited by Bren; 06-13-2011 at 09:42..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 13:02   #209
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Lincoln on sending them back to Africa...

"If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation."

--Abraham Lincoln-- July 6, 1852.
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 13:06   #210
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
FACTS:

There was slavery under the Confederate flag for 4 years.

There was slavery under the American flag for 90 years.

Any questions?
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 13:08   #211
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Before there ever was a Confederacy...

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants,[2] whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.[3] The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process."
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 16:09   #212
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,152
Quote:
the CSA constitution outright banned the importation of slaves from outside the CSA/USA, and gave the CSA congress the power to further ban imports from the USA.
And the slave owners of the confederate states supported that ban just like they supported the ban on the importation of slaves into the US. The reason was obvious with such a ban in place not only was their "property" more valuable, they also became the sole source of slaves.

Quote:
As for being pro-slavery, all it did was give each state the right to choose its own laws on the issue, which wasn't much different than the U.S. Constitution had originally intended.
The confederate constitution gave no such rights to it's member states. Quite the opposite, member states were prohibited from interfering or choosing for themselves about slavery.

Quote:
ARTICLE I, Section 9, (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.
ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (1) The citizens of each state . . . shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of this Confederacy with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (3) [A] slave or other person held to service or labor in any state or territory of the Confederate States under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall . . . be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs.
ARTICLE IV, Section 3, (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory. . . . In all such territory, the institution of Negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Quote:
The south clarified the language and also required each state to respect the property rights of the citizens of the other states in their slaves - much as the Supreme Court once said was required by the U.S. Constitution.
Except for the fact there was no law that made slavery legal, not federal law nor state law. Southern leaders at the time acknowledged that were no federal or state law that legitimized slavery, and also acknowledged that under the US constitution no such law could be passed.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 16:10   #213
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
FACTS:

There was slavery under the Confederate flag for 4 years.

There was slavery under the American flag for 90 years.

Any questions?
And under the confederate flag and it's constitution slavery would have existed in perpetuity.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 16:28   #214
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Before there ever was a Confederacy...

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants,[2] whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.[3] The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process."
Dredd Scot decision is a fine example of an activist court overreaching itself. Not only was the decision contrary to many existing state supreme court decisions and existing case law, as one of the dissenting Judges pointed out, once the court declared Scott had no standing to bring the suit and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit the Court was obliged to simply dismiss the case, NOT issue rulings on it's merits.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 17:54   #215
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,976
Damn, I love a good debate!
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 18:20   #216
Gray_Rider
Senior Member
 
Gray_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jacksonville Fla.
Posts: 1,434
Blog Entries: 1
[QUOTE=clancy;17482386]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray_Rider View Post

Again I ask, what State right did, say, New York have that, say, South Carolina did not? What right did South Carolina have that New York did not? Talking about changing a contitutional republic into a centralized national government is not answering the question, but avoiding it by talking in circles.

As for the Fugitive Slave Act, you are again avoiding anwering my question, do you feel it right for a Southern state to demand that a Northern state enforce that law, even though slavery may be illegal in that Northern state?

Property. Bought and paid for. Get over it. Return the property, or pay for the property stolen.
These people cost their owners thousands in present day monies. Yeah. Let's just let that investment turn to vapor, and then have to replace said property so the owners could pay their bills and keep a roof up. Oh yes with more money they didn't have.

Slaves were property. They were bought and paid for. People's lives depended on them. (Including the slaves' lives) Give the slave owners their money back and I would call it square. Why do you South haters always demand the South give up their livelyhood. Property they gave much gold for. It was how things got done till machines took over. They are expected to just wash all that money down a sewer pipe.?

No informed person can deny that the North played a major part in the importation of slaves, prior to 1807. However, after Congress outlawed that, the North's participation in the slave trade effectively was eliminated. As far as this country being solely built by the institution of slavery, I disagree. The Irish, to name but one group of immigrants, had a to do with it, too. I have accounts of Irish day laborers being hired to do jobs that were considered to dangerous for valuable slaves to do, such as draining swamps.

Major role? The South had no slave ships.

As far as the Industrial revolution taking a long time to come to the South, don't you think that the rich plantation owners had a lot to do with that?

The cotton gin meant that more cotton could be grown. So again you wanted more people to be out of work, clothed, and fed at lower prices?

Prior to the invention of Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin, slavery was dieing out in this country, so your argument that slavery was necessary for centuries is specious, at best. It wasn't until cotton could be processed quickly and cheaply that cotton became "King". And when that happened, slaves became even more vital to the southern economy.

So they should have just freed the slaves and went home to desitution??!!

"Too bad so sad"? Come on man, you can do better than that to defend your position, can't you? And belly full and clothed, or hungry and naked, I will never condone the owning of one human being by another.
I can't believe that last statement. You don't have the same care about the Chinese, the Irish, the Indians or thousand of others over the centuries.



Ok. One more time...these questions require essay answers that I do not have time to research and answer. But. I will try to hit the highlights.

I say AGAIN. Read the books I have put forth. They answer in GREAT detail almost all your questions.


All the states (From colonial times, as set down by the founding fathers)had rights to control and keep under control the federal government. With the end of the war and the South's loss, that state control over the the federal government was effectively destroyed. Over the years the federal government exercised greater and greater control over the states, expecially the Southern states. See above mentioned books for mountains of proof and chapters devoted to this question.

As I discussed before. AT THE TIME. Slaves were property. Period. They were bought and paid for for one purpose. To provide the work force for the massive work entailed in the growing of cotton and tobacco. I'm sorry you won't see the facts and let your "moral" indignancy get in the way. Slavery built this country. Nothing else worked clancy. NOTHING! They tried it all and tried to end it for decades but tobacco and cotton took billions of man hours and whites couldn't get it done with out them. Slavery wasn't EVIL till the North used it to excuse the attack on the Southern Confederacy. If I stole something from you that you needed to live and feed your family, YOU WOULD COME AFTER ME. If your life and the lives of your family depended upon the use of slavery, I don't doubt you would crawl into a corner and starve to death.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
Gray_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 18:53   #217
Gray_Rider
Senior Member
 
Gray_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jacksonville Fla.
Posts: 1,434
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
And under the confederate flag and it's constitution slavery would have existed in perpetuity.

On what do you base this assumption Dragoon 44? Slavery was ended peacefully everywhere else in the western hemisphere* with the exception of Hati and the United States. It was being ended gradually in the South, well before the war. (See the books I have recomended. (R.E. Lee freed all the slaves he inhereted) The first abolition groups were started in the South in the 1830's or before, and were thriving till the North got involved and demanded they be set free with NO recorse or repayment. Guess what two countries have a problem with the slavery issue and massive racial problems to this day? (Trick question)

*Brazil's slavery ended peacefully 20 years after Lincoln's War. No one says they would not have extend slavery after it was economically unfeasable.

BY LAW. Slaves had to be clothed, housed, fed, given medical attention. Sick, injured, or elderly slaves had to be cared for until their deaths. Slaves that died unexpectedly through illness or accident had to be replaced and the cost of said slave "wrote off". Just the matter of another $400. to 800. to replace. 25 to 30 k in today's money. Yeah, go out and take a sledge hammer to your semi or car or tractor. Or. Set it free in a field somewhere to rust while you sit home and wait for the bank to foreclose.

Sick or injured employees at the time were left to fend for themselves. Die on the job leaving your faimly without a breadwinner? Too bad. Sooo sad. Kids were worked 12 to 14 hrs a day in Northern sweatshops. Loose a finger? Sorry kid go home. Mother sick you have to care for her? Sorry kid go home. Factory catches fire and dozens of young girls burn to death or jump to the street hundreds of feet below? Too bad sooo sad, there are more where you came from.....

Yeah. Evil for evil. American slavery wins out over that system everytime.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
Gray_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 20:06   #218
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,152
Quote:
On what do you base this assumption Dragoon 44?
The confederate states declaration of intent. Does that mean slavery WOULD have continued indefinitely? I doubt it. But that is clearly what the confederate states INTENDED.

Quote:
The first abolition groups were started in the South in the 1830's or before, and were thriving till the North got involved and demanded they be set free with NO recorse or repayment.
The first american abolitionist group was the "Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage" founded in Philadelphia April 14, 1775. After the war the group reformed in 1784 with Benjamin Franklin as it's first president.

It was in the 1830's that the more radical free the slaves NOW movement began. Led by William Lloyd Garrison, one of the founders of the "American Anti slavery society."

Quote:
BY LAW. Slaves had to be clothed, housed, fed, given medical attention. Sick, injured, or elderly slaves had to be cared for until their deaths. Slaves that died unexpectedly through illness or accident had to be replaced and the cost of said slave "wrote off". Just the matter of another $400. to 800. to replace. 25 to 30 k in today's money. Yeah, go out and take a sledge hammer to your semi or car or tractor. Or. Set it free in a field somewhere to rust while you sit home and wait for the bank to foreclose.

Sick or injured employees at the time were left to fend for themselves. Die on the job leaving your faimly without a breadwinner? Too bad. Sooo sad. Kids were worked 12 to 14 hrs a day in Northern sweatshops. Loose a finger? Sorry kid go home. Mother sick you have to care for her? Sorry kid go home. Factory catches fire and dozens of young girls burn to death or jump to the street hundreds of feet below? Too bad sooo sad, there are more where you came from.....
is this part of your pitch for "benign" slavery? So why don't you head over to a muslim country that still practices slavery and join up? you and your whole family since they will be taken care of. Sure you won't have freedom or liberty to do as you please but according to you, that's a good thing.

So, do you like the confederates despise the declaration of independence? they did, they savaged the part that says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So tell me how do YOU fit slavery into, " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 04:55   #219
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
And the slave owners of the confederate states supported that ban just like they supported the ban on the importation of slaves into the US. The reason was obvious with such a ban in place not only was their "property" more valuable, they also became the sole source of slaves.
Point being that the U.S. Constitution is "enshrined" as much slavery as the CSA, if not a little more.
Quote:
The confederate constitution gave no such rights to it's member states. Quite the opposite, member states were prohibited from interfering or choosing for themselves about slavery.
EDIT: Actually, Dragoon44 was correct there. I just looked at Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4, which says "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Quote:
Except for the fact there was no law that made slavery legal, not federal law nor state law. Southern leaders at the time acknowledged that were no federal or state law that legitimized slavery, and also acknowledged that under the US constitution no such law could be passed.
Even today, we don't require a law to make things legal - we never have and law doesn't work that way. Anything that is not illegal is legal.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.

Last edited by Bren; 06-14-2011 at 08:15..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 04:57   #220
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
Dredd Scot decision is a fine example of an activist court overreaching itself. Not only was the decision contrary to many existing state supreme court decisions and existing case law, as one of the dissenting Judges pointed out, once the court declared Scott had no standing to bring the suit and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit the Court was obliged to simply dismiss the case, NOT issue rulings on it's merits.
At the time, half or more of America would have said that slavery was up to the states and that the constitution required each state to recognize property rights established in another. In fact, nearly everyone would agree today, if the issue was not slavery. That's how your car is still your car if somebody steals it and takes it to New Jersey.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 04:59   #221
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,976
"Slavery wasn't evil until the north used it as an excuse to attack the south". If you think owning another human being is not evil, than I don't see how we can have an educated discussion on anything. The Civil war was not fought by the North over slavery, but to preserve the union. The south seceded solely to preserve the institution of slavery. they did not have to secede to preserve slavery, they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery to insure the poreservation of the rich plantation owner's lifestyle. John Breckinridge was in put in the presidential race solely to act as a spoiler to insure Lincoln's victory and to give the southern fireeaters the excuse to secede when Limcoln won.

As you seem to think slavery was ok, I will admit that you and I are unable to intelligently discuss any subject, and will end my debate with you now.
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 08:19   #222
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by clancy View Post
"Slavery wasn't evil until the north used it as an excuse to attack the south". If you think owning another human being is not evil, than I don't see how we can have an educated discussion on anything. The Civil war was not fought by the North over slavery, but to preserve the union. The south seceded solely to preserve the institution of slavery. they did not have to secede to preserve slavery, they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery to insure the poreservation of the rich plantation owner's lifestyle. John Breckinridge was in put in the presidential race solely to act as a spoiler to insure Lincoln's victory and to give the southern fireeaters the excuse to secede when Limcoln won.

As you seem to think slavery was ok, I will admit that you and I are unable to intelligently discuss any subject, and will end my debate with you now.
That's your "intelligent response?" "If you don't agreee with me, you are stupid and tyour opinion has no merit?" Obviously, there was a time when slavery was not considered evil, and any intelligent, educated person is aware of that. The fact that the opinion doesn't agree with fairly recent modern morality, even though it was fine for about 99.XXX% of human history, does not translate into, "you are too stupid to make an argument." If anything, I'd say one can't have an intelligent discussion with a person who has no more historical perspective, in a historical discussion, than you have demonstrated.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.

Last edited by Bren; 06-14-2011 at 08:20..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 11:40   #223
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,152
Quote:
Point being that the U.S. Constitution is "enshrined" as much slavery as the CSA, if not a little more.
Not true, at most the US constitution "ignored" slavery, the Founding Fathers knew that slavery was incompatibly with the constitution so they pretended it did not exist as far as the constitution goes. The rebel leaders were also aware of this fact that is why they wrote their own constitution "correcting" the problems with the U.S. Constitution.

The vice president of the Confederate states, Alexander Stephens made this perfectly clear in his "Cornerstone" speech. In it he enumerated the differences between the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate one.

Quote:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution"
Quote:
Even today, we don't require a law to make things legal - we never have and law doesn't work that way. Anything that is not illegal is legal.
Is that so? so even though there were no laws legitimizing slavery it was ok because in YOUR opinion, someone can be deprived of their liberty WITHOUT due process under the US constitution.

I reject your position, and so did many of the confederate leaders .

Quote:
Senator James M. Mason (D., Va.) had publicly admitted in 1850, that there were no states that had legally established slavery. All states had slavery bans written into their constitutions via Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights style clauses.

Quote:
At the time, half or more of America would have said that slavery was up to the states and that the constitution required each state to recognize property rights established in another. In fact, nearly everyone would agree today, if the issue was not slavery. That's how your car is still your car if somebody steals it and takes it to New Jersey.
And here was the BIG problem for slave owners, Article 4, section2 clause three states,

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

lacking any laws legitimizing slavery they could not establish that the "fugitive slave" was "held to service" under the laws of their state. Northern states blocked them by requiring jury trials to establish the legitimacy of the southern slave owners claims to their "Property". They lost because the southern slave owners could not establish that the fugitive "slave" was held to service under the laws of their state.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 12:55   #224
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,152
A lot of southern apologist promote the myth that the South wanted to secede peacefully. the Historical record shows otherwise.

Lincoln was not elected on a platform of abolishing slavery where it already existed. He made it clear he would not interfere with Slavery where it was already established. He vowed however that he would fight to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories and new States.

This was what the South would not tolerate and why they seceded even before he took office. The Confederate states were not interested in the protection of slavery where it already existed they demanded that it be allowed to expand into new territories and new states.

Quote:
"a congressional slave code [for territories, to] provide ironclad protection for our [slave] property in whatever new slave territory we annex—Cuba, Mexico, or Central America. If the North rejects our demand [to expand slavery], I would regard it as grounds for disunion."—Allan Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, vol. 1, p 416.
When the rebel States began seceding the sitting president Buchanan. told them that Federal Forts would remain Federal forts. The rebel states seized them anyway. ( with the exception of a few like Fort Sumter.) Buchanan took no action, and neither did Lincoln once he was inaugurated. Lincoln sought to resupply Fort Sumter and even notified the Governor of the state that he was sending unarmed union supply ships to resupply the Fort. Confederate fired on the unarmed supply ships and drove them off.

The seizure of Union Forts and firing on Fort Sumter are nothing less than acts of war.

The Confederate states understood there was going to be no peaceful co existence with the US, they clearly stated their intent to take territories and establish new confederate states. War was inevitable.

Lincoln Proposed a constitutional amendment protecting slavery where it already existed, The south was not interested, they demanded they be allowed to expand slavery.

In 1862 Lincoln put forth 3 proposed constitutional amendments.


Quote:
1. Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900.
2. Frees slaves who "enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of war" before "the end of the rebellion."
3. Congress authorized to provide for colonization outside of the United States of free blacks by their own consent.
Again the South was not interested.


The South was happy to be part of the Union as long as the 3/5ths compromise allowed them to dominate the Govt. When the South dominated they were the best friends of centralized Federal power, ramming legislation through infringing on the rights of other states. And blocking Northern legislation they did not like.

Once massive immigration into the North began and new states were formed and the south saw it's dominance slipping away they became dissatisfied and talk of secession began. And that is why they were not at all receptive to any of Lincolns overtures to peacefully rejoin the Union.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 16:05   #225
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
That's your "intelligent response?" "If you don't agreee with me, you are stupid and tyour opinion has no merit?" Obviously, there was a time when slavery was not considered evil, and any intelligent, educated person is aware of that. The fact that the opinion doesn't agree with fairly recent modern morality, even though it was fine for about 99.XXX% of human history, does not translate into, "you are too stupid to make an argument." If anything, I'd say one can't have an intelligent discussion with a person who has no more historical perspective, in a historical discussion, than you have demonstrated.
I never said his argument was stupid and had no merit, but if he, or anyone else, is so morally bankrupt that they believe slavery is not inherently evil than I don't see how I can intelligently idscuss the issue with him. As far as a time when slavery was not considered evil, I think you will find many our Founding Fathers uncomfortable, at best, and downright hostile, at worst, to the institution. Of course, I, as one who has no historical perspective, obviously cannot make that statement, despite having read extensively on the subject. If you, Gray Rider, or anyone else is so mired in the myth of the movie Gone With The Wind, revel in it. The events leading to the war were set in motion by a few rich Southern plantation owners, and the rest of the population was duped into going along with them. Had the South not seceded, the institution of slavery would have been untouched, but it would not have been allowed to expand. And there lay the problem. Without the expansion of the Slave States, and with it the guarantee of remaining in power of the planataion owners, their way of life was at risk, and they did not care what they did to tear apart this country, even if it meant the death of hundreds of thousands and the ruination of their way of life. But then again, as one with no historical perspective, I guess it is a foregone conclusion that I cannot make that statement, either.

Let me ask you this, as I have asked Gray Rider. As the mantra of Southern Revisionists is that the Civil War was fought over State's Rights, can you give me one example of a right that a resident of Mississippi had that a resident of Maine did not? Can you give me a right that a resident of Connecticut had that a resident of Alabama did not have? Gray Rider seems only able to skirt around the subject and give plattitudes to the Old South and condemn the evil Federal government.
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
slavery caused civil war
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:14.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,388
420 Members
968 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42