Civil War Facts

[natstew]

and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.

what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.

which has no bearing on how American life is today.

Oh, but it most certainly does have something to do with how American life is today!

There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.

The textile mills in the North were owned by filthy rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years old to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.

Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.

Oh, Fort Sumter? It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.

It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. today. AND THAT IS WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY!!

90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.

Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.

I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".

 

[racewright]

FYIAmerica's first slave owner was a black man.



Actual drawing of Anthony Johnson, the first slave owner in the colonies.

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.

However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

Sources:
John Casor
Anthony Johnson

 

[Tradewinds81186]

and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.

what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.

which has no bearing on how American life is today.

Oh, but it most certainly does have something to do with how American life is today!

There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.

The textile mills in the North were owned by filthy rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years old to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.

Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.

Oh, Fort Sumter? It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.

It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. today. AND THAT IS WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY!!

90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.

Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.

I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".

lol agreed

 

[rightwinger]

If this is true

Why does the Northeast continue to contribute more in taxes than they receive if Federal Spending while the south continues to be a drain on the rest of the country?

 

[rightwinger]

Here's a fact for you:

The South started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.

and here's a fact for you.

The south would beat the fuck out of ya today, because the south is in so much better condition.

More Industry, More Schools. Better Schools, More People, a Growing Economy, and better infrastructure, and the Most Americans in the Military.

so how about you fuck off.

They lost then and would lose now

Our military is much stronger than it was in 1860. I would enjoy this generations Sherman marching through the South again

 

[BlindBoo]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.

The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.

Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.

Most weapons were muzzle loaders. No 30 round clips.

The draft was hated in both the North and the South.

General Lee lost the war for the South. All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power. But he had faith that the South was in the right. And the righteous always win in battle. That's why the North was able to win.

 

[Tradewinds81186]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.

The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.

Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.

Most weapons were muzzle loaders. No 30 round clips.

The draft was hated in both the North and the South.

General Lee lost the war for the South. All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power. But he had faith that the South was in the right. And the righteous always win in battle. That's why the North was able to win.

and I have the right to a 30 round clip

 

[rightwinger]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.

The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.

Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.

Most weapons were muzzle loaders. No 30 round clips.

The draft was hated in both the North and the South.

General Lee lost the war for the South. All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power. But he had faith that the South was in the right. And the righteous always win in battle. That's why the North was able to win.

and I have the right to a 30 round clip

No you don't...there are no 30 round clips

 

[bripat9643]

and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.

what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.

which has no bearing on how American life is today.

Actually it has a great deal to do with how American life is today. The utter devastation General Grant and General Sherman inflicted on the Confederate states left a legacy of poverty and bitterness that persists to this very day. Segregation and Jim Crow were results of the Civil War and the oppressive "reconstruction" period that followed.

The immense growth of the federal government is a direct result of the Civil War, which pretty much abolished the concept of state's rights and created an imperial federal government.

There are other effects too numerous to list here.

 

[bripat9643]

Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.

The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.

Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.

Most weapons were muzzle loaders. No 30 round clips.

The draft was hated in both the North and the South.

General Lee lost the war for the South. All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power. But he had faith that the South was in the right. And the righteous always win in battle. That's why the North was able to win.

and I have the right to a 30 round clip

No you don't...there are no 30 round clips

Sure there are. You can make them with a 3D printer.

 

[BlindBoo]

and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.

what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.

which has no bearing on how American life is today.

There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.

The textile mills in the North were owned by filth rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years ole to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.

Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.

Oh, Fort Sumter? It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.

It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. now.
90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.

Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.

I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".

Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:

“The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Who Owned Fort Sumter? | Student of the American Civil War

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a fact for you:

The South started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.

and here's a fact for you.

The south would beat the fuck out of ya today, because the south is in so much better condition.

More Industry, More Schools. Better Schools, More People, a Growing Economy, and better infrastructure, and the Most Americans in the Military.

so how about you fuck off.

They lost then and would lose now

Our military is much stronger than it was in 1860. I would enjoy this generations Sherman marching through the South again

That just goes to show what a bootlicking fascist you are.

I'm always amazed when liberals admit they would enjoy killing their fellow Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

If this is true

Why does the Northeast continue to contribute more in taxes than they receive if Federal Spending while the south continues to be a drain on the rest of the country?

There's a simple solution to your whining: abolish all those welfare programs you despise so much.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[WinterBorn]

What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.

You lost, get over it already.

and the south wouldn't lose today, so go fuck yourself, ghetto trash retard

Once again, the south wouldn't try to secede today.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Civil War Myths

A soldier shot another soldier in the testes, the ball ammo continued on with some of his genetic material shall we say, and into a woman impregnating her. This claim was perpetuated until 1959 but was a complete fiction.

 

[WinterBorn]

Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.

The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.

Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.

Most weapons were muzzle loaders. No 30 round clips.

The draft was hated in both the North and the South.

General Lee lost the war for the South. All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power. But he had faith that the South was in the right. And the righteous always win in battle. That's why the North was able to win.

and I have the right to a 30 round clip

No you don't...there are no 30 round clips

Wouldn't it be nice if those who claimed to be gun buffs knew the difference between a clip and a magazine?

 

[bripat9643]

what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.

which has no bearing on how American life is today.

There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.

The textile mills in the North were owned by filth rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years ole to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.

Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.

Oh, Fort Sumter? It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.

It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. now.
90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.

Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.

I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".

Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:

“The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Who Owned Fort Sumter? | Student of the American Civil War

The issue isn't who owned it. The issue is whose territory it was. Maps of the United States made before the war show that Fort Sumter lay within the borders of South Carolina. The United States government owns property in virtually every country of the world. That doesn't give us the right to station troops there despite the wishes of the governments where they are located. Doing so would be an act of war, by anyone's standards.

The issue of ownership is a typical Lincoln cult red herring. Fort Sumter was within the borders of South Carolina, and even your own source demonstrates that "That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law" In other words, the state for South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the property. The State of South Carolina issued a legal order for federal troops to vacate the property. The federal government agreed to this authority. The federal government violated this agreement and thereby committed an act of war.

Case closed.

 

[rightwinger]

If this is true

Why does the Northeast continue to contribute more in taxes than they receive if Federal Spending while the south continues to be a drain on the rest of the country?

There's a simple solution to your whining: abolish all those welfare programs you despise so much.

How will people in the south afford their Lone Star and Moon Pies?

 

[rightwinger]

There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.

The textile mills in the North were owned by filth rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years ole to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.

Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.

Oh, Fort Sumter? It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.

It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. now.
90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.

Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.

I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".

Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:

“The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Who Owned Fort Sumter? | Student of the American Civil War

The issue isn't who owned it. The issue is whose territory it was. Maps of the United States made before the war show that Fort Sumter lay within the borders of South Carolina. The United States government owns property in virtually every country of the world. That doesn't give us the right to station troops there despite the wishes of the governments where they are located. Doing so would be an act of war, by anyone's standards.
The issue of ownership is a typical Lincoln cult red herring. Fort Sumter was within the borders of South Carolina, and even your own source demonstrates that "That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same." In other words, the state for South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the property. The State of South Carolina issued a legal order for federal troops to vacate the property. The federal government agreed to this authority. The federal government violated this agreement and thereby committed an act of war.

Case closed.

Does Cuba know this?