Confederacy not as bad?

[GHook93]

I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.

Tell me your opinion.

Yea I agree, I got a ride home from a black cab driver and I had to pay the asshole. He should have been doing it for free and if he did a bad job then I should have had the right to wipe him! Then when I got home he should have painted my house!

Yep I heard all the arguments that the Northern factories were like white slavery, but they still paid them and gave them the freedom to leave! State rights, are you fucking kidding me? A weak excuse at best. The 10th amendment in theory comes into play if there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it. Yet the original due process clause of the 5th amendment, the state can't deny life, liberty or property without due process of the law. I think liberty is a more than justification to deny a State the right to slavery!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.

Tell me your opinion.

Yea I agree, I got a ride home from a black cab driver and I had to pay the asshole. He should have been doing it for free and if he did a bad job then I should have had the right to wipe him! Then when I got home he should have painted my house!

Yep I heard all the arguments that the Northern factories were like white slavery, but they still paid them and gave them the freedom to leave! State rights, are you fucking kidding me? A weak excuse at best. The 10th amendment in theory comes into play if there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it. Yet the original due process clause of the 5th amendment, the state can't deny life, liberty or property without due process of the law. I think liberty is a more than justification to deny a State the right to slavery!

What about the five slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War? Clearly it wasn't fought to end slavery since that would have meant that those five states would have had to fight the Union as well.

As has already been proven, the Civil War was fought to force the Confederate states back into the Union.

 

[007]

logically, you must prove the positive- that he said it- by providing a source. Otherwise, we must assume the negative, making you a liar

Other than your gas, you contribution is as tepid as two day old piss.

I found a quote of Lincoln on a website. If you think it's a lie, find a source that disputes it. The burden of proof that it's a lie is your's.

We all know what happens when "you" *ass*ume.

Now go find another thread to derail with your shit, or put up or shut up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

logically, you must prove the positive- that he said it- by providing a source. Otherwise, we must assume the negative, making you a liar

Other than your gas, you contribution is as tepid as two day old piss.

I found a quote of Lincoln on a website. If you think it's a lie, find a source that disputes it. The burden of proof that it's a lie is your's.

We all know what happens when "you" *ass*ume.

Now go find another thread to derail with your shit, or put up or shut up.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064690/ref=s9_sims_gw_s1_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1Y7AF55D7R3AMVZMQFYZ&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846]Amazon.com: They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions: Paul F. Boller Jr., John George: Books[/ame]

That book disputes the quote.

 

[007]

The north never told the south that they have to set all their slaves free, in fact the north was quite content with the slaves where they were. They didn't want all the freed slaves to move to the north. And the Lincoln quote you provided is actually a fake, Lincoln never said that.

Then what do you think the Emancipation Proclamation was? The north wanted the slaves free. They made no qualms about it. Whether they insisted the south free all their slaves or not was irrelevant. The south wasn't going to have any of it, so there was war.

And yes, Lincoln did say that. If you think otherwise, prove it.

A couple more Jefferson quotes...

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-Thomas Jefferson

Well I can't technically prove that he didn't say it because I can't point to something and say, "There it isn't!" You can simply say I'm wrong, take my word for it, or try to prove me wrong by finding where exactly he said it.

As to the Emancipation Proclamation, that came well after the south had already seceded. Your previous post said that the north said that the south had to free their slaves so the south seceded, which is incorrect.

I found a website that had that, and many others, attributed to Lincoln. If you can prove Lincoln didn't say that, that's fine. Do it. We'll all wait. But to claim he didn't say it and without a stitch of proof makes one wonder WHY you make that claim. If you know it for fact, then you should be able to prove it.

Yes, the E.P. came after the south had succeeded. But what it made clear was how the north felt, and it did NOT speak for the south, which felt much different. Had they been in agreement on that, there wouldn't have ever been a war. The north had been trying to tell the south how to run their states and they didn't like it. The north had been hinting that they were going to do away with slavery for years, so when the north said that slaves would soon be set free, the south said go pound sand, we're going to fight this one out.

 

[007]

logically, you must prove the positive- that he said it- by providing a source. Otherwise, we must assume the negative, making you a liar

Other than your gas, you contribution is as tepid as two day old piss.

I found a quote of Lincoln on a website. If you think it's a lie, find a source that disputes it. The burden of proof that it's a lie is your's.

We all know what happens when "you" *ass*ume.

Now go find another thread to derail with your shit, or put up or shut up.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064690/ref=s9_sims_gw_s1_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1Y7AF55D7R3AMVZMQFYZ&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846]Amazon.com: They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions: Paul F. Boller Jr., John George: Books[/ame]

That book disputes the quote.

OK, well, I don't have the book, and I can't see where it disputes it. So, we're right back to square one. Show me. I want to know the truth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I provided the book, but I'm not going to assume that you've got it sitting on your bookshelf. At any rate, it's not that big of a deal, just thought you should know.

The north never said that, though. They never felt that way either. They were very content with the slaves remaining in the south because they didn't want the mass exodus of a bunch of newly freed slaves to the north.

 

[007]

Well I provided the book, but I'm not going to assume that you've got it sitting on your bookshelf. At any rate, it's not that big of a deal, just thought you should know.

The north never said that, though. They never felt that way either. They were very content with the slaves remaining in the south because they didn't want the mass exodus of a bunch of newly freed slaves to the north.

Is that why then the Emancipation Proclamation came? That doesn't sound like they wanted slavery to continue....

 

[007]

Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
By Fredric Smoler


Was it just about slavery? A historian provides an answer.

A great many Americans still debate the origins of the Civil War in the same terms as a century or more ago. People say the war was not “about” slavery; it was about economics, or “states’ rights,” or elemental Southern nationalism. Those who insist that the war wasn’t about slavery tend to do so with the conviction that they are talking to naive and moralistic innocents. The historian Chandra Manning, who has met a lot of these people, has just published What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 350 pages, $26.95), and in it she investigates what the men who actually fought the war believed they were about.

She has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. She is perfectly aware that soldiers do not all think the same thing; she knows that their views alter over time (she traces that evolution with great care and subtlety); and as a rule she does not count something as a representative view unless the soldiers who held it outnumbered dissenters by at least three to one.

Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1864 the black men of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery reminded one another that “upon your prowess, discipline, and character; depend the destinies of four millions of people.” It may be more surprising to find a white Union soldier writing in 1862 that “the fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun.” That same year a soldier on the other side, in Morgan’s Confederate Brigade, wrote that “any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.” Manning can and does multiply these examples, and she finds that they vastly outweigh the evidence for any other dominant motive among the combatants.

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I provided the book, but I'm not going to assume that you've got it sitting on your bookshelf. At any rate, it's not that big of a deal, just thought you should know.

The north never said that, though. They never felt that way either. They were very content with the slaves remaining in the south because they didn't want the mass exodus of a bunch of newly freed slaves to the north.

Is that why then the Emancipation Proclamation came? That doesn't sound like they wanted slavery to continue....

Well, for one, it wasn't the entire north that gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was one man. As to why he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was because he wanted to hurt the south and hoped that southern slaves might rise up against the slave-owners. Let's also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
By Fredric Smoler


Was it just about slavery? A historian provides an answer.

A great many Americans still debate the origins of the Civil War in the same terms as a century or more ago. People say the war was not “about” slavery; it was about economics, or “states’ rights,” or elemental Southern nationalism. Those who insist that the war wasn’t about slavery tend to do so with the conviction that they are talking to naive and moralistic innocents. The historian Chandra Manning, who has met a lot of these people, has just published What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 350 pages, $26.95), and in it she investigates what the men who actually fought the war believed they were about.

She has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. She is perfectly aware that soldiers do not all think the same thing; she knows that their views alter over time (she traces that evolution with great care and subtlety); and as a rule she does not count something as a representative view unless the soldiers who held it outnumbered dissenters by at least three to one.

Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1864 the black men of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery reminded one another that “upon your prowess, discipline, and character; depend the destinies of four millions of people.” It may be more surprising to find a white Union soldier writing in 1862 that “the fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun.” That same year a soldier on the other side, in Morgan’s Confederate Brigade, wrote that “any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.” Manning can and does multiply these examples, and she finds that they vastly outweigh the evidence for any other dominant motive among the combatants.

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

The problem with the premise of the book is that she concludes that what the common foot soldier thought the war was about was actually what it was fought over. What soldiers think about why a war is fought usually has very little to do with the reasons their political masters had for fighting it.

The only war in US History where the opinion of soldiers was at any congruence with what their political masters thought was WWII, and even that was rough and only really applied to the Pacific theator, as Roosevelt's primary reason for wanting to get into the war before Pearl Harbor was NOT to fight Hitler but counter Stalin overrunning all of Europe with Communism, as he knew Hitler couldn't win but didn't want to idly sit by and watch Stalin become the master of Europe, but most soldiers thought they were fighting fascism and Hitler....

 

[007]

Well I provided the book, but I'm not going to assume that you've got it sitting on your bookshelf. At any rate, it's not that big of a deal, just thought you should know.

The north never said that, though. They never felt that way either. They were very content with the slaves remaining in the south because they didn't want the mass exodus of a bunch of newly freed slaves to the north.

Is that why then the Emancipation Proclamation came? That doesn't sound like they wanted slavery to continue....

Well, for one, it wasn't the entire north that gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was one man. As to why he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was because he wanted to hurt the south and hoped that southern slaves might rise up against the slave-owners. Let's also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

Yeah well, it was more than one man KK. It was the entire north. Lincoln might have penned it, but the north stood behind it. Let's not forget the Underground Railroad.
I've never heard that story about the north hoping the slaves would rise up against the slave owners in the south, although it is an interesting thought. I've read plenty about the battles of the Civil War, but little about the politics of it. Maybe I'll brush up. It is a subject I enjoy.

 

[007]

Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
By Fredric Smoler


Was it just about slavery? A historian provides an answer.

A great many Americans still debate the origins of the Civil War in the same terms as a century or more ago. People say the war was not “about” slavery; it was about economics, or “states’ rights,” or elemental Southern nationalism. Those who insist that the war wasn’t about slavery tend to do so with the conviction that they are talking to naive and moralistic innocents. The historian Chandra Manning, who has met a lot of these people, has just published What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 350 pages, $26.95), and in it she investigates what the men who actually fought the war believed they were about.

She has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. She is perfectly aware that soldiers do not all think the same thing; she knows that their views alter over time (she traces that evolution with great care and subtlety); and as a rule she does not count something as a representative view unless the soldiers who held it outnumbered dissenters by at least three to one.

Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1864 the black men of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery reminded one another that “upon your prowess, discipline, and character; depend the destinies of four millions of people.” It may be more surprising to find a white Union soldier writing in 1862 that “the fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun.” That same year a soldier on the other side, in Morgan’s Confederate Brigade, wrote that “any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.” Manning can and does multiply these examples, and she finds that they vastly outweigh the evidence for any other dominant motive among the combatants.

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

The problem with the premise of the book is that she concludes that what the common foot soldier thought the war was about was actually what it was fought over. What soldiers think about why a war is fought usually has very little to do with the reasons their political masters had for fighting it.

Well, no, it's more than that...

She freely concedes that there are paradoxes in Northern attitudes. Many Northerners initially combined a detestation of slavery with unpleasant views of their black countrymen. She suggests that a focus on the latter attitude has obscured awareness of the intensity and breadth of the former one, and she points out that closer acquaintance with slavery, a result of waging war on Confederate soil, only intensified soldiers’ loathing of it. Encounters with the sexual and child exploitation that slavery made possible were especially likely to produce this reaction. She quotes many eloquent examples. Sgt. Cyrus Boyd, of the Fifth Iowa, after encountering a child about to be sold by her father and owner, vowed in his diary that “By G-d I’ll fight till hell freezes over and then I’ll cut the ice and fight on.” Manning’s evidence is that such feelings, which grew stronger as the war continued, were already pretty strong when it started.

As for the other side, her work continues in the interpretive tradition of the historian James McPherson: The defense of slavery was as much the main motive for Confederate combatants as its destruction was for Union men. This, too, is something of a paradox for those who like to cite the fact that only one in three Confederate families owned slaves, and who describe the Rebel effort as a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight. Manning believes that the hope of owning slaves was a real motive for men who didn’t already possess them, and she argues most forcefully, and with strong evidence, that the fear that four million freed slaves might seek revenge after two and a half centuries of torment was also a strong impetus for defending the institution. She also believes that guaranteed social superiority on the grounds of pigmentation motivated poor whites. In her view, shared beliefs about the value of slavery were what held the Confederacy together, rather than a class issue that could ever have wedged it apart.

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is that why then the Emancipation Proclamation came? That doesn't sound like they wanted slavery to continue....

Well, for one, it wasn't the entire north that gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was one man. As to why he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was because he wanted to hurt the south and hoped that southern slaves might rise up against the slave-owners. Let's also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

Yeah well, it was more than one man KK. It was the entire north. Lincoln might have penned it, but the north stood behind it. Let's not forget the Underground Railroad.
I've never heard that story about the north hoping the slaves would rise up against the slave owners in the south, although it is an interesting thought. I've read plenty about the battles of the Civil War, but little about the politics of it. Maybe I'll brush up. It is a subject I enjoy.

The north did not stand behind the Emancipation Proclamation, however. For one, the Underground Railroad and abolitionists in general were a minority even in the north.

"Plenty of soldiers believed that the proclamation had changed the purpose of the war. They professed to feel betrayed. They were willing to risk their lives for the Union, they said, but not for black freedom." - James McPherson, prominent Lincoln Cultist

Many Union soldiers deserted the army, and enlistment numbers plummeted after the Emancipation Proclamation. In July of 1863 there were riots in New York where white men began attacking any black people unlucky enough to cross their path, and burning buildings. They were protesting the conscription laws that only applied to white men, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here are a few quotes from northern soldiers.

"If emancipation is to be the policy of this war... I do not care how quickly the country goes to rot."

"If anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

"I don't want to fire another shot for the Negroes and I wish that all the abolitionists were in Hell... I do not fight or want to fight for Lincoln's Negro proclamation one day longer."

 

[Zoomie1980]

Well, for one, it wasn't the entire north that gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was one man. As to why he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was because he wanted to hurt the south and hoped that southern slaves might rise up against the slave-owners. Let's also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

Yeah well, it was more than one man KK. It was the entire north. Lincoln might have penned it, but the north stood behind it. Let's not forget the Underground Railroad.
I've never heard that story about the north hoping the slaves would rise up against the slave owners in the south, although it is an interesting thought. I've read plenty about the battles of the Civil War, but little about the politics of it. Maybe I'll brush up. It is a subject I enjoy.

The north did not stand behind the Emancipation Proclamation, however. For one, the Underground Railroad and abolitionists in general were a minority even in the north.

"Plenty of soldiers believed that the proclamation had changed the purpose of the war. They professed to feel betrayed. They were willing to risk their lives for the Union, they said, but not for black freedom." - James McPherson, prominent Lincoln Cultist

Many Union soldiers deserted the army, and enlistment numbers plummeted after the Emancipation Proclamation. In July of 1863 there were riots in New York where white men began attacking any black people unlucky enough to cross their path, and burning buildings. They were protesting the conscription laws that only applied to white men, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here are a few quotes from northern soldiers.

"If emancipation is to be the policy of this war... I do not care how quickly the country goes to rot."

"If anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

"I don't want to fire another shot for the Negroes and I wish that all the abolitionists were in Hell... I do not fight or want to fight for Lincoln's Negro proclamation one day longer."

Both North and South detested the Negro, just manifested itself differently. In John Jakes novel the North and South, he eloquently stated this in the book. "In the south it didn't matter how close a black man got so long as he didn't get to high. In the north it didn't matter how high a black man rose, so long as he didn't get too close".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah well, it was more than one man KK. It was the entire north. Lincoln might have penned it, but the north stood behind it. Let's not forget the Underground Railroad.
I've never heard that story about the north hoping the slaves would rise up against the slave owners in the south, although it is an interesting thought. I've read plenty about the battles of the Civil War, but little about the politics of it. Maybe I'll brush up. It is a subject I enjoy.

The north did not stand behind the Emancipation Proclamation, however. For one, the Underground Railroad and abolitionists in general were a minority even in the north.

"Plenty of soldiers believed that the proclamation had changed the purpose of the war. They professed to feel betrayed. They were willing to risk their lives for the Union, they said, but not for black freedom." - James McPherson, prominent Lincoln Cultist

Many Union soldiers deserted the army, and enlistment numbers plummeted after the Emancipation Proclamation. In July of 1863 there were riots in New York where white men began attacking any black people unlucky enough to cross their path, and burning buildings. They were protesting the conscription laws that only applied to white men, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here are a few quotes from northern soldiers.

"If emancipation is to be the policy of this war... I do not care how quickly the country goes to rot."

"If anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

"I don't want to fire another shot for the Negroes and I wish that all the abolitionists were in Hell... I do not fight or want to fight for Lincoln's Negro proclamation one day longer."

Both North and South detested the Negro, just manifested itself differently. In John Jakes novel the North and South, he eloquently stated this in the book. "In the south it didn't matter how close a black man got so long as he didn't get to high. In the north it didn't matter how high a black man rose, so long as he didn't get too close".

I'd certainly agree with that.

And just to add to it, in Democracy In America Alexis de Tocqueville remarked:

"The prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known."

 

[007]

Well, for one, it wasn't the entire north that gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was one man. As to why he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was because he wanted to hurt the south and hoped that southern slaves might rise up against the slave-owners. Let's also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

Yeah well, it was more than one man KK. It was the entire north. Lincoln might have penned it, but the north stood behind it. Let's not forget the Underground Railroad.
I've never heard that story about the north hoping the slaves would rise up against the slave owners in the south, although it is an interesting thought. I've read plenty about the battles of the Civil War, but little about the politics of it. Maybe I'll brush up. It is a subject I enjoy.

The north did not stand behind the Emancipation Proclamation, however. For one, the Underground Railroad and abolitionists in general were a minority even in the north.

"Plenty of soldiers believed that the proclamation had changed the purpose of the war. They professed to feel betrayed. They were willing to risk their lives for the Union, they said, but not for black freedom." - James McPherson, prominent Lincoln Cultist

Many Union soldiers deserted the army, and enlistment numbers plummeted after the Emancipation Proclamation. In July of 1863 there were riots in New York where white men began attacking any black people unlucky enough to cross their path, and burning buildings. They were protesting the conscription laws that only applied to white men, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here are a few quotes from northern soldiers.

"If emancipation is to be the policy of this war... I do not care how quickly the country goes to rot."

"If anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

"I don't want to fire another shot for the Negroes and I wish that all the abolitionists were in Hell... I do not fight or want to fight for Lincoln's Negro proclamation one day longer."

Interesting... but the north and south fought regardless, and whether or not the north wanted to fight for slaves, they did. Just as well as the south did, to keep them. Slavery was the main reason for the war.

Had the south won, I doubt little would be different today. Makes me wonder if another Civil War would really do us any good? Would another 150 years after a second Civil War really be any different than had there not been one?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah well, it was more than one man KK. It was the entire north. Lincoln might have penned it, but the north stood behind it. Let's not forget the Underground Railroad.
I've never heard that story about the north hoping the slaves would rise up against the slave owners in the south, although it is an interesting thought. I've read plenty about the battles of the Civil War, but little about the politics of it. Maybe I'll brush up. It is a subject I enjoy.

The north did not stand behind the Emancipation Proclamation, however. For one, the Underground Railroad and abolitionists in general were a minority even in the north.

"Plenty of soldiers believed that the proclamation had changed the purpose of the war. They professed to feel betrayed. They were willing to risk their lives for the Union, they said, but not for black freedom." - James McPherson, prominent Lincoln Cultist

Many Union soldiers deserted the army, and enlistment numbers plummeted after the Emancipation Proclamation. In July of 1863 there were riots in New York where white men began attacking any black people unlucky enough to cross their path, and burning buildings. They were protesting the conscription laws that only applied to white men, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here are a few quotes from northern soldiers.

"If emancipation is to be the policy of this war... I do not care how quickly the country goes to rot."

"If anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

"I don't want to fire another shot for the Negroes and I wish that all the abolitionists were in Hell... I do not fight or want to fight for Lincoln's Negro proclamation one day longer."

Interesting... but the north and south fought regardless, and whether or not the north wanted to fight for slaves, they did. Just as well as the south did, to keep them. Slavery was the main reason for the war.

Had the south won, I doubt little would be different today. Makes me wonder if another Civil War would really do us any good? Would another 150 years after a second Civil War really be any different than had there not been one?

Well I'm glad you seem to be receptive to the fact that the north didn't fight over slavery, whether or not you 100% agree with it or not. However, let me also point out that there were 5 slave states that remained in the Union, and I doubt very seriously that they fought to end slavery.

As to whether the south had won, it's hard to say what might be different. Would they have remained their own nation or would they have found that separation wasn't in their best interests? I'm not sure why we'd have a Civil War today, so I'm not sure why you're pondering the idea.

 

[JBeukema]

OK, well, I don't have the book, and I can't see where it disputes it. So, we're right back to square one. Show me. I want to know the truth.

You still have yet to provide a source for your quote. You (A) don't know what the burden of proof is, (B) Assume it's true because you want it to be, and therefore have no claim to reason, or (C) Are a liar and know it's a false attribution

 

[Evangelical]

I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.

Tell me your opinion.

As a Southerner and a student of politics, and history, and geology; I know without a doubt in 1860 I would have fought for the South.

But, in fairness, I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the institution of slavery had corrupted the Southern political landscape, free speech was unheard of. Anything against slavery would put you in jail in any southern state. People who were not pro-slavery were ostracized by a very rigid society that had three classes, slaves and freed blacks, middle class free whites, slaveholders black or white (there were both).

In this class system, in a highly individualistic society, it was fend for yourself, and the lion's share of political power was concentrated in the slaveholder class.

The North aptly called it the "SLAVE POWER CONSPIRACY".

So, in short, under the guise of states' rights, an oligarchic tyranny ruled the land.

But, the ideal exists, and the Southern spirit lives and breaths in most Americans, that states' rights is the proper check to federal tyranny, that individuals matter more than groups or the nation.

If we could fight a civil war to re-establish those ideals, we should.