What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Civil War

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,849
Reaction score
12,760
Points
2,180
...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.

The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail. Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.

lol nonsense.

Common knowledge for anyone who has actually studied History.

So you [sic] saying you never studied History. we already knew that so no need to confess now.. [sic]

Now we know you've never studied History or English.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,501
Reaction score
22,525
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.

BULLSHIT.

black-migrations-01.png
More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.

By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.

Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up. What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'. Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations? Tooth fairy?

FUCK outta here.

You're just too stupid to win any points, so get out yoruslef before you embarrass yourself even more with your idiot rubbish and inability to even look up basic stuff, dumbass. Go smoke some more meth and console yourself.

Go fuck yourself. I obliterated your senseless ass-ertion for the senseless idiocy it is, with facts. Don't post senseless shit and you won't get it obliterated. Ain't rocket surgery.

So you've moved from meth to psychedelics. lol you've never 'obliterated' so much as a mosquito your entire life, gimp.

THE FUCKING CHART IS SITTING RIGHT ON YOUR SCREEN THERE DILDOBRAIN. Complete with a fucking LINK. I can't help you if you just don't have the stones to grapple with FUCKING REALITY.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
881
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
...Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than .....

According to their own declarations they sure as hell were.

Not all of them. Not even close. I mean it is comical for people today to attempt to justify the actions of the mob that attempted to stop the certification of the election results at the Capitol and then pontificate about the South, slavery, and the Civil War. The real reason many states seceded is because of the election of Lincoln. Hell, he wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states. He was a scoundrel, in the highest sense. Even his nomination was a fiasco plagued in grift and bribery. I mean Trump was an idiot, but at least he never locked up a SCOTUS judge because he ruled in a way he didn't like. Secession, regardless of the reason, was a right each of the states were entitled to. The Constitution was not some contract signed in perpetuity. Massachusetts threatened to secede damn near every year prior to the Civil War.

The truth is the North's victory in the Civil War did not preserve the Union. It destroyed it, as least as how it was founded. And the whole obsession about slavery is nothing more than a red herring to divert attention away from that reality. If you don't believe that, what other country eliminated slavery with a war? Slavery was destined to die out, it would have already died out if not for Eli Whitney. But even the cotton gin could not have preserved the institution of slavery once the industrial revolution started gaining steam.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,501
Reaction score
22,525
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
...Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than .....

According to their own declarations they sure as hell were.

Not all of them. Not even close. I mean it is comical for people today to attempt to justify the actions of the mob that attempted to stop the certification of the election results at the Capitol and then pontificate about the South, slavery, and the Civil War. The real reason many states seceded is because of the election of Lincoln. Hell, he wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states. He was a scoundrel, in the highest sense. Even his nomination was a fiasco plagued in grift and bribery. I mean Trump was an idiot, but at least he never locked up a SCOTUS judge because he ruled in a way he didn't like. Secession, regardless of the reason, was a right each of the states were entitled to. The Constitution was not some contract signed in perpetuity. Massachusetts threatened to secede damn near every year prior to the Civil War.

The truth is the North's victory in the Civil War did not preserve the Union. It destroyed it, as least as how it was founded. And the whole obsession about slavery is nothing more than a red herring to divert attention away from that reality. If you don't believe that, what other country eliminated slavery with a war? Slavery was destined to die out, it would have already died out if not for Eli Whitney. But even the cotton gin could not have preserved the institution of slavery once the industrial revolution started gaining steam.

Lincoln wasn't on the ballots in (what would become) the Confederacy because the Republican Party was all of six years old and had not organized in the South, calculating (correctly) that their support would be elsewhere. In those days you didn't get a ballot from the polling place, it was printed up by each political party. And the Republicans didn't do it in the South, hadn't done so in 1856 and didn't officially run a POTUS candidate there until Grant in 1868. Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in his birth state of Kentucky until 1864.

What other country eliminated Slavery with a war? That's easy. Haiti, the second independence revolution in America, 1804.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,849
Reaction score
12,760
Points
2,180
" For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "


" A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "

" The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "

" The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "


"

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our ruler."
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,849
Reaction score
12,760
Points
2,180
" they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "

" She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. "


" They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. "
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,849
Reaction score
12,760
Points
2,180
... Secession, regardless of the reason, was a right each of the states were entitled to. ....

" the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. "

 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,880
Reaction score
3,184
Points
280
Of all the preposterous and disingenuous arguments, trying to present the position of the "south" as innocent victim has absolutely got to be the ultimate absurdity. An economy and "culture" riding on the sweating, bleeding backs of a subjugated people is beneath contempt and worthy of no admiration. That workers in the north were little better off is no compensation. That capitalists function without human moral values is no justification. That politicians of all sides and flavors were (and are) corrupt cannot obscure the human disaster that the "south" exemplified. All those protesting the valor and standing of the self-proclaimed secessionists may fool themselves, but they fool no one else. When betrayal of their word and their nation is added, there remains nothing left on their side. No country defining itself as such could allow its being torn in half under any conditions, but certainly not for the purpose of demeaning human existence by foul, unholy strictures. The only apology the nation owes at all is that slavery was ever permitted.
 

gtopa1

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
26,284
Reaction score
8,248
Points
970
Location
Oz
The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.

No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.

Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.

Greg
The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
Since when was Sumter in South Carolina a Union fort...AFTER SC seceded??? And the massacre of Union Troops......NOT!!!

Greg
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,880
Reaction score
3,184
Points
280
Stop paying your local taxes and tell the city or county or whatever that you have seceded.
 

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,581
Reaction score
2,458
Points
420
Location
Virginia
Humm. . . . Well. . . . When the Civil War began, there were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy. During the war, the Union created a slave state from part of the state of Virginia (West Virginia). Shortly before the war ended, the Confederacy had started a program of emancipation for all slaves who would volunteer to serve in the Confederate army.

The Civil War was fought over the South's attempt to form an independent country, not over slavery.
 

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,581
Reaction score
2,458
Points
420
Location
Virginia
It is certainly true that if there had been no slavery there would have been no civil war, but that does not mean that the war was fought over slavery. Before the war began, Lincoln was entirely willing to guarantee slavery's existence in the states where it already existed--he simply did not want slavery to spread in the western territories.
 

Pellinore

Silver Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
366
Reaction score
99
Points
90
The Civil War was about slavery. It was only about states' rights inasmuch as it was about the states' rights to own slaves. Any other potential cause such as cultural differences, tariffs, nullification, resistance to tyranny, or Southern honor are supporting causes at best. There are mountains of contemporaneous evidence to support this fact. The US was about to outlaw slavery, and the Southern states seceded to protect their slavery.

A lot of people weren't crazy about the idea of a brutal, bloody war for a bunch of Black people a thousand miles away, so Lincoln—being an expert politician—justified the war to them (and maybe to himself as well) as fighting for the Union, not the slaves. There was never much doubt that the goal was to preserve the Union and then end slavery. The main purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation (essentially an EO) was to tell everyone—especially Southern Blacks—that the US was ending slavery. The President couldn't make laws so he couldn't end slavery; that was the job of Congress and the States, who did exactly that with the 13th Amendment as soon as the war was over.

The idea that the Civil War was not about slavery is a product of post-war spin by those attempting to depict the vanquished South as honorable defenders of their homeland rather than proponents of the barbaric and wholly rejected institution of chattel slavery. The idea has clung on until today for various reasons, but it isn't based on an honest examination of the events. The Civil War was about slavery.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top