# Lincoln!



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

Watching the movie now, its a hard one to watch. Wow.
And the man was so.... humble.....
I am definitely naming something Lincoln soon....


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Don't be disheartened by what follows. He was a man prepared by God to be the man of that moment. A great man in deed.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

And I'm all out of popcorn


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Maybe you should do a little more investigation on your own instead of allowing a Hollywood made up fairy tale to influence your opinion so dramatically. Remember, the victors write the history books any way they see fit. That does not mean that the history books tell the truth or the real story. You might have to dig a little to find the truth.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

And 100 years from now history books will be telling our grandchildren's children Obama was a great humble man who united this country. I have no respect for Lincoln.


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

I too have no respect for Lincoln. I second "Do some research." The North made him a martyr. Nearly a million young men killed and maimed, the South destroyed, the corrupt Federal government we have today was established, etc. That is his true legacy. No "Great man" at all in my book. You want a GREAT man from that era? Robert E Lee. A true humble, gentle man.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

He was a tyrant


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I am not going to get into the Lincoln debate--- it's one big area I disagree with Glenn Beck about. It irritates the holy heck out of me.

What I will comment on is my astonishment that anyone bases their interpretation of a real human on a Hollywood film.... wow.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

Apparently it depends on what side of the line you were on? Really?? My God so many men and boys were lost on both sides. Both sides were beat to hello and back, there were so many poor choices made by both sides, so many times it all could have been averted, so much lost. The only real positive outcome was the abolishment of slavery. I was not there, nor were you. I did not participate, neither did you. I have love in my heart for folks in the south, even though i know it is not wanted and actually would be held in contempt. 

None of this compares to what was done to the Original Inhabitants of North America. Genocide. Hello of a topic at this time of the year.....


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

doingitmyself said:


> Apparently it depends on what side of the line you were on? Really?? My God so many men and boys were lost on both sides. Both sides were beat to hello and back, there were so many poor choices made by both sides, so many times it all could have been averted, so much lost. The only real positive outcome was the abolishment of slavery. I was not there, nor were you. I did not participate, neither did you.* I have love in my heart for folks in the south, even though i know it is not wanted and actually would be held in contempt. *
> 
> None of this compares to what was done to the Original Inhabitants of North America. Genocide. Hello of a topic at this time of the year.....


See, that shows ignorance of the South and Southern people. But whatever.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

He did what had to be done to keep the united states as one.That makes him a great man to some and just the opposite to others.Jackson was a hero to many but to those of us with indian blood he was a trail of tears jack-ass.Opinions vary on these guys but Lincoln is on mount rushmore.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

doingitmyself said:


> Apparently it depends on what side of the line you were on? Really?? My God so many men and boys were lost on both sides. Both sides were beat to hello and back, there were so many poor choices made by both sides, so many times it all could have been averted, so much lost. The only real positive outcome was the abolishment of slavery. I was not there, nor were you. I did not participate, neither did you. I have love in my heart for folks in the south, even though i know it is not wanted and actually would be held in contempt.
> 
> None of this compares to what was done to the Original Inhabitants of North America. Genocide. Hello of a topic at this time of the year.....


 
I've been on both sides raised and schooled in upstate NY, lived awhile in southern Canada then a few years in Texas and finally settled in Alabama. Still no respect for him.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

dixiegal62 said:


> I've been on both sides raised and schooled in upstate NY, lived awhile in southern Canada then a few years in Texas and finally settled in Alabama. Still no respect for him.


My post did not take a side. i did not interject my Lincoln thoughts nor will I. I have been asked not to pray or have love for Southern folks, by a southern man, he said and i quote him, " us Southern folk don't need, want or acknowledge your damm yankee prayer BS", keep your prayers to your own kind"!!!!!! That post was supported by at least 18 smiles, this did not happen here on ST but none the less it was clear the southern folks didn't want a "damm yankees" prayers. I don't understand.

I have never heard such hatred, and he didn't even know me, i would fight for his life and his families life if asked. 

I honestly don't think anyone believes slavery should still exist.

The part of my post that was highlighted, how does that show ignorance. I literally work with people from all over the world i honestly do. I hold no malice towards anyone. I would like to understand your hostility towards me, i hold none towards you. Help me to understand.

I meant to quote two post up not the one i did, sorry.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I am in the "do some research before singing praises to dishonest Abe" camp. The man was traitor who openly and blatantly abused the powers of the office.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

History is rewritten every day by people who know nothing of which they know nothing about. Even what happened yesterday.....James


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

doingitmyself said:


> My post did not take a side. i did not interject my Lincoln thoughts nor will I. I have been asked not to pray or have love for Southern folks, by a southern man, he said and i quote him, " us Southern folk don't need, want or acknowledge your damm yankee prayer BS", keep your prayers to your own kind"!!!!!! That post was supported by at least 18 smiles, this did not happen here on ST but none the less it was clear the southern folks didn't want a "damm yankees" prayers. I don't understand.
> 
> I have never heard such hatred, and he didn't even know me, i would fight for his life and his families life if asked.
> 
> ...


No doubt there are some southerners that don't like ' Yankees' or want any part of them. I would say my husband is on that camp except he married one  he doesn't have much use for others. 

His main gripe is from his work. Working in construction he has dealt with many from up north that come here and assume all southerners are stupid. A lot of them ( not all ) belittle these southern men telling them they are doing things wrong, change things, can't read plans right. They mess up the jobs causing all the contractors to be behind and then turn around and blame the good ol boys for being to stupid to do the work many of them have been doing for decades. So I can't say as I blame them for feeling that way. I guess it's a two way street. All you have to do is read in a few forums or watch the news to see how a lot of northerners perceive southerners ex; hick, inbred, bigot, racist, dirty, stupid, the list of insults go on and on, a prime example today is the Phil Robertson drama.


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

Doingitmyself. You can't understand unless you are a southerner or have really studied the late years of the war/reconstruction. It certainly isn't taught in schools and the run of the mill public have no idea. 
The "Yankees" destroyed the southern way of life. Total, utter destruction. No one was immune. Livestock, farms (large and small), economy, all destroyed. Many came home after the war to Nothing. Men hitched themselves to plows to try and put in a crop, they had to swear loyalty oaths to get a little flour or rice, etc. Women and children were terrorized by union soldiers. Theft, wanton destruction, rape and more. Horses and mules were stolen and there were fields where the "wore out" animals were shot and left to rot. I could go on, but it sickens me to think what the union armies did with the approval of their generals and Lincoln to fellow Americans. Truly the War was horrible!
The devastation lasted for years and years. Many southerners grew up listening to stories about this time, this "Yankee barbarism". The scars run deep and they have a right to dislike anything they see as Northern. Anything Lincoln.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

doingitmyself said:


> Apparently it depends on what side of the line you were on? Really?? My God so many men and boys were lost on both sides. Both sides were beat to hello and back, there were so many poor choices made by both sides, so many times it all could have been averted, so much lost. The only real positive outcome was the abolishment of slavery. I was not there, nor were you. I did not participate, neither did you. I have love in my heart for folks in the south, even though i know it is not wanted and actually would be held in contempt.
> 
> None of this compares to what was done to the Original Inhabitants of North America. Genocide. Hello of a topic at this time of the year.....


Are you talking about how mean and cruel the native Americans were and how they slaughtered their neighbors and white folks as often as possible?


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

I have always lived in 'northern' states but if I had been alive in 1860 I would have moved to the South and fought with the Confederate army... hands down.

Lincoln was as good a man as there are, but he was woefully misguided and certainly went against the spirit of what the Fathers intended.

Those who still believe that this war had 'slavery' as a primary (or even close secondary) factor have done zero research on their own. It's a handy tale we tell 3rd graders because they will believe it and we don't want to explain what really went on. We are really a nation of lazy historians.

Now, could this nation - split in two - have defended the entire earth from fascism 75 years later? Things happen for a reason I guess.

R


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> Are you talking about how mean and cruel the native Americans were and how they slaughtered their neighbors and white folks as often as possible?


No... i was speaking of the genocide of the Native Americans.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

WV Farm girl said:


> Doingitmyself. You can't understand unless you are a southerner or have really studied the late years of the war/reconstruction. It certainly isn't taught in schools and the run of the mill public have no idea.
> The "Yankees" destroyed the southern way of life. Total, utter destruction. No one was immune. Livestock, farms (large and small), economy, all destroyed. Many came home after the war to Nothing. Men hitched themselves to plows to try and put in a crop, they had to swear loyalty oaths to get a little flour or rice, etc. Women and children were terrorized by union soldiers. Theft, wanton destruction, rape and more. Horses and mules were stolen and there were fields where the "wore out" animals were shot and left to rot. I could go on, but it sickens me to think what the union armies did with the approval of their generals and Lincoln to fellow Americans. Truly the War was horrible!
> The devastation lasted for years and years. Many southerners grew up listening to stories about this time, this "Yankee barbarism". The scars run deep and they have a right to dislike anything they see as Northern. Anything Lincoln.



The northern dislike I see is because of the condescending, ignorant and rude nature of people not from the South towards Southerners. I grew up in the west but have moved to the South and have never known such good people before.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

I clicked the like button because we have opened a dialogue that may lead to understanding, or some clarification.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

doingitmyself said:


> No... i was speaking of the genocide of the Native Americans.


I've heard about many atrocities foisted upon native Americans by white settlers and the military, but as a fan of history of the exploration of our country, history shows a few instances where Indians were slaughtered. But that pales in comparison to what the Indians did to their neighboring tribes! Who do you think showed the white man how to scalp, torture, and eviscerate their enemies?


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> I am not going to get into the Lincoln debate--- it's one big area I disagree with Glenn Beck about. It irritates the holy heck out of me.
> 
> What I will comment on is my astonishment that anyone bases their interpretation of a real human on a Hollywood film.... wow.


What's a Glenn Beck?


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

I took the time out of my limited days on this earth to learn about you. Do you understand that? I did not get paid to learn about you. I would have rather been fishing and hunting but i allotted time to learn the history about yours, mine, and ours. 

I am not a "Dang* Yankee". I was not around then, perhaps i could have made a difference then, I don't know. I am however trying to make a difference now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wwubben said:


> He did what had to be done to keep the united states as one.That makes him a great man to some and just the opposite to others.Jackson was a hero to many but to those of us with indian blood he was a trail of tears jack-ass.Opinions vary on these guys but Lincoln is on mount rushmore.


Observing the constitution and upholding it would have accomplished the same goal without the first shot ever being fired in anger. Of course that would not have profited northern interests quite as well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doingitmyself said:


> I took the time out of my limited days on this earth to learn about you. Do you understand that? I did not get paid to learn about you. I would have rather been fishing and hunting but i allotted time to learn the history about yours, mine, and ours.
> 
> I am not a "Dang Yankee". I was not around then, perhaps i could have made a difference then, I don't know. I am however trying to make a difference now.


I am glad you took your time and educated yourself. The more people who do so will mean eventually Lincoln will be known for the scoundrel he was instead of some sort of hero.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> I've heard about many atrocities foisted upon native Americans by white settlers and the military, but as a fan of history of the exploration of our country, history shows a few instances where Indians were slaughtered. But that pales in comparison to what the Indians did to their neighboring tribes! Who do you think showed the white man how to scalp, torture, and eviscerate their enemies?


....."as a fan of the history of the exploration of our country"? It didn't need to be explored, it was already settled. It was not explored it was trespassed upon and exploited. It belonged to someone before the rest of the world even knew it existed! The dumb grits Spanish thought they sailed around the world!!! Even the word Indian is erroneous in its original use. Go back further in history and you will see what i mean if your open to it.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am glad you took your time and educated yourself. The more people who do so will mean eventually Lincoln will be known for the scoundrel he was instead of some sort of hero.


Your last sentence should have been a separate post. I don't appreciate your assumptions correct or not.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

doingitmyself said:


> ....."as a fan of the history of the exploration of our country"? It didn't need to be explored, it was already settled. It was not explored it was trespassed upon and exploited. It belonged to someone before the rest of the world even knew it existed! The dumb grits Spanish thought they sailed around the world!!! Even the word Indian is erroneous in its original use. Go back further in history and you will see what i mean if your open to it.


I completely understand the history of our country! I use Indian because I'm on a phone and its easier to type than native American. And native American is wrong too! Are you saying that the N'S didn't slaughter their competitors?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

doingitmyself said:


> Your last sentence should have been a separate post. I don't appreciate your assumptions correct or not.


Lincoln was certainly no hero!


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> I completely understand the history of our country! I use Indian because I'm on a phone and its easier to type than native American. And native American is wrong too! Are you saying that the N'S didn't slaughter their competitors?


Most people don't understand if you weren't of the tribe you weren't any thing.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

doingitmyself said:


> I took the time out of my limited days on this earth to learn about you. Do you understand that? I did not get paid to learn about you. I would have rather been fishing and hunting but i allotted time to learn the history about yours, mine, and ours.
> 
> I am not a "Dang Yankee". I was not around then, perhaps i could have made a difference then, I don't know. I am however trying to make a difference now.


 
A dang yankee is one that moves to the south and stays, I'm a dang yankee  but I have a southern heart


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> I've heard about many atrocities foisted upon native Americans by white settlers and the military, but as a fan of history of the exploration of our country, history shows a few instances where Indians were slaughtered. But that pales in comparison to what the Indians did to their neighboring tribes! Who do you think showed the white man how to scalp, torture, and eviscerate their enemies?


From my limited reading on the subject it seems the native tribes took scalps as trophies of war and in some way to honor their enemies. Early colonial governments adapted the practice as a way to prove bounties should be paid because scalps were more easily transported than the traditional entire head. Given the history of warfare I'm not sure much education in how to commit atrocities was, or is, neccessary.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> From my limited reading on the subject it seems the native tribes took scalps as trophies of war and in some way to honor their enemies. Early colonial governments adapted the practice as a way to prove bounties should be paid because scalps were more easily transported than the traditional entire head. Given the history of warfare I'm not sure much education in how to commit atrocities was, or is, neccessary.


According to letters and journals I've read, the white scouts learned these practices and then felt compelled to use them to help fit In!


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

has anyone done any research on slavery?....
And I grew up in the South (I did my senior thesis on Reconstruction actually, just to irritate my History teacher, for reasons I wont get into)...

Sigh.
I still like Lincoln he was quite eloquent....
And 2 (or 2 squared) wrongs dont make a right...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CAjerseychick said:


> has anyone done any research on slavery?....
> And I grew up in the South (I did my senior thesis on Reconstruction actually, just to irritate my History teacher, for reasons I wont get into)...
> 
> Sigh.
> ...


Slavery has existed in one or more of its ugly forms since the dawn of man. Its not going away anytime soon. Not in the world and certainly not in the USA.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

If you lived in a border state you would not have thought the southern "gentlemen" were Gentlemen after the war. I had kin on both sides, it was terrible for both but this country survived because many on both sides knew Lincoln was right....James


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

doingitmyself said:


> deleted post was here..


Whoa!! Who said anything about wanting people to be slaves? If I'm not mistaken there are still slaves in the world today.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Whoa!! Who said anything about wanting people to be slaves? If I'm not mistaken there are still slaves in the world today.


Indeed there are... there are many a shackel and whip that are not made of iron nor leather. A slender band of gold holds many in bondage as surely as irons ever held any slave... many more are imprisoned quite securely by shiney baubles... while millions of others volunteer themselves up, eager to trade their freedom for a free lunch.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doingitmyself said:


> deleted post was here...


Nope, I am very much opposed to slavery. That doesn't mean I am blind to its existence.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> If you lived in a border state you would not have thought the southern "gentlemen" were Gentlemen after the war. I had kin on both sides, it was terrible for both but this country survived because many on both sides knew Lincoln was right....James


Since the war was not about slavery how was Lincoln right :hammer: He ordered an attack on a sovereign country because of money . No one can justify Sherman s march threw the South AFTER THE WAR ENDED :hammer:


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

Doingitmyself. Whoa darling you need to back off and relax! Yvonne's hubby never said anything of the sort. You are totally WRONG. May God have mercy on YOUR soul.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Since the war was not about slavery how was Lincoln right :hammer: He ordered an attack on a sovereign country because of money . No one can justify Sherman s march threw the South AFTER THE WAR ENDED :hammer:


+ + + + + + + +
but 'exactly' when do you consider that the war officially ended? 

Many might say that the 9th, of April, 1865 with Lee's surrender or even 

2.5 months later, when the last significant Confederate active force to surrender 

was the Confederate allied Cherokee Brigadier General Stand Watie and his Indian 

soldiers on the 23rd of June, 1865. However, one could also say that the last 

Confederate surrender occurred on the 6th of November, 1865, when the

Confederate warship-CSS "Shenandoah" surrendered at Liverpool, England. 

All-in-all, the war 'officially' ended when President Andrew Johnson formally

declaring it so, on the 20th of August, 1866. So arguing about whether 

Sherman's further 'marching through the South' was justified or not, is moot.

Communication was not as instantaneous as it is today, nor were there those

who entirely believed that the cause was lost. As long as there were arms being

used, (or with the potential for being used) the war was still being fought.


War is hell - especially brother against brother; Sherman just made sure that no one ever forgot that fact.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Not that I expect anyone to answer this as usually my posts get ignored in heated threads, but was this on Netflix?

I've always like DDL as an actor and was looking forward to seeing this movie. Thanks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> but 'exactly' when do you consider that the war officially ended?
> 
> Many might say that the 9th, of April, 1865 with Lee's surrender or even
> ...


I am still more than curious as to what justified the invasion by ANY troops into the newly formed nation to begin with. Warning shots being fired over the heads of a few trespassing soldiers who had refused to exit in a timely fashion at fort Sumter is hardly an excuse to start an all out war. Ok, so a mule was accidentally hit... but still????


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Less-is-more said:


> Not that I expect anyone to answer this as usually my posts get ignored in heated threads, but was this on Netflix?
> 
> I've always like DDL as an actor and was looking forward to seeing this movie. Thanks.


Not on Netflix but Abraham Lincoln vs zombies is on there


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

Less-is-more said:


> Not that I expect anyone to answer this as usually my posts get ignored in heated threads, but was this on Netflix?
> 
> I've always like DDL as an actor and was looking forward to seeing this movie. Thanks.


Its on Ondemand Showtime, and on Cable play as well (I think showtime). I did enjoy the movie, I loved how dirty and rough Politics was at the time... and how all the men roared their displeasure at the thought of "universal emancipation" ie WOMEN getting the vote as well-- they sure were different times....


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Slavery has existed in one or more of its ugly forms since the dawn of man. Its not going away anytime soon. Not in the world and certainly not in the USA.



The Persian Boy 
by Mary Renault 
Has an interesting historical perspective of slavery, as does 
Cry to Heaven
by Anne Rice 
extremely good reads if you have some time on your hands....
and if you want to dip you toes in modern brutality,
Little Bee by Chris Cleave does a good job...
(parents worked in Africa at one point in the 80's its pretty accurate)...
So yeah...
as I said... wrongs dont make a right, my motto is just do the best you can in the Place that you are.... 
And as I tell the children I work with, I am very, very sorry at what happened to you, it was inexcuseable, but_ it does not give you the right to hurt other people...._


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am still more than curious as to what justified the invasion by ANY troops into the newly formed nation to begin with. Warning shots being fired over the heads of a few trespassing soldiers who had refused to exit in a timely fashion at fort Sumter is hardly an excuse to start an all out war. Ok, so a mule was accidentally hit... but still????


+ + + + + + + + 
overstepped not only his authority, but trampled on the very 

fabric of the constitution and led us down the path where we find our

country today. My only observation in responding to Sawmill Jim's quote, 

was that the 'war' wasn't exactly over yet, just because Lee surrendered 

and therefore complaining about Sherman continuing his 'march' was rather pointless.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

jwal10 said:


> I had kin on both sides, it was terrible for both but this country survived because many on both sides knew Lincoln was right....James


Interesting perspective, considering even Lincoln himself wasn't entirely convinced he was right.......


&#8220;The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong.&#8221; &#8211; September 1862 &#8211; Meditation on the Divine Will - See more at: http://www.civil-war-enthusiast.com/abraham-lincoln/#sthash.7DnXPgCT.dpuf


&#8220;My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right.&#8221;



The simple fact is, a few souls warned us from the beginning that slavery would be our millstone.
We didn't listen, and the end result was the worst war in American history.
Over 1/2 a million dead would not be something to take to the Lord and brag about "being right".


The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent&#8212;of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor.* The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; The wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters*........Thomas Paine.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Indeed there are... there are many a shackel and whip that are not made of iron nor leather. A slender band of gold holds many in bondage as surely as irons ever held any slave... many more are imprisoned quite securely by shiney baubles... while millions of others volunteer themselves up, eager to trade their freedom for a free lunch.



So now marriage and credit card debt, are comparable with American Southern slavery?

_Whitewash,_ was something Tom Sawyer applied to a picket fence.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> So now marriage and credit card debt, are comparable with American Southern slavery?


Yes, as well as being comparable with American Northern slavery. Ugly is ugly, and slavery stinks, no matter how much lipstick and deodorant you apply.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CAjerseychick said:


> And as I tell the children I work with, I am very, very sorry at what happened to you, it was inexcuseable, but_ it does not give you the right to hurt other people...._


Ok, now I am confused here. Not sure how todays children are affected by the deeds committed by our ancestors. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> overstepped not only his authority, but trampled on the very
> 
> fabric of the constitution and led us down the path where we find our
> ...


Some would argue that since war was never declared that it cannot be over.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Some would argue that since war was never declared that it cannot be over.


+ + + + + + +
living in the past, as well as the warm welcome I myself received

on coming south in 1980 to find work, and being referred to as

"A ---- YANKEE", then I'd tend to agree with you once again.

dixiegal62 should probably rethink her tag line " Say what you 
want about the south but nobody retires and moves up north.",
as I'm proof positive of taking my carpet bagging butt back there
where I came from, when the opportunity presented itself to take early retirement!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> So now marriage and credit card debt, are comparable with American Southern slavery?
> 
> 
> _Whitewash,_ was something Tom Sawyer applied to a picket fence.




????
"Yoo mean. Ah say, yoo mean ya didn't KNOW that?"





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, now I am confused here. Not sure how todays children are affected by the deeds committed by our ancestors. :shrug:



I'm not sure myself as I'm not familiar with her work with children, but I suspect she works with abused children and those "ancestors are far more recent than you are thinking of.





copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> living in the past, as well as the warm welcome I myself received
> 
> on coming south in 1980 to find work, and being referred to as
> ...


Yes, and I apologize for my neighbors as well as myself on occasion, but that is still a scarred and sensitive wound to us in the South. (Reference that Thomas Paine quote about the oak tree)
We still revile Lincoln, Sherman and anytime the subject is brought up, there will be venomous things to say about them and their admirers, have no doubt about that. Best to sit on the porch with some sweet tea and talk about fishing instead.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am still more than curious as to what justified the invasion by ANY troops into the newly formed nation to begin with. Warning shots being fired over the heads of a few trespassing soldiers who had refused to exit in a timely fashion at fort Sumter is hardly an excuse to start an all out war. Ok, so a mule was accidentally hit... but still????


 I cant find the (post of the day smilie).... You nailed it.!!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, and I apologize for my neighbors as well as myself on occasion, but that is still a scarred and sensitive wound to us in the South. (Reference that Thomas Paine quote about the oak tree)
> We still revile Lincoln, Sherman and anytime the subject is brought up, there will be venomous things to say about them and their admirers, have no doubt about that. Best to sit on the porch with some sweet tea and talk about fishing instead.


Yeppers, there are still quite a few whose grandparents lost their farms and fortunes to Lincolns war.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

All my comments were about the start of the war its self. Southerners always bring up the war of Northern aggression. BUT the south started the war. Lincolns deal was with Carolina, The Confederates wanted Sumpter. Lincoln made sure, under protest from many northerners, to make sure and not provoke the south and give cause to involve the border states. He (the North) did not/would not recognize the Confederate government. He dealt with the states themselves. The border states were not happy about the 5 original states leaving the union and were drug into this "war" AND then abandoned at the end. Thus so many hard feelings at the end, in the border states....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Since the war was not about slavery how was Lincoln right :hammer: He ordered an attack on a sovereign country because of money . No one can justify Sherman s march threw the South AFTER THE WAR ENDED :hammer:


 
Lincoln did not order an attack on the south. The Confederates wanted Fort Sumter and took it while Lincoln was negotiating with the governor of that state. Fort Sumter was the start of the war.....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/secession_order.htm


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Ahh, the rest of the story. That was interesting jwal. But now I am confused as to who really started it.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

I'm in the camp that the war is in the past and nobody alive today had any part in it and shouldn't be blamed. Just like whites today shouldn't be blamed for the slaves. Nothing anyone can say today is going to change either.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

jwal10 said:


> All my comments were about the start of the war its self. Southerners always bring up the war of Northern aggression. BUT the south started the war. Lincolns deal was with Carolina, The Confederates wanted Sumpter. Lincoln made sure, under protest from many northerners, to make sure and not provoke the south and give cause to involve the border states. He (the North) did not/would not recognize the Confederate government. He dealt with the states themselves. The border states were not happy about the 5 original states leaving the union and were drug into this "war" AND then abandoned at the end. Thus so many hard feelings at the end, in the border states....James





jwal10 said:


> Lincoln did not order an attack on the south. The Confederates wanted Fort Sumter and took it while Lincoln was negotiating with the governor of that state. Fort Sumter was the start of the war.....James



Wow, talk about revisionist history. It is true that the victors write the history but you won't get very far with that kind of talk down here.
Fort Sumter was SC property at the point of secession and we asked all trespassers to leave.
That's pretty much all there is to that story and no link from anyone anywhere will change any minds about it.
Y'all really know how to get under the skin of a Southerner, doncha?
It was a terrible mess, there was evil on both sides, and it never should have happened it in the first place.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

jwal10 said:


> Lincoln did not order an attack on the south. The Confederates wanted Fort Sumter and took it while Lincoln was negotiating with the governor of that state. Fort Sumter was the start of the war.....James


It's pretty clear that the war started at Fort Sumter; however, many would argue that the first action of the war was when Major Anderson occupied the fort, after South Carolina voted for secession and while negotiations were still in progress.

eta: oops. Didn't see farmrbrown's post before I submitted mine, but it looks like we basically agree.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jwal10 said:


> Lincoln did not order an attack on the south. The Confederates wanted Fort Sumter and took it while Lincoln was negotiating with the governor of that state. Fort Sumter was the start of the war.....James


When I look at the map it appears that fort Sumter is located on lands under the control of the confederacy.... why would there be union forces there? What possible justification would there be for any union troops to be within the boundaries of another sovereign nation? Looks to me like if Lincoln wanted to avoid an unjust war he would have simply ordered their immediate withdrawal, (Upon SC secession which was several months prior to the eviction) rather than blockading southern sea ports.


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, now I am confused here. Not sure how todays children are affected by the deeds committed by our ancestors. :shrug:


Sorry, just that I work with a population that was very wronged (similar to slaves, the South).... did you ever hear of a child whose father used to EAT chunks of his Flesh? 

There is just alotta Anger all around ..
and I was just relating to those who have suffered.... 
Yet I do not feel that that is Cause for more injustice and Suffering .. or even Intolerance or Bigotry...
(and that is not even getting into my own personal experiences).....

and Yeah we are all affected by what our parents did....trust me.... on that one....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm in the camp that the war is in the past and nobody alive today had any part in it and shouldn't be blamed. Just like whites today shouldn't be blamed for the slaves. Nothing anyone can say today is going to change either.


I agree that the war is long over, and that nobody today should be blamed for it. However the people who were there, and caused it should not escape their part of the blame. Lincoln is no hero.... (as is being taught today) he was a tyrant and its time history was properly taught to reflect that fact. As is evidenced by this thread there are far too many people in our country who have no idea what that war was about.... many still erroneously believe Lincoln's goal was to free the slaves.... nonsense! His goal was to protect the economic interests of the industrialists in the northern states which was being threatened by the loss of raw materials (primarily cotton) produced by the south.

This paragraph from one of Lincoln's letters pretty well sums up his position. 

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union"

In the end Lincoln apparently opted for option 3... he freed some of the slaves, (those in the rebellious states) leaving many others in bondage. It wasnt until after his death that the 13th amendment was passed and ratified that slavery was abolished... according to the constitution. We still have many other forms of slavery and "involuntary servitude"... one has to look no further than the federal government itself and its little system for soliciting troops for the military if they feel the need.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What possible justification would there be for any union troops to be within the boundaries of another sovereign nation?


+ + + + + + + 
I have to wonder why Obama still won't fulfill his promise regarding Gitmo?


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> I have to wonder why Obama still won't fulfill his promise regarding Gitmo?


He cant its not really up to him is it?

There are too many interests Not in Favor of it..... and has little to do with his own personal beliefs....


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> ????
> "Yoo mean. Ah say, yoo mean ya didn't KNOW that?"
> 
> 
> ...


That was an excellent post, and i apologize for my part concerning the heated verbiage. I honestly do have a warm heart for all people. And if you will have them please accept my prayers and good thoughts for you and your families, past and present. I hold no animosities towards folks that live south of me. 

Any of you would be welcome in my fishing boat. I'll bring the bait, you bring the sweet tea??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> I have to wonder why Obama still won't fulfill his promise regarding Gitmo?


Basically for the same reason Lincoln didnt pull his troops out of fort Sumter... "I got the big stick and you cant make me!"


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

CAjerseychick said:


> He cant its not really up to him is it?
> 
> There are too many interests Not in Favor of it..... and has little to do with his own personal beliefs....


+ + + + + +
else makes it?!!!


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Since the war was not about slavery how was Lincoln right :hammer: He ordered an attack on a sovereign country because of money . No one can justify Sherman s march threw the South AFTER THE WAR ENDED :hammer:[/
> 
> I didn't say anything about slavery. Lincoln was right to do everything possible to keep the nation together. The War started after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. No shots were fired by the Union for hours after the Fort was bombarded by Confederate forces.
> 
> ...


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> When I look at the map it appears that fort Sumter is located on lands under the control of the confederacy.... why would there be union forces there? What possible justification would there be for any union troops to be within the boundaries of another sovereign nation? Looks to me like if Lincoln wanted to avoid an unjust war he would have simply ordered their immediate withdrawal, (Upon SC secession which was several months prior to the eviction) rather than blockading southern sea ports.


The United States did not recognize the Confederacy as the World did not either. The reason the "north" was there was because of the blockade that had gone on for years because S. Carolina wanting to succeed from the union....James


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

jwal10 said:


> The United States did not recognize the Confederacy as the World did not either. The reason the "north" was there was because of the blockade that had gone on for years because S. Carolina wanting to succeed from the union....James


:umno:
Read up on maritime law.
That was one of the things that Lincoln did that violated international treaties that existed, and still do, regarding blockades.
I'll see if I can pull up the documentation on countries that recognized the CSA, but that was the legal paradox Lincoln put himself in.
It is illegal to blockade a port in your own country, like New Orleans, Charleston, etc. That was what got Israel in trouble a few years ago in Gaza.
The only way a blockade is legal is if it IS another country.


Edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent

An interesting use of the term arose during the American Civil War, when the Confederate States of America, though not recognized as a sovereign state, was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as Union warships in foreign ports.[2


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> When I look at the map it appears that fort Sumter is located on lands under the control of the confederacy.... why would there be union forces there? What possible justification would there be for any union troops to be within the boundaries of another sovereign nation? Looks to me like if Lincoln wanted to avoid an unjust war he would have simply ordered their immediate withdrawal, (Upon SC secession which was several months prior to the eviction) rather than blockading southern sea ports.


*Decisions for war[edit]*

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as president. He was almost immediately confronted with the surprise information that Major Anderson was reporting that only six weeks of rations remained at Fort Sumter. A crisis similar to the one at Fort Sumter had emerged at Pensacola, Florida, where Confederates threatened another U.S. fortificationâFort Pickens. Lincoln and his new cabinet struggled with the decisions of whether to reinforce the forts, and how. They were also concerned about whether to take actions that might start open hostilities and which side would be perceived as the aggressor as a result. Similar discussions and concerns were occurring in the Confederacy.[18]
After the formation of the Confederate States of America in early February, there was some debate among the secessionists whether the capture of the fort was rightly a matter for South Carolina or for the newly declared national government in Montgomery, Alabama. South Carolina Governor Pickens was among the states' rights advocates who felt that all property in Charleston harbor had reverted to South Carolina upon that state's secession as an independent commonwealth. This debate ran alongside another discussion about how aggressively the installationsâincluding Forts Sumter and Pickensâshould be obtained. President Davis, like his counterpart in Washington, preferred that his side not be seen as the aggressor. Both sides believed that the first side to use force would lose precious political support in the border states, whose allegiance was undetermined; before Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, five states had voted _against_ secession, including Virginia, and Lincoln openly offered to evacuate Fort Sumter if it would guarantee Virginia's loyalty.[19]
The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with the Confederate agents because he did not consider the Confederacy a legitimate nation and making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. However, Secretary of State William H. Seward, who wished to give up Sumter for political reasonsâas a gesture of good willâengaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.[20]
On April 4, as the supply situation on Sumter became critical, President Lincoln ordered a relief expedition, to be commanded by former naval captain (and future Assistant Secretary of the Navy) Gustavus V. Fox, who had proposed a plan for nighttime landings of smaller vessels than the _Star of the West_. Fox's orders were to land at Sumter with supplies only, and if he was opposed by the Confederates, to respond with the U.S. Navy vessels following and to then land both supplies and men. This time, Maj. Anderson was informed of the impending expedition, although the arrival date was not revealed to him. On April 6, Lincoln notified Governor Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."[21]
Lincoln's notification had been made to the governor of South Carolina, not the new Confederate government, which Lincoln did not recognize. Pickens consulted with Beauregard, the local Confederate commander. Soon Jefferson Davis ordered Beauregard to repeat the demand for Sumter's surrender, and if it did not, to reduce the fort before the relief expedition arrived. The Confederate cabinet, meeting in Montgomery, endorsed Davis's order on April 9. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."[22]
Beauregard dispatched aidesâCol. James Chesnut, Col. James A. Chisholm, and Capt. Stephen D. Leeâto Fort Sumter on April 11 to issue the ultimatum. Anderson refused, although he reportedly commented, "I shall await the first shot, and if you do not batter us to pieces, we shall be starved out in a few days." The aides returned to Charleston and reported this comment to Beauregard. At 1 a.m. on April 12, the aides brought Anderson a message from Beauregard: "If you will state the time which you will evacuate Fort Sumter, and agree in the meantime that you will not use your guns against us unless ours shall be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire upon you." After consulting with his senior officers, Maj. Anderson replied that he would evacuate Sumter by noon, April 15, unless he received new orders from his government or additional supplies. Col. Chesnut considered this reply to be too conditional and wrote a reply, which he handed to Anderson at 3:20 a.m.: "Sir: by authority of Brigadier General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time." Anderson escorted the officers back to their boat, shook hands with each one, and said "If we never meet in this world again, God grant that we may meet in the next." [23]
*Bombardment[edit]*

 
Bombardment of the Fort by the Confederates.


At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, Lt. Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Capt. George S. James, fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson. (James had offered the first shot to Roger Pryor, a noted Virginia secessionist, who declined, saying, "I could not fire the first gun of the war.") The shell exploded over Fort Sumter as a signal to open the general bombardment from 4003 guns and mortars at Fort Moultrie, Fort Johnson, the floating battery, and Cummings Point. Under orders from Beauregard, the guns fired in a counterclockwise sequence around the harbor, with 2 minutes between each shot; Beauregard wanted to conserve ammunition, which he calculated would last for only 48 hours. Edmund Ruffin, another noted Virginia secessionist, had traveled to Charleston to be present for the beginning of the war, and fired one of the first shots at Sumter after the signal round, a 64-pound shell from the Iron Battery at Cummings Point. The shelling of Fort Sumter from the batteries ringing the harbor awakened Charleston's residents (including diarist Mary Chesnut), who rushed out into the predawn darkness to watch the shells arc over the water and burst inside the fort. Major Anderson held his fire, awaiting daylight.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> :umno:
> Read up on maritime law.
> That was one of the things that Lincoln did that violated international treaties that existed, and still do, regarding blockades.
> I'll see if I can pull up the documentation on countries that recognized the CSA, but that was the legal paradox Lincoln put himself in.
> ...


Lincoln did not start the blockade, it was started years earlier....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

The United States of America was not at war at the time. The Confederate States had not Declared war either....James


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

jwal10 said:


> Lincoln did not start the blockade, it was started years earlier....James


I used to try to sell that one to my dad when fighting with my little brother......
He didn't buy it either, lol.
:huh:


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Lincoln issued his proclamation to blockade southern ports on April 19th, after the bombardment of Fort Sumter....James


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The South had been saber rattling for years. After Lincoln's winning the election they raided the war coffers and left Washington pretty well dry by the time of his inauguration. They had wanted a war for years. The southerners finally succeeded in provoking one and now want to cry foul.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> Lincoln issued his proclamation to blockade southern ports on April 19th, after the bombardment of Fort Sumter....James


You quote history written from the winners books .Lots of things happen with out official proclamation .:whistlin: And for starters those States had the right to secede :hobbyhors When Lincoln overrode those rights is when the enslavement of a dictator ship began and Federal law made up as Lincoln saw fit ruled the South :whistlin: For years the South yelled about the tax imposed on it's goods exported because the bankers in the North were not getting their cut and the North had no industry with out the goods produced in the South .

What would happen today if several states cut off the money to DC ,same outcome i bet :whistlin:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The South has been trying to rewrite that history for over a hundred years. The records are pretty clear.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

jwal10 said:


> Lincoln issued his proclamation to blockade southern ports on April 19th, after the bombardment of Fort Sumter....James


Yes, but Anderson occupied Fort Sumter on December 26th, 1860, six days after South Carolina's secession from the Union. 
http://www.jfepperson.org/sumter.htm
Since all Federal troops were expected/requested to withdraw from the state, occupying and fortifying one of South Carolina's strongholds was an act of war tantamount to invasion.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Sawmill Jim said:


> You quote history written from the winners books .Lots of things happen with out official proclamation .:whistlin: And for starters those States had the right to secede :hobbyhors When Lincoln overrode those rights is when the enslavement of a dictator ship began and Federal law made up as Lincoln saw fit ruled the South :whistlin: For years the South yelled about the tax imposed on it's goods exported because the bankers in the North were not getting their cut and the North had no industry with out the goods produced in the South .
> 
> What would happen today if several states cut off the money to DC ,same outcome i bet :whistlin:


OK, I am in. You tell me what Lincoln did from the time he took office in March until say July 1861. I have at least 35 books on the civil war. I have not read every page as I just inherited 30 of them in the last 30 days. I had a G.Grandfather in the war, he fought for the south until his land was taken because he was a "northerner". He was from a border state. Being in the army, he was not able to be at the Confederate trials, so his land was taken from him, sold and money used for the war. He took his family north, later he fought for the Union in the east. Everything he was fighting for was being taken away, more than had been by the north. 3 of his brothers fought for the south, but out west of the Mississippi....James


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

jwal10 said:


> Lincoln issued his proclamation to blockade southern ports on April 19th, after the bombardment of Fort Sumter....James



Yep.
And at that moment, he caused the recognition of the CSA as a sovereign nation. Read the Proclamation and the historical footnotes of Seward, Secretary of State and his negotiations with England on that.
That's what I said earlier.
You can _close_ a port if it's your country, to declare a blockade, it has to be a foreign nation.
That's law that's been established for centuries. The economic ramifications of trade with Europe made it impossible for Lincoln to close a port without violating trade treaties.
By taking the route of blockade, he complied with the trade treaties, but under the law, was in effect declaring the CSA a sovereign nation.
The history is there for anyone to read.



vicker said:


> The South has been trying to rewrite that history for over a hundred years. The records are pretty clear.


Sigh.....
As I also said before, no amount of tit for tat will alter deep seated emotions.
If you're going to study history, you've got to look at all the details, even the ugly ones.
There was no "just cause" in a half a million dead.
There was no "He started it, so I am justified."
*It was just plain ugly* on both sides..............I forgot to add...........Like most of America's history.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

StL.Ed said:


> Yes, but Anderson occupied Fort Sumter on December 26th, 1860, six days after South Carolina's secession from the Union.
> http://www.jfepperson.org/sumter.htm
> Since all Federal troops were expected/requested to withdraw from the state, occupying and fortifying one of South Carolina's strongholds was an act of war tantamount to invasion.


Lincoln becomes President on March 4th. Read from that date on. Never mind that all this is driven because the South thinks they will lose the slave issue because Kansas had been brought into the Union and Lincoln will bring the issue to a head. Why did the Confederacy take over the harbor from the State just days before?

....James


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

Lincoln became President on March 4th, but did not recall Anderson, who had already committed an act of aggression; instead, he tried to resupply the fort.

If you look at the timeline, shots had already been fired on January 9th; so, the response to the resupply should not have been unexpected, and some believe it was a calculated move on the part of Lincoln.
http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

No single person started it. It had been coming for decades. Everyone failed to avoid it. By the time Lincoln became president it was all but unavoidable, other than to continue to cow-tow to the South. The South had rattled its sabers and made threats for decades. They wouldn't have it any other way. 
Lincoln's assassination was probably the greatest tragedy to ever befall The South.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

vicker said:


> No single person started it. It had been coming for decades. Everyone failed to avoid it. By the time Lincoln became president it was all but unavoidable, other than to continue to cow-tow to the South. The South had rattled its sabers and made threats for decades. They wouldn't have it any other way.
> * Lincoln's assassination was probably the greatest tragedy to ever befall The South.*




Since you live in SC ( I live just north of the border, in NC) I'm guessing *that's* not something you learned in school or picked up in the local Waffle House as a popular topic of discussion.:hrm:

Now, you may be referring to Lincoln's plan of reconciliation after the War that was never implemented, instead of the martial law and puppet gov'ts installed during Reconstruction.
If you are, I can assure you that no amount of Prodigal son compassion could have stopped his assassination. He was a marked man for the rest of his life.
The time to show brotherly love is BEFORE the death toll reaches 500,000.
That's the price you pay for such a monumental mistake. We all paid a share of that price, including him.

No sir, the greatest tragedy to befall the South was self-inflicted a century before that.
Here's that mistake.
http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE DEBATE OVER SLAVERY

When Thomas Jefferson included a passage attacking slavery in his draft of the Declaration of Independence it initiated the most intense debate among the delegates gathered at Philadelphia in the spring and early summer of 1776. *Jefferson's passage on slavery was the most important section removed from the final document. It was replaced with a more ambiguous passage about King George's incitement of "domestic insurrections among us." Decades later Jefferson blamed the removal of the passage on delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Jefferson's original passage on slavery appears below.*

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Sources:

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and other Writings, Official and Private (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1853-1854).
- See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/de...-and-debate-over-slavery#sthash.s2bl5o9f.dpuf



The above references the original copy of the Declaration of Independence, a document that is still taught in schools as being written by Jefferson.
If that were only true.
If you read the original, it is clear that can't possibly be true, unless he had a dual personality that wrote in King's English and used capital letters in the middle of sentences.
No, that is the distinct writing style of Thomas Paine, whose American sponsor Benjamin Franklin, employed him as a printer upon his emigration here in 1774.
BTW, all of this is well documented, if not well known.


I brought this to light a few pages ago, before the nit picking began. (post #52)
Unfortunately, students are not taught ALL of American history in school, the good the bad and the ugly. I guess they think it's too painful or would rather have brain washed simpletons for an adult population.
SC was instrumental in both mistakes a hundred years apart and Lincoln compounded that with his failure to understand human nature and lack of an alternative vision for the future.
Slavery was already doomed as a future means of production in this country by the upcoming Industrial Revolution. The South would never had gotten very far if they had been allowed to secede and treated as a belligerent neighbor, starved, ostracized and shamed on the world's stage.
Like the Prodigal son, they would have eventually returned on their own, with a spirit of repentance rather than rebellion, which thanks to Lincoln's mistake is alive and well today.
Instead that war was fought like all others.......for the love of money.
The mistrust of an evil federal gov't is probably the best and only good lesson taught from that war.
No sir, the heroes of our American history books are far from wise men. They were sometimes foolish men, like the rest of us, and the wise ones who foretold of this tragedy, like Thomas Paine, are lost to the pages of history.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

vicker said:


> No single person started it. It had been coming for decades. Everyone failed to avoid it. By the time Lincoln became president it was all but unavoidable, other than to continue to cow-tow to the South. The South had rattled its sabers and made threats for decades. They wouldn't have it any other way.
> Lincoln's assassination was probably the greatest tragedy to ever befall The South.


I suspect a great many of us strongly disagree with that last statement!


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Since you live in SC ( I live just north of the border, in NC) I'm guessing *that's* not something you learned in school or picked up in the local Waffle House as a popular topic of discussion.:hrm:
> 
> Now, you may be referring to Lincoln's plan of reconciliation after the War that was never implemented, instead of the martial law and puppet gov'ts installed during Reconstruction.
> If you are, I can assure you that no amount of Prodigal son compassion could have stopped his assassination. He was a marked man for the rest of his life.
> ...


20/10 hindsight and your own revision of history....James


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

jwal10 said:


> 20/10 hindsight and your own revision of history....James


MY revision?
Which part?
That Lincoln was and still is hated south of the Mason/Dixon?
That the Industrial Revolution never happened and to this very day continues to make certain manual labor obsolete?
That the documentation in John Adams library confirms that neither Adams nor Jefferson wrote the D of I, and the author was known to all at the time?
Or was it the names of the delegates from the southern colonies that are documented in Jefferson's regret that you think I revised?

Pull out the original copy sometime and read it in full for yourself. Then explain how not one of Jefferson's writing's resembles the Declaration of Independence.
Explain why Adams copy in his Presidential library is exactly the same, without anything crossed out, including grammatical corrections that are very obvious, like changing the word "hath" to "has", British vs. American.
Next examine the personal letters of John Adams to Abigail and those of President Washington, and explain how their words don't confirm what I said.
That famous, edited clause, USED to be taught in American history as one of the greatest mistakes we ever made.
Now I guess it's easier to just poke fun at Southerners and tell everyone we got our behinds whooped and :nana:, instead of recognizing that the blame was a collective one and the price for it was paid in 4 bloody years.


Or are you just referring to my muse on "what might have been"?
That was an opinion,I thought that was clear.
The others are simple undeniable facts.
I am not the party guilty of revisionist history, merely the one who tried to shed intelligent light on a subject that remains lost in ignorance, willful ignorance at times.

My former advice still stands.
If ignorant of a subject matter, it's better to have a cold beverage and discuss something more mundane.
Shucks, you know how us dumb, revisionist, rebels are........


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

vicker said:


> No single person started it. It had been coming for decades. Everyone failed to avoid it. By the time Lincoln became president it was all but unavoidable, other than to continue to cow-tow to the South. The South had rattled its sabers and made threats for decades. They wouldn't have it any other way.
> Lincoln's assassination was probably the greatest tragedy to ever befall The South.


so what do you suppose would have happened if the south had not been interfered with? Leaving the Union was supposed to be an option. Were they hankering for war so much they would have fought come hell or high water? I remember reading "States rights". Not much left of that at all now. Think of Utah .

What about State's rights?


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Shucks, you know how us dumb, revisionist, rebels are........


Yep....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Tabitha said:


> so what do you suppose would have happened if the south had not been interfered with? Leaving the Union was supposed to be an option. Were they hankering for war so much they would have fought come hell or high water? I remember reading "States rights". Not much left of that at all now. Think of Utah .
> 
> What about State's rights?


That is what Lincoln was working with. Even South Carolina didn't like what the Confederates were wanting to do, telling them what they could do.

As a side note. What does anybody think the south, ah heck, the United States of the Confederacy would be like today, had they won....James


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

There is actually a funny movie about what it would be like if the south had won. It's called the Confederate States of America and it is funny.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

vicker said:


> No single person started it. It had been coming for decades. Everyone failed to avoid it. By the time Lincoln became president it was all but unavoidable, other than to continue to cow-tow to the South. The South had rattled its sabers and made threats for decades. They wouldn't have it any other way.
> Lincoln's assassination was probably the greatest tragedy to ever befall The South.


The most that can be said for John Wilkes Booth was he was late :thumb:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Shucks, you know how us dumb, revisionist, rebels are........





jwal10 said:


> Yep....James



Reminds me of a conversation a cousin of mine supposedly had.......

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmnP0MM_Ah4[/ame]


.....of course the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

I'd like to dwell on the "what if" possibilities of the south seceding and Lincoln

following the law and allowing them to do so as was their right. Exactly how

long would it last? The north depended on the south's raw commodities and

had no other place to go to get a replacement stock, whereas the south had 

England and other old world countries that would happily buy up all they produced.

History would be an entirely different animal if there had been no war & Lincoln

had followed the constitution as it was intended by the founding fathers.

More than likely, the capitalists in the north would have either compromised

on the tariffs being imposed on goods abroad, or if they were smart(er), would

have re-located a few mills & factories south of the mason-dixon line and got

some tax breaks themselves! Food for thought and fodder for another thread . . .


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

True history students of that time know that slavery was on its way out. Several Southern state legislatures actually had bills that were in consideration at different points in the 10yrs prior to the war to end slavery. They died out because of abolitionist actions which led to slave uprisings and fear of more. If Lincoln had not been elected, if the North hadn't been so overbearing and demanding and if life had been allowed to play out, I believe slavery would have ended on its own within 25 years. A million young men still alive or unmaimed, who knows what might have been accomplished by them! 

The North was the one itching for war. They wanted to show their dominance, their hollier than tho-ness over the South. The South was completely within their rights to leave the Union. What would it be like if they had won? Sadly we will never kno.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Well, I do kind of understand the resistance to the truth.
I remember the first time I learned that something I had always been taught and believed was a lie.
I got mad, but not at the messenger, and didn't stay mad at the deceivers for very long, because most of them were ignorant of the truth themselves.
The ones I don't like are those that are presented with the truth, accompanied with documentation in multiples, and insist that the truth is a lie.
That has to be intentional, not ignorance.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

I always thought Lincoln getting elected in 1960 was the catalyst for the Southern States succeeding to form the Confederate States. This was because he was elected solely by the electoral votes from Northern States, he did not carry a single Southern State. The election pointed out that demographics had swayed the electoral college to control by the Northern States. given that fact the Southern States felt the Northern States controlled the Federal political arena, and succession was the only way to avoid Federal laws pushed onto them.

I always took away that having a single party with dominant control at the federal level was unwanted. Applying that to today's climate (well let's say 2008) a very similar situation had arisen. The difference is the political parties of today are not split by geographical boundaries. But much of the same kind of results can be seen today. There are several States who are investigating methods of isolating and protecting themselves from the Federal Government, mainly due to Federal laws passed along strict party line votes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> The most that can be said for John Wilkes Booth was he was late :thumb:


Yeppers... timing is everything!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

copperkid3 said:


> I'd like to dwell on the "what if" possibilities of the south seceding and Lincoln
> 
> following the law and allowing them to do so as was their right. Exactly how
> 
> ...


I bolded the part which caused the war. That was exactly the reason Lincoln had to preserve the union. He cared naught for the welfare of any slave, and said so himself in the letter I posted earlier. Slaves served his purpose to rally more troops and he used them for that purpose.... if it had served his goal better he would have had them all beaten to death just as quickly as he emancipated those held in rebellious states.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> if it had served his goal better he would have had them all beaten to death just as quickly as he emancipated those held in rebellious states.


 
There you go again....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

StL.Ed said:


> Lincoln became President on March 4th, but did not recall Anderson, who had already committed an act of aggression; instead, he tried to resupply the fort.
> 
> If you look at the timeline, shots had already been fired on January 9th; so, the response to the resupply should not have been unexpected, and some believe it was a calculated move on the part of Lincoln.
> http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html


 
I do not dispute this. But Lincoln and the State of South Carolina were working on a way to resolve the differences until the Confederates became aggressive and took over. There are always 2 sides to every story, I like to see what was going on to try and see why things were done at the time. 

I thank you for your time and links. I am looking at everyone given here. I am on a cell phone and it all takes time. Some can take hours to download. I can not view Utube links....James


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The best biography I have read of Lincoln is The Life of Lincoln, written by Henry Ketcham, a man who knew and work with him. The book is now in the public domain and can be found in numerous places on the net. 
I doubt very seriously that slavery would have ended any time soon without the war. I think that actually took the agriculture workers minimum wage laws. When I was a kid many blacks still lived in very similar conditions to the way they lived before the war. They lived on the farmers land in his shacks for little or no pay, and worked cotton by hand. A couple times a year the farmer would load them on a wagon and bring them to town. Just two weeks ago I sat right here and listened to an old farmer reminisce about the old days. He told of how one of his friends had a bunch of his (n word) men living in one house, and they decided one day that they wouldn't work that day. The farmer pulled a shotgun from his truck and started firing through the shack, shooting out one man's eye. They went to work after all. I can assure you that the one man was not punished for shooting his workers, and that the other was not compensated for the loss of his eye, however, I am sure he was allowed to continue picking cotton.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jwal10 said:


> There you go again....James


I know. Its a bad habit I have..... always trying to interject facts into a otherwise interesting discussion.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I just want to be clear, I'm really not all that old. The story was told by my buddy's father, who is 74, and took place late 50s to early 60s.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

My favorite Lincoln Story/quote is from Ketcham's book. I think it really shines a light on the man that Lincoln was. I think he was a man of God. I draw a large distinction between "Christians" and people of God. To me it is obvious. Anyway, here is the quote from Ketcham's book.

"Though Lincoln had much to cheer him, he had also his share of annoyances. One of his discouragements was so serious, and at this day it appears so amazing, that it is given nearly in full. A careful canvas had been made of the voters of Springfield, and the intention of each voter had been recorded. Lincoln had the book containing this record. He asked his friend Mr. Bateman, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, to look through the book with him. They noted particularly those who might be considered leaders of public morals: clergymen, officers, or prominent members of the churches.

When the memorandum was tabulated, after some minutes of silence, he turned a sad face to Mr. Bateman, and said: âHere are twenty-three ministers, of different denominations, and all of them are against me but three; and here are a great many prominent members of the churches, a very large majority of whom are against me. Mr. Bateman, I am not a ChristianâGod knows I would be oneâbut I have carefully read the Bible, and I do not so understand this book.â He drew from his pocket a New Testament. âThese men well know that I am for freedom in the territories, freedom everywhere as far as the Constitution and laws will permit, and that my opponents are for slavery. They know this, and yet, with this book in their hands, in the light of which human bondage cannot live a moment, they are going to vote against me. I do not understand it at all.â

After a long pause, he added with tears: âI know there is a God, and that He hates injustice and slavery. I see the storm coming, and I know that His hand is in it. If He has a place and work for meâand I think He hasâI believe I am ready. I am nothing, but truth is everything. I know I am right because I know that liberty is right, for Christ teaches it, and Christ is God. I have told them that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Christ and reason say the same; and they will find it so. Douglas doesnât care whether slavery is voted up or voted down, but God cares, and humanity cares, and I care; and with Godâs help I shall not fail. I may not see the end; but it will come and I shall be vindicated; and these men will find that they have not read their Bibles aright.â"
http://www.authorama.com/life-of-abraham-lincoln-2.html

Again, the book is public domain, so there are no copyright problems. 
I certainly don't expect to change anyone's mind. Lincoln during his presidency was possibly the most hated man in the world. That tells me a lot.

"When Jesus calls a man, He bids him come and die." Dietrich Bonhoeffer, another favorite quote. I think Lincoln fits it nicely.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Vicker as usual Ol Abe said one thing and did another:nono:

âThese men well know that I am for freedom in the territories, freedom everywhere as far as the Constitution and laws will permit, and that my opponents are for slavery. 

The Constitution gave freedom for the States to secede :shrug:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

If the majority of you agreed with me I'd be doing some serious reevaluating of my opinions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

We all have our opinions about Lincoln, and are certainly entitled to hold them. Ketcham (a representative of the great state of New York) had his opinion, I base mine on the words Lincoln himself spoke and wrote down, and his actions. Somehow I have to come to a different conclusion about dishonest abe than Ketcham did. I have to ask myself why Lincoln felt the need to emancipate only the slaves in those states that were part of the confederacy, rather than ALL slaves in every state? I have to ask myself why he would have issued warrants for the arrest of supreme court justices that disagreed with him? I have to ask myself why he was perfectly willing (by his own words) to keep slavery alive and well if he thought it would benefit his cause, and why (by his own words) that he would be perfectly willing to free some slaves and hold others in bondage if that would benefit his cause better? I have to compare his words and deeds with claims of what he believed made by others.... When I do those things, I come up with only one possible conclusion. The war was based on economic factors and Lincoln was a tyrant with no regard for our Constitution, nor did he have any regard for the lives and welfare of any slave or the common citizens he had been elected to protect. Sorry but shooting at our citizens, destroying their property, raping and murdering their wives and their children doesnt really sound like protecting them to me.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Lincoln would be a wonderful modern politician. No wonder O. said he feels inspired by Lincoln. Folks are all emotional about the slavery issue and do not bother to look at the facts. Besides, if the war between the states had been about freeing the slaves, what a stupid way to go about it. All kinds of countries had slavery and did away with it without fighting a war about it. Seems like this country just likes to start wars all the time. Invade the south and beat them to a pulp if they do not go along, Same with other countries nowadays. Modus operandi.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CAjerseychick said:


> has anyone done any research on slavery?....
> And I grew up in the South (I did my senior thesis on Reconstruction actually, just to irritate my History teacher, for reasons I wont get into)...
> 
> Sigh.
> ...


Slavery was on its way out due to changing economics. Most historians think it would have been gone in less than 10 years w/o the millions killed in the war if thinks had been left alone.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jwal10 said:


> If you lived in a border state you would not have thought the southern "gentlemen" were Gentlemen after the war. I had kin on both sides, it was terrible for both but this country survived because many on both sides knew Lincoln was right....James


I have a question for you. Just where in the US Constitution does it say that once a state has entered into the agreement it is forbidden to exit?

Saying Lincoln was right is like saying a husband who beats his wife to prevent her from divorcing him is right.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> but 'exactly' when do you consider that the war officially ended?
> 
> Many might say that the 9th, of April, 1865 with Lee's surrender or even
> ...


Sherman should be classified as a war criminal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree that the war is long over, and that nobody today should be blamed for it. However the people who were there, and caused it should not escape their part of the blame. Lincoln is no hero.... (as is being taught today) he was a tyrant and its time history was properly taught to reflect that fact. As is evidenced by this thread there are far too many people in our country who have no idea what that war was about.... many still erroneously believe Lincoln's goal was to free the slaves.... nonsense! His goal was to protect the economic interests of the industrialists in the northern states which was being threatened by the loss of raw materials (primarily cotton) produced by the south.
> 
> This paragraph from one of Lincoln's letters pretty well sums up his position.
> 
> ...


So to save the union he used the US Constitution as toilet paper? I guess if a businessman robs someone and uses the money to save the business we should just over look the crime.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jwal10 said:


> The United States did not recognize the Confederacy as the World did not either. The reason the "north" was there was because of the blockade that had gone on for years because S. Carolina wanting to succeed from the union....James


I know I've asked before and you haven't had time to reply but I have to bring it up again; Where is there anything which says its illegal to secede?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> The South has been trying to rewrite that history for over a hundred years. The records are pretty clear.


Very clear. There is nothing in the USC, the law of the land, which forbids a state from leaving the union. Lincoln's use of force to prevent any state or states from doing so was an unconstitutional and therefore illegal action.

As I posted before. Would it be ok for a husband to beat his wife to prevent her from 'seceding' from the marriage? What's the difference between that and Lincoln using military force to keep the national 'marriage' together?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

That selfish _George Washington_, was just as much of a scoundrel as Lincoln, putting the needs of the Union, way ahead of the wants of individual states.

Maybe we should never have called our country the *United States of America*, but instead *States that hang out together, until something better comes along*. 

Bad boy George's heinous words.



> *The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth;*


http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.co...-of-secession-guaranteed-by-the-constitution/


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> As I posted before. Would it be ok for a husband to beat his wife to prevent her from 'seceding' from the marriage? What's the difference between that and Lincoln using military force to keep the national 'marriage' together?


Comparing Lincoln to a wife beater, seems a bit over balance - to say the least.

So, the American Civil War, was _completely_ about Lincoln's own selfish interests and nothing more?

Really?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Comparing Lincoln to a wife beater, seems a bit over balance - to say the least.
> 
> So, the American Civil War, was _completely_ about Lincoln's own selfish interests and nothing more?
> 
> Really?


Yep tough facts :teehee:


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

This has been a really interesting thread and has made me realize how much of what I learned in school was probably half bull-. Hmm.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Yep tough facts :teehee:


The awesome thing about history, is, that one can re-tell the story, any way one wants, as the version is just as good, as everyone else's. 


Of course, the Civil war was all about tariffs



> The *Crittenden Compromise* was an unsuccessful proposal introduced by Kentucky Senator John J. Crittenden on December 18, 1860. It aimed to resolve the U.S. secession crisis of 1860â1861 by addressing the grievances that led the slave states of the United States to contemplate secession from the United States.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise



> *In what later became known as the Cornerstone Speech, C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens declared that the "cornerstone" of the new government "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the ***** is not equal to the white man; that slaveryâsubordination to the superior raceâis his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth"*.[19


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Causes_of_secession


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Less-is-more said:


> This has been a really interesting thread and has made me realize how much of what I learned in school was probably half bull-. Hmm.


Which half? 

The assumption would have to be that everything told here, is both factual and accurate.

IMO, _skepticism_, should be the _watchword_, when it comes to controversial history.

Unless of course, one hears exactly what they want to hear.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Comparing Lincoln to a wife beater, seems a bit over balance - to say the least.
> 
> So, the American Civil War, was _completely_ about Lincoln's own selfish interests and nothing more?
> 
> Really?


Both use violence to keep a union together therefore the analogy fits. Care to point out to me where the difference is?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Both use violence to keep a union together therefore the analogy fits. Care to point out to me where the difference is?


I'm certain there had to be some "greater good" Lincoln envisioned (or at he he stated it as such) , of keeping the Union together, which lo and behold, the North and the South, are going just fine, together, 150 years later.

I don't believe there is any good, in keeping an abusive marriage together, except maybe for the abuser. It would be a tough sell, for the abuser to state he is only looking for the "greater good".

Do you?


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

watcher said:


> I know I've asked before and you haven't had time to reply but I have to bring it up again; Where is there anything which says its illegal to secede?


D

Did I say it was illegal. What keeps every state that gets a bee in its bonnet from leaving? I dropped out of the discussion because of the people that painted everyone that did not agree with them with a broad brush. I know a lot of bad things were done. A lot of people on both sides of the war wanted the union to stay together. Before, during and after the beginning of the war, a lot of people were stirred up by people on both sides. It was a dark time. History shows that southern leaders in Washington took most of the war machine south. They thought they could win the war, didn't work out. War is Hell. I don't have any bad feelings on either side, my G Grandfather didn't either. He went back to his homeland and bought part of the old place back but he and his family always called Maine home. 2 of his brothers died in the west, his other brother moved to Kansas after the war....James


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> That selfish _George Washington_, was just as much of a scoundrel as Lincoln, putting the needs of the Union, way ahead of the wants of individual states.
> 
> Maybe we should never have called our country the *United States of America*, but instead *States that hang out together, until something better comes along*.
> 
> ...



Yep, that's correct.
Even more correct to say that the start of this country under the Articles of Confederation and under which Washington served, was the less restrictive way to go about it.
Another piece of ignored American history again.




plowjockey said:


> Comparing Lincoln to a wife beater, seems a bit over balance - to say the least.
> 
> So, the American Civil War, was _completely_ about Lincoln's own selfish interests and nothing more?
> 
> Really?



That's too one sided.
This relationship wasn't about one side beating the other exclusively. They BOTH were abusive.
I'll let that sink in for the Lincoln lovers that just can't seem to go get it.
BOTH sides sinned, and the sin was great.

Now, when the marriage is between two people who abuse EACH OTHER....do you make them stay, or let them separate?
It's so much easier to see the logic when you take the BS bias out of the picture.



plowjockey said:


> Which half?
> 
> The assumption would have to be that everything told here, is both factual and accurate.
> 
> ...



That's for everyone to determine for themselves. As I said, I already found out quite a bit of what has been taught for decades and decades is utter trash.
I was mad at first, then I got educated......self educated.
The info is out there in the public domain, all one has to do is be willing to their feelings hurt a little and their eyes opened.
Of course, ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I know I've asked before and you haven't had time to reply but I have to bring it up again; Where is there anything which says its illegal to secede?


It seems like I remember reading that bit in the Articles of Confederation... the early version of a constitution sorta. For whatever reasons that particular part was not carried over into the US Constitution when it was adopted later.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Comparing Lincoln to a wife beater, seems a bit over balance - to say the least.
> 
> So, the American Civil War, was _completely_ about Lincoln's own selfish interests and nothing more?
> 
> Really?


Its really not that far off base... A wife beater is normally acting out the same kind of power trip that Lincoln did. The war was about more than Lincolns own personal interests... there was a lot of other guys whose financial interests were at stake too. In my study of history I have yet to find any war that was fought for any reason other than money and power. I have also had trouble finding one in which the powers that be did not find some other excuse for their part in the war. For dishonest Abe that excuse was "save the union", at least in the early years... later in the war when that was no longer a good enough rallying cry and he needed more support (and troops) he switched over to the slavery issue for his battle cry.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> I don't believe there is any good, in keeping an abusive marriage together, except maybe for the abuser. It would be a tough sell, for the abuser to state he is only looking for the "greater good".
> 
> Do you?


A tremendous amount of what some would call abusive marriages remain intact "for the children"..... seems they are often considered the greater good.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I'm certain there had to be some "greater good" Lincoln envisioned (or at he he stated it as such) , of keeping the Union together, which lo and behold, the North and the South, are going just fine, together, 150 years later.


And how good would be be doing as two desperate nations? Maybe better, maybe worse who knows.




plowjockey said:


> I don't believe there is any good, in keeping an abusive marriage together, except maybe for the abuser.


First off I never said the marriage is abusive, you did. I only stated the husband was willing to beat the wife if she tried to divorce him. She may want to leave because she had 'discovered' she's meant to be a hermit. She may want to leave because she doesn't want to move to the city where the husband has been transferred. Or maybe she's just found a rich man.




plowjockey said:


> It would be a tough sell, for the abuser to state he is only looking for the "greater good".
> 
> Do you?


All sort of depends on your POV doesn't it? The husband sees a "greater good" in keeping his wife from leaving him. He has a wife to cook, clean, warm his bed, show off at parties, etc.

Also what about the kids? Couldn't he say its for the good of the kids to have a mother to take care of them?

Or for her own good, after all do we know if the woman could take care of herself?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jwal10 said:


> D
> 
> Did I say it was illegal. What keeps every state that gets a bee in its bonnet from leaving?


The fear of having federal troops coming in and killing millions of its citizens?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It seems like I remember reading that bit in the Articles of Confederation... the early version of a constitution sorta. For whatever reasons that particular part was not carried over into the US Constitution when it was adopted later.


So would you agree there was no legitimate legal/constitutional right/reason for Lincoln's use of force to prevent the states from leaving union?

Would be an interesting question if one of the Southern states took the issue of federal control to court. After all if you obtain something illegally you have no right to keep possession of it. Then you have the fact the attack on and occupation of the CSA is illegal under US and international law.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> So would you agree there was no legitimate legal/constitutional right/reason for Lincoln's use of force to prevent the states from leaving union?
> 
> Would be an interesting question if one of the Southern states took the issue of federal control to court. After all if you obtain something illegally you have no right to keep possession of it. Then you have the fact the attack on and occupation of the CSA is illegal under US and international law.


Yeppers, Lincoln's war was totally illegal by any measure of law. Thats the reason there was no "war" officially.... he was merely suppressing "rebellion". :umno: Cant hardly blame the southern folks here.... I would probably rebel too if someone came onto my farm and started shooting at me, burned my home and roughing up the wife!


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

watcher said:


> The fear of having federal troops coming in and killing millions of its citizens?


Like I said, when it was just South Carolina, they wanted to work it out. When the Confederacy got involved they thought they could win the war. Over the years they had brought most of the war machine to the south. The confederacy came from the deep south, they were lucky to drag Virginia in, then they thought they had the upper hand.

The south didn't complain when they came north but when the north drove them back, they started to cry foul. War is hell, especially when it is in your yard.....James


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jwal10 said:


> Like I said, when it was just South Carolina, they wanted to work it out. When the Confederacy got involved they thought they could win the war. Over the years they had brought most of the war machine to the south. The confederacy came from the deep south, they were lucky to drag Virginia in, then they thought they had the upper hand.
> 
> The south didn't complain when they came north but when the north drove them back, they started to cry foul. War is hell, especially when it is in your yard.....James


Ummmmm just when did the south "invade" Ohio and Vermont? I dont recall hearing of very many battles taking place in Bangor Maine, and very few in Boston. 
The history I read... even the biased version in high school... tells the story that the north took it upon themselves to invade the south... not the other way round. "lucky enough to drag virginia into it"??? Virginia had long been a major agricultural producer, complete with large plantations as well as slaves, just like every other state whose economic structure was being threatened by the northern industrialists who had gained an unequal balance of power in congress.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

jwal10 said:


> Like I said, when it was just South Carolina, they wanted to work it out. When the Confederacy got involved they thought they could win the war. Over the years they had brought most of the war machine to the south. The confederacy came from the deep south, they were lucky to drag Virginia in, then they thought they had the upper hand.
> 
> The south didn't complain when they came north but when the north drove them back, they started to cry foul. War is hell, especially when it is in your yard.....James


The Southern army DID NOT make war on the Northern civilians. In fact, Lee hung soldiers that stole from Northern civilians. Yet Sherman's men raped, pillaged and destroyed everything in its path. Sure, both cases are the same:facepalm:


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmmm just when did the south "invade" Ohio and Vermont? I dont recall hearing of very many battles taking place in Bangor Maine, and very few in Boston.
> The history I read... even the biased version in high school... tells the story that the north took it upon themselves to invade the south... not the other way round. "lucky enough to drag virginia into it"??? Virginia had long been a major agricultural producer, complete with large plantations as well as slaves, just like every other state whose economic structure was being threatened by the northern industrialists who had gained an unequal balance of power in congress.


 
Leaving out some of the worst battles of the war in Pennsylvania, huh.
How far would they have gone if not pushed back?

....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Lee came north

Northern and border state Battles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_in_the_American_Civil_War


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> I know I've asked before and you haven't had time to reply but I have to bring it up again; Where is there anything which says its illegal to secede?



I believe it is a landmark Texas case, after the war, that is the one SCOTUS case that actually defines that secession IS legal and constitutional.
I'll have to make sure before I pull it up.
You probably already knew that when you asked the question though.

However I think in article 8 of the Articles of Confederation, there was a clause that any change had to be unanimously approved by all 13 states.
Which meant of course the constitution of 1789 was actually illegal, because only 12 ratified it, RI didn't.
Oh well.



watcher said:


> Very clear. There is nothing in the USC, the law of the land, which forbids a state from leaving the union. Lincoln's use of force to prevent any state or states from doing so was an unconstitutional and therefore illegal action.




I found this interesting article that has the most direct, intelligent and logical reason that's true......

http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=6........

How utterly silly, frankly. It is reminiscent of the post WWI measures to outlaw war. We must realise that passing legislation is nothing more, ever, than a paper tiger. Firstly, if there is no intention to enforce a law, such as with America&#8217;s immigration policy, no law will be effective. Secondly, as far as some fundamental rights or laws of nature go, such as the right of secession, some laws are void ab intitio, or on their face unlawful. It is as absurd to pass a law declaring tooth decay eradicated as it would be to declare secession illegal &#8211; law cannot prevent such things.

It is deniable by only the hardest headed American that our independence stemmed from an act of secession from England in 1776 under the style THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This act of secession was opposed by England, and a war was waged against the thirteen colonies until 1783 when &#8220;His Britannic Majesty&#8221; signed the TREATY OF PARIS acknowledging the independence of the thirteen named British colonies in North America. Take notice that the independence of the colonies was effectuated on July 4, 1776, hence the united States dating their official documents and treaties from their dates of independence from Brittan &#8211; the truth of that fact is not diminished by a King who did not recognise it for more than seven years..........







watcher said:


> As I posted before. Would it be ok for a husband to beat his wife to prevent her from 'seceding' from the marriage? What's the difference between that and Lincoln using military force to keep the national 'marriage' together?



I love the analogy of a marriage. THere are so many avenues of comparison.
Like this one.

My wife was going to leave me, so I broke her legs so she couldn't.
I know it was probably illegal, but I saved our union. Now, years later we're still together. I'm sure she has forgotten about that by now..........


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

_"Meanwhile, the South of the 1850s saw an increasing number of slaves leave the border states through sale, manumission and escape. During this same period, slave-holding border states had more free African-Americans and European immigrants than the lower South, which increased Southern fears that slavery was threatened with rapid extinction in this area.[18]* With tobacco and cotton wearing out the soil, the South believed it needed to expand slavery.[19] The Southern states had advocates arguing to reopen the international slave trade to populate territory that was to be newly opened to slavery.[20*] Southern demands for a slave code to ensure slavery in the territories repeatedly split the Democratic Party between North and South by widening margins.[21]
To settle the dispute over slavery expansion, Abolitionists and proslavery elements sent their partisans into Kansas, both using ballots and bullets. In the 1850s, a miniature civil war in Bleeding Kansas led pro-South Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan to attempt a forced admission of Kansas as a slave state through vote fraud.[22] The 1857 Congressional rejection of the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution was the first multi-party solid-North vote, and that solid vote was anti-slavery to support the democratic majority voting in the Kansas Territory.[23] Violence on behalf of Southern honor reached the floor of the Senate in 1856 when a Southern Congressmen, Preston Brooks, physically assaulted Republican Senator Charles Sumner when he ridiculed prominent slaveholders as pimps for slavery.[24]" _(Bolded part bolded by me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Slavery was not dying a slow, natural death, and the South was in fact trying desperately to expand it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> _"Meanwhile, the South of the 1850s saw an increasing number of slaves leave the border states through sale, manumission and escape. During this same period, slave-holding border states had more free African-Americans and European immigrants than the lower South, which increased Southern fears that slavery was threatened with rapid extinction in this area.[18]* With tobacco and cotton wearing out the soil, the South believed it needed to expand slavery.[19] The Southern states had advocates arguing to reopen the international slave trade to populate territory that was to be newly opened to slavery.[20*] Southern demands for a slave code to ensure slavery in the territories repeatedly split the Democratic Party between North and South by widening margins.[21]
> To settle the dispute over slavery expansion, Abolitionists and proslavery elements sent their partisans into Kansas, both using ballots and bullets. In the 1850s, a miniature civil war in Bleeding Kansas led pro-South Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan to attempt a forced admission of Kansas as a slave state through vote fraud.[22] The 1857 Congressional rejection of the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution was the first multi-party solid-North vote, and that solid vote was anti-slavery to support the democratic majority voting in the Kansas Territory.[23] Violence on behalf of Southern honor reached the floor of the Senate in 1856 when a Southern Congressmen, Preston Brooks, physically assaulted Republican Senator Charles Sumner when he ridiculed prominent slaveholders as pimps for slavery.[24]" _(Bolded part bolded by me)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
> Slavery was not dying a slow, natural death, and the South was in fact trying desperately to expand it.


Slavery was dying because it was becoming more economical to hire people to work for you. Slaves were VERY expensive, which why mostly only rich plantation owners had them. They cost a lot of money to buy plus you had to provide food, lodging and even health care for them even when there's no work for them to do.

When you can hire someone to work for you for pennies a day and only pay him when you need work done why would you keep slaves?

Not a perfect analogy but. . . Which makes the most economic sense. To spend $200,000+ for a combine, spend the money and time to keep it running when you will use once a year for a couple of weeks or to pay someone to harvest it for you?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

watcher said:


> Slavery was dying because it was becoming more economical to hire people to work for you. Slaves were VERY expensive, which why mostly only rich plantation owners had them. They cost a lot of money to buy plus you had to provide food, lodging and even health care for them even when there's no work for them to do.
> 
> When you can hire someone to work for you for pennies a day and only pay him when you need work done why would you keep slaves?
> 
> Not a perfect analogy but. . . Which makes the most economic sense. To spend $200,000+ for a combine, spend the money and time to keep it running when you will use once a year for a couple of weeks or to pay someone to harvest it for you?


Yep :icecream: Grand Pa worked for fifty cents a day boss furnished him a shack too. That fifty cents a day was from sun up till sun down .When tractors came on the seen those jobes even became more scarce ,to get the shack and that big pay :run:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Well, if you could treat your combine like dirt, feed it the cheapest fuel possible, make it work whether it wanted to or not, force it to breed with your other combines (or breed it yourself) and sell the offspring for more than you paid for its parents... I'd probably buy the combine.  but hey, believe what you want 

What if you truly believed that by succeeding from The Union you would soon be able to purchase a combine for the value of, oh say, a good quality pig?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Slavery was dying because it was becoming more economical to hire people to work for you. * Slaves were VERY expensive, which why mostly only rich plantation owners had them.* They cost a lot of money to buy plus you had to provide food, lodging and even health care for them even when there's no work for them to do.
> 
> When you can hire someone to work for you for pennies a day and only pay him when you need work done why would you keep slaves?
> 
> Not a perfect analogy but. . . Which makes the most economic sense. To spend $200,000+ for a combine, spend the money and time to keep it running when you will use once a year for a couple of weeks or to pay someone to harvest it for you?


LOL



> Early travelers to Kentucky in the 1750s and 1760s from Virginia brought their slaves with them. As permanent settlers started arriving in the late 1770s and especially after the American Revolution, they brought along slaves to clear and develop land. Early settlements were called stations, and were developed around forts for protection against Native Americans, with whom there were numerous violent conflicts. Most early settlers were from Virginia, and they continued to rely on slave labor as they developed larger, more permanent farms.





> *Farms in Kentucky tended to be smaller than the later plantations of the Deep South, so most slaveholders had a small number of slaves*. As a result, many slaves had to find spouses "abroad", on a neighboring farm. Often men did not get to live with their wives and children.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Kentucky

Southern slave owners, must not have been that business smart, if it took them 100 years, to figure out that it is cheaper to hire white American worker, verses importing African slaves. 

Interesting, of the stories of slaves living in conditions similar to the farm animals, with intestinal worms, lice and untreated injuries. Their reproduction controlled just like the animals.

Perhaps I was just reading _revisionist history_, only told by _someone else_.

It does bring up an interesting point, which might explain, why those not allowed to succeed, are so resentful.

If the South was indeed almost "done with" black slaves, they would have been simply turned loose and combined with their segregation and hate laws, nearly all freed slaves, would probably have ended up in "Northern" ghettos, where most of their descendants reside today. They would have had no problem, with the freed slaves, "sneaking" over the border, into what's left of the United States.

The current massive problem, of our inner city blacks, would be 100% on the backs of "the Union", whereas the _Confederate States_, who created the problem in the first place, would get off _Scott free_. 


Oh well.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> Well, if you could treat your combine like dirt, feed it the cheapest fuel possible, make it work whether it wanted to or not, force it to breed with your other combines (or breed it yourself) and sell the offspring for more than you paid for its parents... I'd probably buy the combine.  but hey, believe what you want


There maybe some farmers like that but you believe most of them would treat such an expensive piece of equipment that way? 

I think if you look into it you will find that slave owners almost always hired dangerous work done. If a hired man got killed or injured doing a job the hirer wasn't out a dime. If a slave got killed or injured it would cost the owner lots of money.




vicker said:


> What if you truly believed that by succeeding from The Union you would soon be able to purchase a combine for the value of, oh say, a good quality pig?


Why would the price fall?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

They were trying to reopen the international slave trade to be able to bring new slaves in. They grew more cotton, so they could buy more slaves to grow more cotton... The South really believed that European powers would back them to insure their interests in more and cheaper cotton.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> They were trying to reopen the international slave trade to be able to bring new slaves in. They grew more cotton, so they could buy more slaves to grow more cotton... The South really believed that European powers would back them to insure their interests in more and cheaper cotton.


A quick google check says a field slave cost about $1,200 in 1860 (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dp3cb/). Others list it as high as $1,500. And that's just your intentional investment.

You don't grow cotton year round. What do you do with all those slaves between planting and harvesting? Between harvesting and planting again? You have to feed them, house them and make sure they didn't get sick and/or die on you. That cost money.

How many unskilled labor hours could you buy with $1,200? How many could you hire for the money you'd have to spend for the upkeep of slaves during the times their labor was not needed. 

Again in the early US indentured servants and slaves made economic sense (taking the moral issue out of it) due to the low population. Labor cost work on supply and demand like everything else. As the population grew the cost of hired labor dropped making both less attractive.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

They were expensive because the demand was high and the supply was low. They couldn't breed them fast enough. Even kidnapping free blacks from the north and smuggling in illegal salves from Africa wasn't enough to supply the demand for the chattel slaves needed to grow more cotton.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

I was traveling with my daughter in former East Germany and visited the estate of the von Arnims. An aquaintance had bought one of a row of small houses that had been part of the estate, which housed the workers. I looked at it and said, must have been the slave quarters. The difference? A plantation owner had to shell out a lot of money to buy a slave. Maybe he forgot right away the value connected with this and had nothing on his brain but how to abuse and maltreat the slave, anyway, the European noble man did not have to invest a penny. In sickness, old age, any incapacity, he was not responsible. The slave owner was, he had to protect his investment to put it crass. I venture to say that a slave generally was better housed, fed and clothed. He did not have to worry about supporting his family, they also were an asset and the plantation supported them. 
I think the problem was more psychological than physical. 
think of some poor person nowadays, who works three measley jobs to keep body and soul together. We have dirt poor people who are working hard. But they can quit, go someplace else, hope and look for something better, worry about the future, worry about old age, worry about getting sick, worry about getting debts paid, worry about how to get to work if the car breaks down, etc.,etc., etc. 
You can fire a worker, you can not fire a slave. You can hope to sell him/her. A hard working docile slave was treasured. A lazy, unwilling, belligerent one was beaten. Who wants to buy a slave that makes trouble. 
The economy of the Roman empire was based on slavery. Only very often they were blond and blue eyed from across the mountains. Part of the bounty of war. It is a great evil and still people will try to get money off the labor of someone else.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> They were trying to reopen the international slave trade to be able to bring new slaves in. They grew more cotton, so they could buy more slaves to grow more cotton... The South really believed that European powers would back them to insure their interests in more and cheaper cotton.


I have to wonder why the confederate constitution banned the importation of slaves if they intended to keep the international slave trade up and running?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Tabitha said:


> I was traveling with my daughter in former East Germany and visited the estate of the von Arnims. An aquaintance had bought one of a row of small houses that had been part of the estate, which housed the workers. I looked at it and said, must have been the slave quarters. The difference? A plantation owner had to shell out a lot of money to buy a slave. Maybe he forgot right away the value connected with this and had nothing on his brain but how to abuse and maltreat the slave, anyway, the European noble man did not have to invest a penny. In sickness, old age, any incapacity, he was not responsible. The slave owner was, he had to protect his investment to put it crass. I venture to say that a slave generally was better housed, fed and clothed. He did not have to worry about supporting his family, they also were an asset and the plantation supported them.
> I think the problem was more psychological than physical.
> think of some poor person nowadays, who works three measley jobs to keep body and soul together. We have dirt poor people who are working hard. But they can quit, go someplace else, hope and look for something better, worry about the future, worry about old age, worry about getting sick, worry about getting debts paid, worry about how to get to work if the car breaks down, etc.,etc., etc.
> You can fire a worker, you can not fire a slave. You can hope to sell him/her. A hard working docile slave was treasured. A lazy, unwilling, belligerent one was beaten. Who wants to buy a slave that makes trouble.
> The economy of the Roman empire was based on slavery. Only very often they were blond and blue eyed from across the mountains. Part of the bounty of war. It is a great evil and still people will try to get money off the labor of someone else.


It's sounds as if those tribal Africans, should have been _thankful,_ that they were taken away from their dismal existence, provided with free travel and then carer opportunities, in a better place. 

It amazing how atrocities can be explained away. Plantation owners are now the benevolent victims, because they were taking such great financial risk.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to wonder why the confederate constitution banned the importation of slaves if they intended to keep the international slave trade up and running?



Maybe they didn't, thinking managing the current slave supply, would fit both now and future needs.

Somewhat like they do with horses. 

*Slave breeding in the United States*



> The prohibition of the African slave-trade after 1807 limited the supply of slaves in the United States. The invention of the cotton gin enabled expanded cultivation in the uplands of short-staple cotton, leading to clearing lands cultivating cotton through large areas of the Deep South, especially the Black Belt. The demand for labor in the area increased sharply and an internal slave market expanded. At the same time, the Upper South had an excess supply of slaves because of a shift to mixed crops agriculture, which was less labor intensive than tobacco. During this time period, the terms "breeding slaves", "child bearing women", "breeding period", "too old to breed", etc., became familiar


.[8]



> Planters in the Upper South states started selling slaves to the Deep South, generally through slave traders. Louisville, Kentucky, on the Ohio River was a major slave market and port for shipping slaves downriver by the Mississippi to the South. New Orleans had the largest slave market in the country and became the fourth largest city in the US by 1840 and the wealthiest, mostly because of its slave trade and associated businesses.





> The historian E. Franklin Frazier, in his book _The ***** Family_, stated that "there were masters who, without any regard for the preferences of their slaves, mated their human chattel as they did their stock." Ex-slave Maggie Stenhouse remarked, "Durin' slavery there were stockmen. They was weighed and tested. A man would rent the stockman and put him in a room with some young women he wanted to raise children from


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

During the Depression one of FDR's programs was to record the life histories of numerous former slaves still living. Many told that they never knew hunger, cold or want until AFTER they were free. 
Most slave states also had laws in place that made an owner provide food, clothing, housing and healthcare if/when a slave became to old or ill to work. Most got Sundays off too. 
What laws did the North ever have during mid 1800s protecting mill workers and coal miners? None. Sure they could quit and go elsewhere. Ever hear of blacklists? Doubtful you would get hired by another though. If you got hurt or killed the body got dropped at your family's door and they would get evicted soon after. Forget days off. Several mills worked 12 hr shifts, 7 days a week. Wages barely kept you fed, housed and clothed. Mine wages kept you in debt to the company. 
Oh yeah, the North was soooo much better to its working class than the horrid plantation owners.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> It's sounds as if those tribal Africans, should have been _thankful,_ that they were taken away from their dismal existence, provided with free travel and then carer opportunities, in a better place.
> 
> It amazing how atrocities can be explained away. Plantation owners are now the benevolent victims, because they were taking such great financial risk.


Let's examine the notion that they should be "thankful" as you sarcastically stated. IF they had not been sold into slavery, what do you suppose would have happened to them in Africa. Those sold into slavery were captured during tribal wars. All prisoners were executed until a value came about by the slave trade. Genocide still happens today there. Slaves were rounded up by Africans not Europeans.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Let's examine the notion that they should be "thankful" as you sarcastically stated. IF they had not been sold into slavery, what do you suppose would have happened to them in Africa. Those sold into slavery were captured during tribal wars. All prisoners were executed until a value came about by the slave trade. Genocide still happens today there. Slaves were rounded up by Africans not Europeans.


Seriously?

Yes, lets examine. Now, luckily they were saved, from the fate of tribal wars? It's getting time for _hip boots_, as it's getting a little deep here.

My main point was that to have someone else, take you and your family from your home - regardless whatever that home is and completely rule their lives, by slavery, is just really not that nice of thing, to do.

Would it be acceptable, to *you*, if someone forcefully took your life, to make it "better" - by their terms? Of course it would not.

The fact that Africans were sold out by other Africans, is meaningless spin, IMO, since there is no supply without demand, which - at least for this discussion, came predominantly from the Southern slave States.

Slaves just did not know how lucky they really were. How ungrateful can hey get?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Yes, lets examine. Now, luckily they were saved, from the fate of tribal wars? It's getting time for _hip boots_, as it's getting a little deep here.
> 
> ...


That is not what I said! Read the words and don't add any. Maybe I wasn't clear. I will try again.

Their lives in the tribe was over. It was death or slavery. That is all I said. Guess you figure death would have been better. But don't spin my position any further than my statement. Each can answer that question for theirselves.


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

Let us not forget, Lincoln and many other abolitionists were in favor of shipping all the former slaves back to Africa. He didn't really want them here. Most blacks didn't want to go. So what does that tell you? They believed their lives were better here. 

Maybe their descendants need to remember that today.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Why were the people of the south so deathly afraid of slave revolts and arming ******* if the slaves were so happy and treated so well? To imagine that more than a few slaves were happy in their predicament is just plain silly. The idea itself is directly traceable to southern sympathizers and apologist. Pure propaganda


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Propaganda huh?

Lincoln freed the slaves! That is propaganda. He only freed slaves in the rebelling states.

Northerners wanted the blacks freed. Propaganda. If they wanted them free, why didn't they free them instead of selling them to the Southerners before forcing their freedom. Could it be greed? Lots of things don't fit the current history book versions.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

nchobbyfarm said:


> That is not what I said! Read the words and don't add any. Maybe I wasn't clear. I will try again.
> 
> Their lives in the tribe was over. It was death or slavery. That is all I said. Guess you figure death would have been better. But don't spin my position any further than my statement. Each can answer that question for theirselves.


So now, African slaves were actually being _rescued_, from certain death? The benevolence of the South, is overwhelming. 

Personally, I would have still liked to have a choice, taking a chance on being killed, or led away in chains.

Was keeping their offspring (and their offspring) as slaves, also, considered _family care_?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Could have been worse. Lincoln could have made them buy health insurance.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

vicker said:


> Why were the people of the south so deathly afraid of slave revolts and arming ******* if the slaves were so happy and treated so well?


 
Am I the only one that feels a sense a deja vu? Very similar to our times.... creepy!


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Yes, it is funny how things sound the same


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

dixiegal62 said:


> Am I the only one that feels a sense a deja vu? Very similar to our times.... creepy!


No.

Those that bark about gun control laws in Chicago, Los Angeles DC and other cities, might be careful what they wish for.


----------

