# Why is "states rights" so hard to understand?



## Farmer Willy (Aug 7, 2005)

I'm not sure why that is a concept so hard to understand.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

cause the progressive liberal want to blur it so much that the meaning is not what is meant in the beginning. They got their way well in years t come that just may come and bite them in the rear.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

arabian knight said:


> cause the progressive liberal want to blur it so much that the meaning is not what is meant in the beginning. They got their way well in years t come that just may come and bite them in the rear.


It will.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmer Willy said:


> I'm not sure why that is a concept so hard to understand.


Never underestimate what people fail to understand, or pretend to not understand


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I think that's a great question. Let me all know when you finally understand how states rights works. Also, you should do some additional reading on individual rights. I'm excited that you are all taking this opportunity to learn.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Our founding fathers fought over states rights versus a strong federal government.People understand states rights but many do not agree with it.Nothing complicated about that.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

wwubben said:


> Our founding fathers fought over states rights versus a strong federal government.People understand states rights but many do not agree with it.Nothing complicated about that.


I would not say many disagree with states rights as much as the loudest disagree with States rights.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Read the 10th Amendment. 

Any power not clearly defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, belongs to the states.
Therein lies the original issue - trying to define who has what right..

Due to power grabs from both parties, the federal government and various alphabet agencies, this has been eroded, laws passed, and now we have to have questions like this.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Farmer Willy said:


> I'm not sure why that is a concept so hard to understand.


Please explain it because I don't know what rights states have.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Wolf mom said:


> Read the 10th Amendment.
> 
> *Any power not clearly defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, belongs to the states.*
> Therein lies the original issue - trying to define who has what right..
> ...


Oops.... Looks like you forgot something. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html 



> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people.*


With that in mind, it's time to take a little tour of the Constitution...
Preamble to the Constitution 


> *We the people of the United States*, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, *and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves* and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Article 4, Section 2... 


> The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.


Ninth Amendment 


> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


James Madison on the 9th Amendment and it's purpose. Protection of rights not specifically listed in the Constitution. 


> &#8220;It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.&#8221;


Article 3, Section 2...


> *The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States*, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


Article 6


> *This Constitution, and the laws of the United States* which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme law of the land*; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in *the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding*.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, no state government has the power to override the liberties of the people, even those not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, especially when the state is reacting overwhelmingly based on religious conviction. The Supreme Court was set up to determine what is and is not an infringement on the rights of the people. The states never had the authority to make that decision, even their own courts are bound to the US Constitution, which is to be interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The courts absolutely had the power to determine that they needed to uphold personal liberty in the gay marriage case. And the only ruling they COULD make was to uphold personal liberty over government authority. If you could get over your personal opinion, you would realize that the court made the right decision not just for the gay couples who wanted to marry, but for all of us and our personal liberty. 

One more little reminder what the spirit of the United States of America is... 


> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
> 
> 
> > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> Since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, no state government has the power to override the liberties of the people, even those not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, especially when the state is reacting overwhelmingly based on religious conviction. The Supreme Court was set up to determine what is and is not an infringement on the rights of the people. The states never had the authority to make that decision, even their own courts are bound to the US Constitution, which is to be interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The courts absolutely had the power to determine that they needed to uphold personal liberty in the gay marriage case. And the only ruling they COULD make was to uphold personal liberty over government authority. If you could get over your personal opinion, you would realize that the court made the right decision not just for the gay couples who wanted to marry, but for all of us and our personal liberty.


I believe the only mention of personal liberty in the decision was by Justice Thomas in dissent.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe the only mention of personal liberty in the decision was by Justice Thomas in dissent.


Really? Because I'm half a page into the official court opinion and I'm already looking at it. They're referencing the 14th amendment, but hey, I'm not perfect. I'll add it to my list. Or maybe you're confused about what they mean by fundamental liberties? The ones provided in the Constitution.... In this case, they are citing the 14th amendment. Looks like they do mention the word "privileges" though. Looks like I might not have been too far off.... 

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/preview/1605/desktop/?das

Edit: Yea, I'm sorry, I'm re-reading the court opinion based on your post, and they mention "fundamental liberties" multiple times. Not to mention the 14th Amendment "No state shall deprive a person of Life, Liberty, Property without due process of law." And there it is, the US Constitution IS the due process of law. "These rights extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy." Looks like the courts agree with me.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> Really? Because I'm half a page into the official court opinion and I'm already looking at it. They're referencing the 14th amendment, but hey, I'm not perfect. I'll add it to my list. Or maybe you're confused about what they mean by fundamental liberties? The ones provided in the Constitution.... In this case, they are citing the 14th amendment. Looks like they do mention the word "privileges" though. Looks like I might not have been too far off....
> 
> http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/preview/1605/desktop/?das
> 
> Edit: Yea, I'm sorry, I'm re-reading the court opinion based on your post, and they mention "fundamental liberties" multiple times. Not to mention the 14th Amendment "No state shall deprive a person of Life, Liberty, Property without due process of law." And there it is, the US Constitution IS the due process of law. "These rights extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy." Looks like the courts agree with me.


You said "personal liberty", so why not just own up to it instead of name calling? From J Thomas's dissent:
He defined &#8220;the right of personal liberty&#8221; as &#8220;the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one&#8217;s person to whatsoever place one&#8217;s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.&#8221; Id., at 125, 130.2​


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Please explain it because I don't know what rights states have.


According to the tenth amendment states and the people retain all powers not specifically assigned to the federal gov. That gives the states a lot of rights.... so long as the laws they create do not infringe upon the peoples rights and liberties.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> According to the tenth amendment states and the people retain all powers not specifically assigned to the federal gov. That gives the states a lot of rights.... so long as the laws they create do not infringe upon the peoples rights and liberties.


I'm not asking what the Constitution says, I have read that. Everything in the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, so simply stating a string of words from the Constitution is close to meaningless.

What I am asking is what are the actual state's rights? What rights has the Supreme Court allowed the states to retain?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> so long as the laws they create do not infringe upon the peoples rights and liberties.


 And as long as there is a liberal advantage in the SC to tweak the meanings around to what they want it to mean aside from what the True meaning is. And Write laws instead of interrupting them in the correct manner, ya things and words can change with those that do not agree and have been blackmailed into a situation from that on a higher podium says they should do.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> You said "personal liberty", so why not just own up to it instead of name calling? From J Thomas's dissent:
> He defined &#8220;the right of personal liberty&#8221; as &#8220;the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one&#8217;s person to whatsoever place one&#8217;s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.&#8221; Id., at 125, 130.2​


If you don't understand the words well enough to know that "fundamental liberties" is the same thing as "personal liberty", in the context of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.....nobody can help you. You think you're calling me out, but what you're doing is demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension.

"Name calling." Sure...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> And as long as there is a liberal advantage in the SC to tweak the meanings around to what they want it to mean aside from what the True meaning is. And Write laws instead of interrupting them in the correct manner, ya things and words can change with those that do not agree and have been blackmailed into a situation from that on a higher podium says they should do.


The activist judges were the conservative ones trying to allow state governments claim authority over the rights of citizens without ANY Constitutional authority to do so. The "liberals" in this case interpreted the Constitution pretty literally. Prove me otherwise. Tell me why marriage is a state choice not a personal choice.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> If you don't understand the words well enough to know that "fundamental liberties" is the same thing as "personal liberty", in the context of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.....nobody can help you. You think you're calling me out, but what you're doing is demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension.
> 
> "Name calling." Sure...


I wasn't calling you out the 1st time. I thought your post was interesting, but I had never heard gay marriage defined as personal liberty, so I looked it up in the court case. I found that personal liberty was never used by any of the justices in the majority opinion. Wouldn't you think that if they had ruled that gay marriage was legal because of personal liberty they would have said so? The only time the term "personal liberty" was used was by J Thomas, who in his dissent provided the Constitutional definition of "personal liberty".



> As used in the Due Process Clauses, âlibertyâ most likely refers to âthe power of loco-motion, of changing situation, or removing oneâs person to whatsoever place oneâs own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.â 1 W. Blackstone, Commen- taries on the Laws of England 130 (1769) (Blackstone). That definition is drawn from the historical roots of the Clauses and is consistent with our Constitutionâs text and structure.


From the majority opinion:



> ... the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy


This is not personal liberty.

Saying you are right and I am wrong, doesn't change the facts.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> I wasn't calling you out the 1st time. I thought your post was interesting, but I had never heard gay marriage defined as personal liberty, so I looked it up in the court case. I found that personal liberty was never used by any of the justices in the majority opinion. Wouldn't you think that if they had ruled that gay marriage was legal because of personal liberty they would have said so? The only time the term "personal liberty" was used was by J Thomas, who in his dissent provided the Constitutional definition of "personal liberty".
> 
> From the majority opinion:
> 
> ...


PERSONAL LIBERTY and FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES are interchangeable terms. Do you understand that now? The official court opinion CITED fundamental liberties as provided by the Constitution and pointed out that the 14th Amendment requires DUE PROCESS OF LAW which requires the STATE to RECOGNIZE "fundamental liberties" as provided by the United States Constitution which is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. It is the COURT'S job to determine whether or not a law is infringing on personal/individual/fundamental/private/sovereign/constitutional rights of THE PEOPLE.

Saying YOU are right and THEY are wrong does not change the facts.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> PERSONAL LIBERTY and FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES are interchangeable terms. Do you understand that now? The official court opinion CITED fundamental liberties as provided by the Constitution and pointed out that the 14th Amendment requires DUE PROCESS OF LAW which requires the STATE to RECOGNIZE "fundamental liberties" as provided by the United States Constitution which is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. It is the COURT'S job to determine whether or not a law is infringing on personal/individual/fundamental/private/sovereign/constitutional rights of THE PEOPLE.
> 
> Saying YOU are right and THEY are wrong does not change the facts.


If you would read J Thomas's opinion, you would see that fundamental liberties and personal liberty are NOT the same thing, no matter how many times you say it is. I'm done.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> If you would read J Thomas's opinion, you would see that fundamental liberties and personal liberty are NOT the same thing, no matter how many times you say it is. I'm done.


That is your interpretation of his interpretation. I am not required to agree with you, and he isn't right just because you say he is.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm not asking what the Constitution says, I have read that. Everything in the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, so simply stating a string of words from the Constitution is close to meaningless.
> 
> What I am asking is what are the actual state's rights? What rights has the Supreme Court allowed the states to retain?


I don't know how many rights the states have been denied beyond their right to secede, and it wasn't the Supreme Court that did that.... That was done by dishonest Abe via executive order.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

I think I have to side with those on the left on this one. At least partly.

I don't think that the government has any business in regulating marriage or determining what it is. In this case, the federal supreme court is telling the states that they are not allowed to make up rules against it, as they consider it a natural/fundamental/personal (whatever you want to call it) right. 

The states that banned it, did so because of a religious bent in their law-making, which our constitution prevents the government, federal or state, from doing. Marriage has always been between the constituents of the couple, and God (should they believe in Him). The government doesn't get a say in that. 

As a previous poster pointed out, the 10th amendment doesn't just assign non-enumerated powers to the state, but to the individual as well. So, at that point, there is a subjective call that has to be made as to where that power resides, and I wholeheartedly believe that, since the state has no need to have a say in it, as it does not harm any other residents or the state-proper, then it is a power that has to be left to the people. 

The "_partly_" part comes in, though, from my fear that this will get steamrolled into meaning that people with religious objection to homosexuality are legally forced into supporting and participating in it. It already has, and will, most likely continue to get worse. As that separate but related injustice develops, it is, as I see it, the federal court's job to then step in and prevent any of those states from trying to enforce something like that. 

Homosexuality is a sin, but I'm a sinner also. I live in the "judge not..." camp and recognize that God would prefer that I worry about my own tests, and leave my brothers and sisters to their own. On the other-hand, if my government tries to force me to participate in another's sin, then we have a problem. 

At the end of the day, this is really not a states' rights issue. Rather, it is one of the rare instances where the federal government (properly) stepped in to prevent the states from infringing on the truly supreme rights - personal ones. 

If those of us "on the right" have a problem with this ruling, we have to be willing to accept it in issues that are dear to our own. Our constitution is written such that the supreme court is supposed to be compelled to step in when, say, one of the states passes a law that infringes on the individual right so clearly recognized by the 2nd amendment. 

The SCOTUS ruling in this case was the equivalent of them wiping out the weapon restrictions put in place by the left-leaning states. I'm not so naÃ¯ve to believe that they will actually do that any time soon, but my beliefs on that particular matter don't really allow me to take issue with this particular matter - not while maintaining my integrity, anyway.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm not asking what the Constitution says, I have read that. Everything in the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, so simply stating a string of words from the Constitution is close to meaningless.
> 
> What I am asking is what are the actual state's rights? What rights has the *]Supreme Court *allowed the states to retain?


Ah, I see the part of your question that you didn't find easily answered by the 10th amendment. You are relying on the SCOTUS to tell you what is "everything else" not under control of the feds.

Good question, difficult answer.

That's the problem with a question like that, it's the wrong question, because the meaning of the tenth is so clear it doesn't NEED any interpretation.

If I tell you that everything in your house is yours, and everything OUTSIDE your house is everyone else's, would you understand perfectly what that means?
If I asked you to list everything in the world OUTSIDE of your house, could you do it on this page?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> Ah, I see the part of your question that you didn't find easily answered by the 10th amendment. You are relying on the SCOTUS to tell you what is "everything else" not under control of the feds.
> 
> Good question, difficult answer.
> 
> ...


Aren't there Supreme Court rulings that put the commerce clause ahead of the 10th Amendment? How about the 14th Amendment overriding the 10th Amendment?

Fortunately or unfortunately, Supreme Court rulings override farmrbrown's interpretation.


----------



## beenaround (Mar 2, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Never underestimate what people fail to understand, or pretend to not understand


and yet there is no understanding here. People do not understand how freedom is lost and constantly blame government for it. Government is punishment for the infringement of freedom.

No government is exempt from the penalty of infringement of freedom. If the people of a state infringe upon the freedom of it's people it will suffer lose of freedom from a larger government sent in, not because they are so good, but because those they are sent in upon them are so bad.

I can boil it all down to freedoms only demand. If a person wants to keep their freedom they must put the freedoms of others above their own and vise versa. If a person uses their freedom to infringe upon another's because "there's no law against it" there soon will be and a law is a lose of the freedom to do and all are subject to it.

Want proof God created this world and with laws that govern it? Loving your neighbor isn't a suggestion and breaking it always gives birth to government, the penalty set in motion by God. No history from any age or people proves otherwise.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

beenaround said:


> and yet there is no understanding here. People do not understand how freedom is lost and constantly blame government for it. Government is punishment for the infringement of freedom.
> 
> No government is exempt from the penalty of infringement of freedom. If the people of a state infringe upon the freedom of it's people it will suffer lose of freedom from a larger government sent in, not because they are so good, but because those they are sent in upon them are so bad.
> 
> ...


Well put. It's also said that to be King, you must be a servant, to be first, you must be last...


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I'd say state rights is going through a whole other revamping, err disassembling, with the scotus ruling on obamacare subsidies, when they decided that state exchanges and subsidy programs meant the 50 states and the federal state.


They could have only pulled off that stretch of interpretation because of all the broad steps taken to crush the 10th amendment over many, many years. I would love to have been a fly on the wall if some of those great minds of our founding generation could have processed and commented on how we've changed over the many generations.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> cause the progressive liberal want to blur it so much that the meaning is not what is meant in the beginning. They got their way well in years t come that just may come and bite them in the rear.



The conservatives I know don't believe in the right of states to legalize marijuana.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DJ in WA said:


> The conservatives I know don't believe in the right of states to legalize marijuana.


Hi, please allow me to introduce myself.... I am quite conservative and have never understood where states derived the authority to make it a crime for its citizens to be friendly with any plant. Now you know a conservative that is all for getting rid of laws that make it illegal to play with plant life.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

Farmer Willy said:


> *Why is "states rights" so hard to understand?
> 
> *I'm not sure why that is a concept so hard to understand.


The concept is simple to understand; the Devil, as they say, is in the details.

Between the "commerce" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution, SCOTUS has claimed a lot of extra power for the Federal Government. (And, no, I'm not a big fan of SCOTUS.) 

The 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Of course, the 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; but, it doesn't say which rights belong to the People, and which to the States.

Then again, there is the 14th amendment which says, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, ignoring Federal power grabs for the moment, there are likely to be ongoing contests to determine what rights belong to the States, and which rights belong to the People as individuals.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

StL.Ed said:


> The concept is simple to understand; the Devil, as they say, is in the details.
> 
> Between the "commerce" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution, SCOTUS has claimed a lot of extra power for the Federal Government. (And, no, I'm not a big fan of SCOTUS.)
> 
> ...


Anyone who votes states rights over personal liberty is just asking one government to meddle in peoples lives when the other won't. That's another devilish detail. And the Supreme Court WAS given the power to determine which laws are in violation of rights, so that isn't a power they've taken, that is a power we ratified into existence a long long time ago.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

State's rights means nothing because of two reasons.

One, the states now are like so many individuals, dependent on the federal government's teat. The feds borrow billions upon billions of dollars and then "gives" large chunks of it to the states. This allows the states to 'provide services', i.e. buy votes. It has reached the point most state and local governments could not operate w/o federal dollars.

Two, the federal government has proven it is willing to use force against any state which gets uppity and starts even talking about its rights. Its like an abusive husband who has beaten his wife because she left him once and she knows he'd do it again if she left again so she may as well make the best out of it.

Three, with rights come responsibility and no one wants to take responsibility. If you don't exert your rights you can always blame someone or something else for your problems.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Anyone who votes states rights over personal liberty is just asking one government to meddle in peoples lives when the other won't. That's another devilish detail.


I agree. "We the People" should be the ultimate holder of rights.



wiscto said:


> And the Supreme Court WAS given the power to determine which laws are in violation of rights, so that isn't a power they've taken, that is a power we ratified into existence a long long time ago.


I don't think I agree so much with this part.
Who gave the Supreme Court this power? Article III of the Constitution outlines the judicial Power of the courts, and the Cases to which those Powers apply; but that only applies to Cases and trials. 
It wasn't until Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that the Supreme Court formed its power of judicial review to say what is Constitutional.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

StL.Ed said:


> I agree. "We the People" should be the ultimate holder of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yea. I do see your point, and it has always been a matter of interpretation, but I do think their decision to empower themselves with judicial review was in concert with the intention of the Constitution (checks and balances), and I think that the existence of the Bill of Rights and the amendments supports that necessity. We really should create an amendment specifically providing judicial review, though. Because it needs to be there.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Aren't there Supreme Court rulings that put the commerce clause ahead of the 10th Amendment? How about the 14th Amendment overriding the 10th Amendment?
> 
> Fortunately or unfortunately, Supreme Court rulings override farmrbrown's interpretation.


True.
Often in religion or politics, the most controversial issues boil down to that - interpretation. 
I like to look at the text of these things before I speak, to be sure. Good that I did, because I found an important difference between the original language in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."[4] After the Constitution was ratified, South Carolina Representative Thomas Tudor Tucker and Massachusetts Representative Elbridge Gerry separately proposed similar amendments limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[5] James Madison opposed the amendments, stating that "it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia."[5] The word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause.[6]




The change in the wording of *expressly * delegated powers and delegated powers in the 10th amd. that we have now, has allowed the courts far more leeway to interpret and grant themselves almost anything they see fit.


If we go back to the example of your house being your domain and its limits, you'll see what I mean.

It makes a huge difference WHO is delegating that authority. If I leave it up to you to define the boundaries of your house, you may one day get the bright idea that since your house includes the concrete foundation - and the foundation is now connected to the earth - why shouldn't the whole earth be considered part of your house?
A good lawyer could make that case, lol.

On the other hand, what if *I * get to define what your house is? How about I declare your living room a public space and every Tom, Dick and Harry can lay up on your couch and watch your TV at any time?

Before, when we both knew what our own houses meant, that would never be considered as reasonable. But now, if that definition is delegated to someone who doesn't give a hoot about your best interests, it can go terribly astray from what both of us would consider our natural rights.


I won't even get into the 14th amendment being improperly passed, but its use recently should be taken with a grain of salt, when considering just how much power you're willing to delegate.


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

states rights are only reserved for the states when the federal govt deems it ok for them to have them
on April 12,1861 states rights became a thing of the past.
,,FDR put the final nail with the New Deal,it seemed like a great idea for awhile but now we are seeing the end result of people demanding or expecting too much out of the federal govt along with crooked politicians with no term limits.
I know opinions vary and this only mine.

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3c.asp


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

IMO the correct decision, on gay marriage, would have been one that reinforced the idea that the States have the right to regulate marriage, but, a marriage, legal in one state, would be valid in all states. For clarity, if Vermont wanted to give marriage licenses to gay couples, that would be fine. If Texas didn't want to, that would be fine, but, a gay couple, from Texas, could go to Vermont, get married, and that marriage would be valid in Texas.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HuskyBoris said:


> states rights are only reserved for the states when the federal govt deems it ok for them to have them
> on April 12,1861 states rights became a thing of the past.
> ,,FDR put the final nail with the New Deal,it seemed like a great idea for awhile but now we are seeing the end result of people demanding or expecting too much out of the federal govt along with crooked politicians with no term limits.
> I know opinions vary and this only mine.
> ...


Nobody really respected state rights prior to 1861. You're from Michigan, you should know that. Northern states tried to invoke state rights so that they would not be forced to recognize "slaves" as slaves once those people were within their borders. Those state rights loving southerners were all over that, using the federal government to enforce their will. 

State rights was a joke. The only way to protect the freedoms offered by the United States Constitution is to allow individual citizens the right to sue the pants off their state governments in federal court when states try to use the state rights argument to wiggle their way out of abiding the Constitution.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Nobody really respected state rights prior to 1861. You're from Michigan, you should know that. Northern states tried to invoke state rights so that they would not be forced to recognize "slaves" as slaves once those people were within their borders. Those state rights loving southerners were all over that, using the federal government to enforce their will.
> 
> State rights was a joke. The only way to protect the freedoms offered by the United States Constitution is to allow individual citizens the right to sue the pants off their state governments in federal court when states try to use the state rights argument to wiggle their way out of abiding the Constitution.


I am pretty sure those slave issues were dealt with in the constitution so they were not rights retained by the states or the people.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

That is the problem we have today. The Federal Government has taken liberties (interpret that how you will) with the Constitution. There are enumerated powers, given the Federal government. There are some amendments that give them some additional powers (albeit, the Feds did play loose with the constitution to get some of those amendments passed). Everything else is reserved for either the States, or, the People. Truth be known, the Supreme Court no longer is bound by the Constitution, but rather, by prevailing political winds. (We can thank FDR for that. A stitch in time saves nine indeed). The Federal government cannot be trusted to police itself, be it Congress, The President, or, the SCOTUS. The quicker the majority of American realize that and get angry about it, the better off we will be.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure those slave issues were dealt with in the constitution so they were not rights retained by the states or the people.


STATE rights ya'll. If the south can secede over the democratically elected government's Constitutional bills regarding slavery, surely the north had the right to secede from a single line of the Constitution. Oh that's right, the south didn't think so, that's why they tried to take their ball and go home. 

And marriage is not specified in the Constitution, and there is no evidence that gay marriage will harm the general welfare, or that the act of two gay people getting married infringes on any other individual's rights, therefore it IS a right retained by the people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> STATE rights ya'll. If the south can secede over the democratically elected government's Constitutional bills regarding slavery, surely the north had the right to secede from a single line of the Constitution. Oh that's right, the south didn't think so, that's why they tried to take their ball and go home.
> 
> And marriage is not specified in the Constitution, and there is no evidence that gay marriage will harm the general welfare, or that the act of two gay people getting married infringes on any other individual's rights, therefore it IS a right retained by the people.


The southern states had every right to secede. No state has the right to ignore a single line of the constitution.

Yeppers marriage.... Gay or straight is a right retained by the people.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The southern states had every right to secede. No state has the right to ignore a single line of the constitution.
> 
> Yeppers marriage.... Gay or straight is a right retained by the people.


Except when that single line in the Constitution doesn't actually name slaves, just "service and labor", and the states involved outlawed slavery.... So you're saying the Civil War was about slavery.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hi, please allow me to introduce myself.... I am quite conservative and have never understood where states derived the authority to make it a crime for its citizens to be friendly with any plant. Now you know a conservative that is all for getting rid of laws that make it illegal to play with plant life.



Well you may be a true conservative, but most of those who call themselves conservative somehow seem to want to spend more money.

Just heard Trump say he wants to build a fence at the Mexican border. "Conservatives" love the idea, even though its expensive. You would think they'd start by cutting the welfare that attracts the illegals, and get teenagers out there picking lettuce. You know, the conservative value of hard work.

Which is why the better term now for those who want to spend less and have more freedom is libertarian. You know, the crazies.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Nobody really respected state rights prior to 1861. You're from Michigan, you should know that. Northern states tried to invoke state rights so that they would not be forced to recognize "slaves" as slaves once those people were within their borders. Those state rights loving southerners were all over that, using the federal government to enforce their will.
> 
> State rights was a joke. The only way to protect the freedoms offered by the United States Constitution is to allow individual citizens the right to sue the pants off their state governments in federal court when states try to use the state rights argument to wiggle their way out of abiding the Constitution.





wiscto said:


> STATE rights ya'll. If the south can secede over the democratically elected government's Constitutional bills regarding slavery, surely the north had the right to secede from a single line of the Constitution. Oh that's right, the south didn't think so, that's why they tried to take their ball and go home.
> 
> And marriage is not specified in the Constitution, and there is no evidence that gay marriage will harm the general welfare, or that the act of two gay people getting married infringes on any other individual's rights, therefore it IS a right retained by the people.




All I can say is, that contradicts all the discussion of states rights prior to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights.
The power of the central gov't having an adequate counterbalance was one of the top priorities from the beginning.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Except when that single line in the Constitution doesn't actually name slaves, just "service and labor", and the states involved outlawed slavery.... So you're saying the Civil War was about slavery.


The not very civil war of northern aggression was all about the same thing all wars are about... money! I have brought forward that line in the Constitution the northern interests were guilty of ignoring. 

article 4 section 2:

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

I am pretty sure that slaves qualified as being a person held to service or labor in the states they fled from. Its very simple terms and would have also included indentured servants. It makes little difference which end of that turd commonly known as the civil war you try to pick up.... the north violated our constitution in order to maintain control of the economic interests in their favor. There IS NO CLEAN END of that turd.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> All I can say is, that contradicts all the discussion of states rights prior to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights.
> The power of the central gov't having an adequate counterbalance was one of the top priorities from the beginning.


In practice, everyone respected the rights and needs of their own state but the others not so much. I'm not going to tell everyone to agree with me, but the history is there. I agree with you that there was a contradiction. That's why there was so much fighting, even before the Civil War.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The not very civil war of northern aggression was all about the same thing all wars are about... money! I have brought forward that line in the Constitution the northern interests were guilty of ignoring.
> 
> article 4 section 2:
> 
> ...


Yes. You are pretty sure, I can see that. But the north determined that slavery was abominable. They outlawed it. Therefore within their borders a slave laborer was an illegal entity and could not exist. STATE RIGHTS! The south threw a fit and seceded. The north put the south in line for the sake of the union, and frankly, you owe them a big fat thank you and an apology, because one big bloody war was better than fighting over control of the west for generations and generations and generations. A divided America during World War II. I wonder how that would have gone. Thankfully, I only have to wonder.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

DJ in WA said:


> Well you may be a true conservative, but most of those who call themselves conservative somehow seem to want to spend more money.
> 
> Just heard Trump say he wants to build a fence at the Mexican border. "Conservatives" love the idea, even though its expensive. You would think they'd start by cutting the welfare that attracts the illegals, and get teenagers out there picking lettuce. You know, the conservative value of hard work.
> 
> Which is why the better term now for those who want to spend less and have more freedom is libertarian. You know, the crazies.


Building a fence on the border is not a new idea - it started under Pres. George. Bush and I don't know how much is fenced, but there is some that I have seen.

I do agree with you about cutting the welfare - all manner of welfare - for illegals. I think we should simply enforce the existing interior laws, and there won't be much use for a fence. 

But our lettuce was getting cut, our chickens plucked, etc., before the illegals came and I'm sure it would again.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Yes. You are pretty sure, I can see that. But the north determined that slavery was abominable. They outlawed it. Therefore within their borders a slave laborer was an illegal entity and could not exist. STATE RIGHTS! The south threw a fit and seceded. The north put the south in line for the sake of the union, and frankly, you owe them a big fat thank you and an apology, because one big bloody war was better than fighting over control of the west for generations and generations and generations. A divided America during World War II. I wonder how that would have gone. Thankfully, I only have to wonder.


If the north decided slavery was so wrong and had to be ended, why did so many northern slave owners sell their slaves to traders who transported them to other states, countries, etc where they would continue to be slaves? Why not just free them and give them a hand at starting out a Freeman right where they were?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> If the north decided slavery was so wrong and had to be ended, why did so many northern slave owners sell their slaves to traders who transported them to other states, countries, etc where they would continue to be slaves? Why not just free them and give them a hand at starting out a Freeman right where they were?


Last I checked, democracy requires a majority. So your definition of "so many" is a little off in my opinion. We were talking about states, not a specific minority of individuals in those states whose actions happen to be convenient for revisionist historians 150 years later. Slave numbers in the north never came close to what existed in the south. By the time the northern states started abolishing slavery, slave numbers were negligible, slave owners even more so. I accept that there were many people in the south who did not like slavery, and some in the north who did. I accept that isn't a pretty picture. I accept that reconstruction was atrocious. We can all just be realistic. The north couldn't have abolished slavery if the majority of the people in their states were against abolition... It would have been political suicide. The Civil War was fought because of secession, secession occurred because of slavery. Slavery was the root cause. Let's just get real for once.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I suspect States Rights is a concept that is dead. Maybe states will retain the right to issue license plates - unless they offend someone. Maybe we can still teach Texas history - unless someone considers that offensive and demands we tear down the Alamo, etc., etc.

Forget it, it's done.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Yes. You are pretty sure, I can see that. But the north determined that slavery was abominable. They outlawed it. Therefore within their borders a slave laborer was an illegal entity and could not exist. STATE RIGHTS! The south threw a fit and seceded. The north put the south in line for the sake of the union, and frankly, you owe them a big fat thank you and an apology, because one big bloody war was better than fighting over control of the west for generations and generations and generations. A divided America during World War II. I wonder how that would have gone. Thankfully, I only have to wonder.


I think we would have been much better off if the South had won, or at least come to a peaceful understanding with the Northern states. Slavery could not be sustained with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Besides, sharecroppers were cheaper than slaves, when it comes to farming.

The Federal government was initially established to basically defend the shores and deliver the mail. Common defense would have never been a problem, as the people of the North and the South are and were too entertwined to ignore an outside attack.

Ever notice that the same region which still embraces the Stars & Bars also has the most young people enlist in the service?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Just throwing this out there for those interested in doing any further light or heavy reading regarding factors in the civil war, obviously slavery has been brought up. And, on at least other threads there's been discussions touching on the economic reasons for each side, territorial futures gas also been brought up, and of course the ft Sumter play by play. Even diplomatic relations including how the battle if puebka and napolean were a factor (which I loved cause I can't stand that people know so little about that).

But, there's a lot to fish through with regard to not just the "I hav a pen and a phone" and can ride roughshod mentality Lincoln had as far as playing politics. There's even more than looking carefully at grant, Lee and Davis and other shotcallers.

Take a look at the elections when Lincoln took office and also the midterm elections two years later. It's not the most exciting stuff at first glance, but boy us a lot of it relevant to how Lincoln got to be president, why the south left, and why the north didn't pull out if the war.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Ahhh revisionist historians...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Ahhh revisionist historians...


Or maybe just people willing to get past the grade school stuff and dig a bit deeper.

History is best viewed through the lens of a person living at the time. Nobody denies that slavery was a major factor in causing the Civil war, but you have to go a little deeper and look at why. The vast majority of Southerners who fought never owned slaves and never would, so why would they fight and die for something they didn't have and would never have?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Jolly said:


> *Or maybe just people willing to get past the grade school stuff and dig a bit deeper.*
> 
> History is best viewed through the lens of a person living at the time. Nobody denies that slavery was a major factor in causing the Civil war, but you have to go a little deeper and look at why. The vast majority of Southerners who fought never owned slaves and never would, so why would they fight and die for something they didn't have and would never have?


You mean like people who graduated from a four year institution with a degree in history? History is not about the person. History is about the people. The people who fought the war had little say in whether or not it was fought, the people who did cited slavery as their primary cause. You know that. If you want to defend the average southerner, do it. But don't do it by lying about why the war happened in the first place.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> You mean like people who graduated from a four year institution with a degree in history? History is not about the person. History is about the people. The people who fought the war had little say in whether or not it was fought, the people who did cited slavery as their primary cause. You know that. If you want to defend the average southerner, do it. But don't do it by lying about why the war happened in the first place.


Sorry, I don't have a degree in history. I do have one in biology, one in medical technology, and lack one course in having another degree in chemistry. I need one more course in each, and I can have a minor in theology and one in physics. Plus, I've have about 30 hours post-grad stuff in management and I need one more FINRA class to qualify as a stock broker.

Know what all that means? Not much. I taught at the university level as an adjunct for ten years and met just as many dumb people (and smart people) in academe as I met out in the forestry business, or in the oilfield.

I can read, just like you can read. And your opinion, or mine, is just that. Opinion. You're trying to use a Voice of Authority argument and it just ain't gonna work, especially not when you're talking with a bunch of adults.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Sorry, I don't have a degree in history. I do have one in biology, one in medical technology, and lack one course in having another degree in chemistry. I need one more course in each, and I can have a minor in theology and one in physics. Plus, I've have about 30 hours post-grad stuff in management and I need one more FINRA class to qualify as a stock broker.
> 
> Know what all that means? Not much. I taught at the university level as an adjunct for ten years and met just as many dumb people (and smart people) in academe as I met out in the forestry business, or in the oilfield.
> 
> I can read, just like you can read. And your opinion, or mine, is just that. Opinion. You're trying to use a Voice of Authority argument and it just ain't gonna work, especially not when you're talking with a bunch of adults.


And once again you missed the point. One of us here actually did go through an in depth study of the Civil War and all of the politics and forces leading up to it. OR two of us, for all I know. But since I happen to be the one you were knocking for "not going beyond the elementary school" history, or whatever BS you said in an attempt to shut down my _opinion_ as something childish and unrefined, I had every right to defend my position. Now you're sidestepping and trying to change the argument. Again. You're trying to paint me out to be the bad guy. Again. When you were the one who said, hold on I guess I'll actually scroll down and quote you...



> Or maybe just people willing to get past the grade school stuff and dig a bit deeper.



So like I said. I read all about all of those "other" political issues leading up to the Civil War, and not one of them was as influential as the issue of whether or not slavery would be expanded into the territories. Not one of them was as influential as whether or not northern states would be forced to capitulate to federal authority regarding "labor and services" and whether or not they had the right to outlaw slavery and refuse to recognize a slave as a legitimate "labor and services" issue. My opinion isn't "just that." My opinion is based on overwhelming evidence.


Yea. I called out revisionist history. Because I studied the Civil War in depth, "past the grade school stuff." If you're going to call me out, I'm going to respond. Oh and... Since you've now posted your resume', don't worry, I won't argue physics with you. I didn't study it, don't know that much about it, and I'm not the kind of person who would skim through something half you know what to win a debate I am emotionally attached to. That wouldn't be very objective or scientific. 
*
And it isn't about who can read. It's about who DID read.*


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> And once again you missed the point. One of us here actually did go through an in depth study of the Civil War and all of the politics and forces leading up to it. OR two of us, for all I know. But since I happen to be the one you were knocking for "not going beyond the elementary school" history, or whatever BS you said in an attempt to shut down my _opinion_ as something childish and unrefined, I had every right to defend my position. Now you're sidestepping and trying to change the argument. Again. You're trying to paint me out to be the bad guy. Again. When you were the one who said, hold on I guess I'll actually scroll down and quote you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm glad you read. Study to show thyself approved.

But the grade school stock answer for what caused the Civil War is slavery. Slavery is a nice starting point, but it's not the end all. I had family that fought in the war, perhaps yours did , too.

But I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt, my family didn't fight because slavery was their main sticking point, but when you lay your life on the line, it has to be for something. And while slavery is mentioned quite prominently in many of the Confederate state's constitutions, don't think for a minute the average guy in butternut was out there getting shot at because of slavery.

That does them quite a disservice.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Hey wistco,

If you want to prove your point and you think so many people here are so unread, why don't you write a book?

Or, even toss out some authors or book titles or something to help all us ignorant masses figure out where all the truth and unrevised historical evidence that we have missed is.

I'm being totally serious.

I'd look at it, maybe I've read what you've read maybe I haven't. But, it's be interesting to see.

I Homeschool, and we used some traditional text books. But, we use a ton of nontextbooks. And, my kids think it's fascinating to read a variety of mediums (books, news articles, etc) from all kinds of eras on the same topics. We read what different people in different times and places have written on all kinds of history and science topics. Even on the political topics. We even look for retelling of literature. One of their favorite things it to see retelling of Shakespearean stories.

Everything written whether contemporary topics or written long after is biased and revised or told from the perspective and through the filter of the author. And, every reader is biased in how they comprehend what they readcor think or hear it say.

But, if you want to keep telling us how wrong we are and how educated and more right you are, why don't you make some recommendations of things you think would be great for others to sift through and read that you've written or encountered in your field of expertise?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Here's one wistco might enjoy...The other night I was at a dinner and the guy sitting next to me was a PhD in the history department of a local college. We were talking about a mutual friend of ours who has written a pretty nice work on the Louisiana Manuevers prior to WWII, and from there we kind of lurched into the Civil war and regional ancestry.

So, wistco, do you think that ancestry had any factor in deciding whether the South seceded or not?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The Battle Cry of Freedom, James M. McPherson, Oxford University Press, is about the best single volume history. It's part of Oxford's History of the United States. They are all very thorough histories of each important era.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

vicker said:


> The Battle Cry of Freedom, James M. McPherson, Oxford University Press, is about the best single volume history.


Is Foote still considered one of the best multi-volumes?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Is Foote still considered one of the best multi-volumes?



I don't know. The Oxford series is really good though. Most by different authors in the area of thief expertise. Very in depth, all of them.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Here is an article from which I discovered OHotUSA...

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2063869,00.html


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm reminded of a story I heard that came out if the WV, Ky, Va corners area. It was told by a woman, as heard from her grandmother. The Grandmother had grown up in WV as a child during the Civil War. They lived in a small community back in the hollers. One day a wounded soldier was discovered hiding in her daddy's barn. They took care of him, fed him, a treated him well. He didn't leave. The community decided that he was a threat so, one day, after he and the man had been working in the fields, the girl's daddy invited him into the house and offered him a drink of whiskey. As the man finished his shot, daddy shot him in the back of the head with a pistol, and they buried him out behind the barn. He was a threat to the community because if one of the armies found him there they would all pay for it. 

Now, the point of the story was, no one ever passed down whether he wore blue or grey. When you ask why a soldier fights, I think of that. Most opposing soldiers have more in common with each other than they do with those who lead them or whose interests they are preserving. They get in it for one or more of many reasons but, in the end, they fight because they're told to. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." They fight because of the men next to them.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

The fact that the "grade school" stock answer isn't very in depth, and that it is a disservice to the complexity of the actual path to war, really doesn't play into whether or not slavery was the root cause. The fact that your family didn't fight for the same reasons Jefferson Davis and the Confederate leadership seceded does not change the truth regarding what the root causes of the Civil War were.... 

What do you think historians do then, Gibbs, to counter bias? They read *primary sources* and offer those primary sources to their readers in the bibliography for review. 

Anyway, I've never argued that the path to war wasn't complex. I've argued that slavery was the root cause. You can't talk about secession, abolition, free soil, state rights in the context of the antebellum without talking about slavery. In fact, no one living during the antebellum did, including Jefferson Davis (http://confederatepastpresent.org/i...ected-president-&catid=41:the-gathering-storm). Or the declarations of secession. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html




How about Charles B. Dew's book, which includes *direct quotes* from southern "commissioners" as they petitioned southern states to secede.
http://www.amazon.com/Apostles-Disunion-Southern-Secession-Commissioners/dp/081392104X

How about Chandra Manning's book, which uses diaries, letters, and even regimental newspapers to explore the war in the words of the soldiers themselves.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Anyway... Yale has posted old video of some of their lectures. It sure isn't a full semester, but it's a lot. I think it's about 14 videos, but this one should at least be interesting, if people enjoy looking into various historical works.

[YOUTUBE]zJeyeIPNEiU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Jolly said:


> So, wistco, *do you think that ancestry had any factor in deciding whether the South seceded or not?*


Possibly, especially for the second wave of states who did not originally secede. But I'm not so sure, considering how many families were split right down the middle in the border states. And I would never agree that it proves slavery was not the root cause of secession, and thus the war.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Here is a documentary study that tries to unravel the causes of the civil war. It does this by studying the documents produced by the states that wanted succession. They identified several different causes and tried to count the use of words to prioritize them. Interestingly, or not, different states seems to be driven by different motives. Their methodology is one I have not seen before and I found it very interesting.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jolly said:


> History is best viewed through the lens of a person living at the time. Nobody denies that slavery was a major factor in causing the Civil war, but you have to go a little deeper and look at why. The vast majority of Southerners who fought never owned slaves and never would, so why would they fight and die for something they didn't have and would never have?





wiscto said:


> The people who fought the war had little say in whether or not it was fought, the people who did cited slavery as their primary cause. You know that. If you want to defend the average southerner, do it. But don't do it by lying about why the war happened in the first place.




You also need to be willing to look at the facts and accept them, even if it means it might change your original opinion.

If I concede the fact that slavery was one of the major issues, at the very top of the list, (and I do) then what else is true?

We can also agree that slavery was almost totally abolished in the North, legally confirmed in the South by Dred Scott and hotly contested in the future territories of the West.

It is this contention over the future in the new territories about slavery being allowed or not that is the foundation of your cause for the War.
States' rights and secession are merely an excuse Southerners use to avoid the ugly truth that it was all about slavery.

So, let's examine that hypothesis thoroughly.

We have three choices here that relate to secession.
1) The South would have to *win* the Civil war, at 3 to 1 odds, overcome the severe economic drain of that victory, THEN confiscate the territories which belonged to the nation they previously exited.
Robert E. Lee was Lincoln's first choice as general for a good reason, he was smart. But even Lee couldn't have pulled that off and he knew when he left the Union Army.
I know people like to think we're dumb, but we ain't THAT dumb.:gaptooth:

2) The South could secede and just walk away from the future territories, which in your opinion was in conflict with their sole purpose in starting the War.

3) They could opt to stay in the Union and accept that slavery was legal in their states and continue to fight for that right in the new territories as they became states, which was already a precedent that worked.


So, given those choices, and the top priority being continued ownership of slaves, with the desire to expand, which one would have been the logical choice, assuming of course there weren't other matters of equal importance?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> You also need to be willing to look at the facts and accept them, even if it means it might change your original opinion.
> 
> If I concede the fact that slavery was one of the major issues, at the very top of the list, (and I do) then what else is true?
> 
> ...


Read what they said. They believed that the abolitionists would not stop until slavery was entirely eliminated in the south. Secessionists didn't believe in any other option.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Well wistco, I'm glad you're sharing sources you think we should know about.

I'm not sure what your point about primary sources is meant to indicate? Primary sources are absolutely valuable. But, in no way are they are less biased than later writings on the same topics. You still have to know a lot about the context, who wrote it, why it was written, etc.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> The fact that the "grade school" stock answer isn't very in depth, and that it is a disservice to the complexity of the actual path to war, really doesn't play into whether or not slavery was the root cause. The fact that your family didn't fight for the same reasons Jefferson Davis and the Confederate leadership seceded does not change the truth regarding what the root causes of the Civil War were....
> 
> What do you think historians do then, Gibbs, to counter bias? They read *primary sources* and offer those primary sources to their readers in the bibliography for review.
> 
> ...


You have to dismiss yourself from the current lens of today, and consider slavery in the light of when it existed. At the times, say in Washington's day, or a bit later, a slave was property. Private property.

What right does the Federal government have to take away private property? Eminent Domain, perhaps, but at the time, nothing else could be seized without due process and especially not giving fair value in return.

According to the Constitution, a person should be secure in their home and in their possessions.

If the North believed so much in emancipation, why did Lincoln wait so long? Or even better, why not craft a bill where slavery would be outlawed, but all slave owners would be recompensed?

As to whether the South could legally secede, I don't think some of the Northern states would have joined the union, had they known it was a one-way street. I can't find anything in the Constitution that says a state cannot leave the Union, so perhaps that part was cobbled up out of thin air, much the way Jay enumerated the powers of SCOTUS.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Possibly, especially for the second wave of states who did not originally secede. But I'm not so sure, considering how many families were split right down the middle in the border states. And I would never agree that it proves slavery was not the root cause of secession, and thus the war.


 Give you a hint....Look at the Confederate Naval Jack...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> Well wistco, I'm glad you're sharing sources you think we should know about.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point about primary sources is meant to indicate? Primary sources are absolutely valuable. But, in no way are they are less biased than later writings on the same topics. You still have to know a lot about the context, who wrote it, why it was written, etc.


But it's better than relying on someone else telling you what the people of the time believed. Not that you should read Jefferson Davis and stop there, or Lincoln and stop there, because you're absolutely right, we wouldn't know anything then...just the personal bias of an individual. Reading as many primary sources as possible is where I was going with that. 

In some cases, though, primary sources do kind of control a debate. The Civil War is one of those debates. We have so much primary source information.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I find it interesting that there are those who think slavery was what caused the war. While it may have been a factor in why the southern states seceded there was no good reason for that (secession) to have caused a war. Had the northern states simply let the south walk away peacefully (and legally) there would have been no bloodshed. There also wouldnt have been fortunes to be made if the southern states sold their cotton to foreign interests instead of the northern factories. The point here of course is to show what the war was really about.... MONEY! Dishonest Abe himself openly admitted he had no interest in the slavery issue. Why must todays "scholars" insist on blaming that war on anyone and anything but where it belongs.... the greedy northern states?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Jolly said:


> You have to dismiss yourself from the current lens of today, and consider slavery in the light of when it existed. At the times, say in Washington's day, or a bit later, a slave was property. Private property.
> 
> What right does the Federal government have to take away private property? Eminent Domain, perhaps, but at the time, nothing else could be seized without due process and especially not giving fair value in return.
> 
> ...


When did the federal government take property? They enforced "property" when they overruled the states who had outlawed slavery and refused to return "property." Of course, it's a pretty dark day when the argument is..."People are property," but whatever.

One of the things the south hated about Lincoln in the first place was that he gave a speech in which he said that he intended to end slavery in the south over time. If the north didn't believe so much in emancipation, why did they nominate and elect a man who said something like that over far safer choices? 

And what does any of that mean for the root cause of the war? Nothing. It doesn't matter if the north was wrong to outlaw slavery and refuse to return "property." It doesn't matter if they were hypocrites. It doesn't matter if the south had the right to secede or not, or if some of the states only seceded to prove that the others had the right. 

Slavery was the cause of the original act of secession. Slavery was the cause of the interstate issues between north and south. Slavery was the cause of congressional turmoil regarding the territories. Slavery was the cause of the abolition movement that was dominating politics in the north. Slavery was the way of life and the economic system that the power players in the south meant to keep. Slavery was the thing that no one could shut up about. Without slavery, there is no original act of secession. Read it in their own words, Jolly. They said it. There's no hiding from it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oh by the way. Lincoln was the one who proposed the compensation plan... Doesn't sound like the south was anymore interested in that than the abolitionists. Might want to double check your facts.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> When did the federal government take property? They enforced "property" when they overruled the states who had outlawed slavery and refused to return "property." Of course, it's a pretty dark day when the argument is..."People are property," but whatever.
> 
> One of the things the south hated about Lincoln in the first place was that he gave a speech in which he said that he intended to end slavery in the south over time. If the north didn't believe so much in emancipation, why did they nominate and elect a man who said something like that over far safer choices?
> 
> ...


Secession was legal.... so why did Lincoln order his armies to illegally invade the Confederate States of America?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Secession was legal.... so why did Lincoln order his armies to illegally invade the Confederate States of America?


Again. What does that have to do with the root cause? Why did secession occur? Also, right of secession is a debate that will never end, but you just keep right on thumping your chest.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Read what they said. They believed that the abolitionists would not stop until slavery was entirely eliminated in the south. Secessionists didn't believe in any other option.


Believe me, it isn't necessary for me to do further reading to agree with your point that the North and South had entirely different views on the future.

My point was if secession would have allowed the North to continue as free states, and the hard core abolitionists were still a minority, why didn't that solve the problem then and there?
Think about it.......


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> When did the federal government take property? They enforced "property" when they overruled the states who had outlawed slavery and refused to return "property." Of course, it's a pretty dark day when the argument is..."People are property," but whatever.
> 
> One of the things the south hated about Lincoln in the first place was that he gave a speech in which he said that he intended to end slavery in the south over time. If the north didn't believe so much in emancipation, why did they nominate and elect a man who said something like that over far safer choices?
> 
> ...


Again, I don't think you are giving enough credence to the nature of the slave as property.

Try to divorce the emotion and be clinical. Replace the term "slavery" in many of the documents with "property" or some other, similar word.

Yes, to us today, slavery is a horrible thing. But at the time we are talking about, not so much, not for a lot of people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Again. What does that have to do with the root cause? Why did secession occur? Also, right of secession is a debate that will never end, but you just keep right on thumping your chest.


I would refer you to the tenth amendment which reserves all powers to the states and the people that are not specifically denied them by the Constitution... but then I remembered that according to you and dishonest Abe northern states need not adhere to the Constitution. carry on.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Again, I don't think you are giving enough credence to the nature of the slave as property.
> 
> Try to divorce the emotion and be clinical. Replace the term "slavery" in many of the documents with "property" or some other, similar word.
> 
> Yes, to us today, slavery is a horrible thing. But at the time we are talking about, not so much, not for a lot of people.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would refer you to the tenth amendment which reserves all powers to the states and the people that are not specifically denied them by the Constitution... but then I remembered that according to you and dishonest Abe northern states need not adhere to the Constitution. carry on.


So you guys are officially conceding defeat in the original debate here? 

Okay, to your new arguments then, since you're just looking for some way to call this a win. Well for one thing, pretending that slavery wasn't a terrible thing for the slaves is pretty ridiculous. That's historical white washing at its finest. We know the slaves in general didn't like being slaves. We know that in general they wanted to be free. We know a good deal of them were abused. But hey, congratulations, the federal government agreed with you and decided that they were property. Which is one of the many reasons why slavery was the root cause of the Civil War....

Like I said. We can debate the right of secession forever. What was the original cause of secession? Slavery.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Believe me, it isn't necessary for me to do further reading to agree with your point that the North and South had entirely different views on the future.
> 
> My point was if secession would have allowed the North to continue as free states, and the hard core abolitionists were still a minority, why didn't that solve the problem then and there?
> Think about it.......


All I said was that the secessionists didn't believe that the abolitionists would stop. I don't really think that, in their minds, there was a choice. Maybe it would help if you tell me which of my opinions you are attempting to change.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> So you guys are officially conceding defeat in the original debate here?
> 
> Which is one of the many reasons why slavery was the root cause of the Civil War....
> 
> Like I said. We can debate the right of secession forever. What was the original cause of secession? Slavery.


Nope, but you're getting warmer.

Examine what you said.
The cause of the War vs. the cause of secession.

As I pointed out earlier, it was secession that was intolerable to Lincoln, not slavery.

Think of it as a divorce.
"Sure she cheated on me, but when her lawyer said she was leaving with half my stuff, THAT'S when I got mean."

What am I saying?










Money.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> All I said was that the secessionists didn't believe that the abolitionists would stop. I don't really think that, in their minds, there was a choice. Maybe it would help if you tell me which of my opinions you are attempting to change.


You're premise that it was all about slavery.
The North and South stayed together *despite* their differences on that.
It was when one side wanted to walk away........THAT'S what caused it.
Slavery was the excuse, not the reason.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> So you guys are officially conceding defeat in the original debate here?
> 
> Okay, to your new arguments then, since you're just looking for some way to call this a win. Well for one thing, pretending that slavery wasn't a terrible thing for the slaves is pretty ridiculous. That's historical white washing at its finest. We know the slaves in general didn't like being slaves. We know that in general they wanted to be free. We know a good deal of them were abused. But hey, congratulations, the federal government agreed with you and decided that they were property. Which is one of the many reasons why slavery was the root cause of the Civil War....
> 
> Like I said. We can debate the right of secession forever. What was the original cause of secession? Slavery.


Wrong again.... the real cause of both the war and secession was greed..... plain and simple. Why do you insist upon saying the war was caused by anything other than northern interests wanted to maintain control of the wealth? England was quite willing to buy the southerners cotton.... and at better prices, so were several other nations. What caused the war was the northern boys saw vast fortunes slipping out of their control if the south was allowed to secede and become their own nation. They could not have cared less how the south produced it, as long as they could control its sales. Lincoln himself said so.... to him it was all about keeping the south in the union, under northern control.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, but you're getting warmer.
> 
> Examine what you said.
> The cause of the War  vs. the cause of secession.
> ...


Lincoln was opposed to slavery. He spoke against slavery before he was elected, saying that he intended to end it over time. He spoke against it publicly on multiple occasions. He proposed a compensatory program where the south would be compensated for the loss of slaves, it was rejected. His election, and his stance on slavery, was the final straw for the secessionists...who were not at all shy about saying so. The only thing he said was that he would be willing to continue a great evil in order to avoid a greater one. In other words, he felt that the preservation of the union, even at the expense of the abolitionist movement, was absolutely necessary in order to avoid a greater evil. What greater evil?

How about two countries with designs on the western territories claimed when they were one nation, proven hostile relations between their citizens regarding SLAVERY, divided unevenly along the border states, expanding west and competing for territory...for how many decades before someone fired a shot? No one in their right mind could possibly have believed that secession would mean anything other than war. The south seceded anyway, over slavery, and so we fought a war.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Lincoln was opposed to slavery.
> 
> No one in their right mind could possibly have believed that secession would mean anything other than war. The south seceded anyway, over slavery, and so we fought a war.


That sorta makes one wonder why he never emancipated those slaves owned by his own wife? Not prior to the war, during or after! 

Anyone who understood our Constitution would have presumed the northern states would abide by its terms.... after all they had full knowledge of what they were signing on to when they ratified it, (along with its amendments at that time) The only reason Lincoln ordered his troops to invade a peaceful, legally operating foreign nation was to get the money back. 

the error made by the southern states was thinking that yankees would honor their contracts. In this case the Constitution.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

And now y'all see why "states rights" is so hard to understand.

You first have to know, admit and understand the facts.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wrong again.... the real cause of both the war and secession was greed..... plain and simple. Why do you insist upon saying the war was caused by anything other than northern interests wanted to maintain control of the wealth? England was quite willing to buy the southerners cotton.... and at better prices, so were several other nations. What caused the war was the northern boys saw vast fortunes slipping out of their control if the south was allowed to secede and become their own nation. They could not have cared less how the south produced it, as long as they could control its sales. Lincoln himself said so.... to him it was all about keeping the south in the union, under northern control.


If you had any clue what Lincoln actually said before during and after his presidency, you would know that he absolutely cared about ending slavery. The fact that he believed preserving the union was more important does not change the fact that he wanted to end slavery. 

Even if what you are saying were remotely true, all Lincoln had to do was NOT WORK TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, and not speak out against it, and everything would have been fine. But he and all those money loving northern politicians did the one thing that could have put their money at risk, they spoke out against slavery. Think about WHY they would need to do that, even in your scenario where they supposedly didn't care about slavery at all. Could it be that the abolition movement was too strong in the north to ignore it and still win elections? So EVEN in your imaginary world, the only possible cause for the war is the abolitionists in the north who were forcing their politicians to take an abolitionist stance in order to be elected. What were the abolitionists trying to abolish? Slavery.

As for the war? Like I said. No one with half a brain could possibly have believed that two countries whose people were already engaged hostilities over SLAVERY; which isn't a disputed fact by the way, would have been able to share the content as they both spread west. War was a distinct probability as soon as secession occurred. But secession occurred anyway, over SLAVERY.

Edit: Just to clarify. I understand that Lincoln placed the preservation of the union above abolition, but abolition was a powerful movement. He believed that slavery was morally wrong, and he delivered a speech in the 1850s saying that he wanted to put the south on a path to end slavery. THAT is why the south didn't like him. Maybe there is an alternate universe where he was a money grubbing thug, but that is not our reality.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

> But secession occurred anyway, over SLAVERY.


And that is a fact.
Now a simple question.
If the secession was accepted,(the disputed right of any state) would there have been a war?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> *That sorta makes one wonder why he never emancipated those slaves owned by his own wife?* Not prior to the war, during or after!
> 
> Anyone who understood our Constitution would have presumed the northern states would abide by its terms.... after all they had full knowledge of what they were signing on to when they ratified it, (along with its amendments at that time) The only reason Lincoln ordered his troops to invade a peaceful, legally operating foreign nation was to get the money back.
> 
> the error made by the southern states was thinking that yankees would honor their contracts. In this case the Constitution.


She grew up in a slave holding family. Abraham Lincoln never owned, nor had any power over slaves. Not hers. Not his. None. When she married him, the slaves did not come with. You are so full of lies.... 

Yup. You're right. Those dang Yankees fought slavery. It was about time really. Glad you finally see the root cause of the Civil War.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> And that is a fact.
> Now a simple question.
> If the secession was accepted,(the disputed right of any state) would there have been a war?


Two countries headed toward polar opposite policies. One continent. One west. Turmoil in the border states. Violence between abolitionists and slave holders. Both countries with expansion in mind.

You tell me...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Two countries headed toward polar opposite policies. One continent. One west. Turmoil in the border states. Violence between abolitionists and slave holders. Both countries with expansion in mind.
> 
> You tell me...


I can, and if you'd like, I will.
But I'd like to hear what your answer is, after some thought.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> She grew up in a slave holding family. Abraham Lincoln never owned, nor had any power over slaves. Not hers. Not his. None. When she married him, the slaves did not come with. You are so full of lies....
> 
> Yup. You're right. Those dang Yankees fought slavery. It was about time really. Glad you finally see the root cause of the Civil War.


I do not lie. I will admit to making errors when I make them. Perhaps you can provide us with a link as to Lincoln emancipating those slaves held by his wife? I have long been under the impression that the only slaves dishonest abe ever emancipated were those in states that had seceded. Thats what was contained in the copy of the emancipation proclamation that I read.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wiscto said:


> If you had any clue what Lincoln actually said before during and after his presidency, you would know that he absolutely cared about ending slavery. The fact that he believed preserving the union was more important does not change the fact that he wanted to end slavery.
> 
> Even if what you are saying were remotely true, all Lincoln had to do was NOT WORK TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, and not speak out against it, and everything would have been fine. But he and all those money loving northern politicians did the one thing that could have put their money at risk, they spoke out against slavery. Think about WHY they would need to do that, even in your scenario where they supposedly didn't care about slavery at all. Could it be that the abolition movement was too strong in the north to ignore it and still win elections? So EVEN in your imaginary world, the only possible cause for the war is the abolitionists in the north who were forcing their politicians to take an abolitionist stance in order to be elected. What were the abolitionists trying to abolish? Slavery.
> 
> ...


What he said before, during and after his Presidency? Your first sentence is absurd!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I do not lie. I will admit to making errors when I make them. Perhaps you can provide us with a link as to Lincoln emancipating those slaves held by his wife? I have long been under the impression that the only slaves dishonest abe ever emancipated were those in states that had seceded. Thats what was contained in the copy of the emancipation proclamation that I read.


She never owned slaves of her own. Like I said, she grew up in a slave holding family. They weren't hers, and when she left, she didn't keep any. This isn't hard to understand.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> She never owned slaves of her own. Like I said, she grew up in a slave holding family. They weren't hers, and when she left, she didn't keep any. This isn't hard to understand.


It would not be difficult to understand..... but at this point it seems rather difficult to verify. 

Either way dishonest Abe didnt bother to emancipate them... seems rather strange to only emancipate the slaves held by states who had seceded if he was so set against slavery. At first glance it almost looks like his emancipation proclamation was merely a punitive action, but it also had the affect of creating tremendous upheaval in those states in the middle of a war. you know, kinda like a military strategy of some kind. :shrug:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> What he said before, during and after his Presidency? Your first sentence is absurd!


Lincoln felt that slavery was morally wrong, and the first time he said as much was when he was 28 years old. So... Yup. Before, during, and after. The only difference between Lincoln and the abolitionists, before the war, was that Lincoln believed slavery should be ended slowly over time, starting with containment. He was conflicted. He felt that immediate abolition would bring ruin. He also didn't believe that the federal government had the right to abolish it. But he most certainly cared about slavery, and he believed that it should be ended some way some how. 

http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The absurdity is far more profound than his words, that's why I asked wiscto to think about it.
To reduce it to the North and Lincoln's compassion for humanity, as the reason leaves a dilemma to answer.
What about the 500,000+ lives you sent to be slaughtered?
Is that how you demonstrate your humanity for your fellow man? By sending his brother to kill him and be killed?

Better to look for a reasonable answer than rely on that one.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> *It would not be difficult to understand..... but at this point it seems rather difficult to verify. *
> 
> Either way dishonest Abe didnt bother to emancipate them... seems rather strange to only emancipate the slaves held by states who had seceded if he was so set against slavery. :shrug:


Whatever is most convenient for_ you_, buddy... 

The issue of the northern states was that he could only emancipate the slaves in the states that were actively in rebellion, because his emancipation proclamation was only allowed under the war powers act. He was not able to do so in states within the union, because they were legitimate states within the union. He strongly urged the 13th amendment, which soon passed. Your fudging of history is pretty "absurd," to quote a friend of yours.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Lincoln felt that slavery was morally wrong, and the first time he said as much was when he was 28 years old. So... Yup. Before, during, and after. The only difference between Lincoln and the abolitionists, before the war, was that Lincoln believed slavery should be ended slowly over time, starting with containment. He was conflicted. He felt that immediate abolition would bring ruin. *He also didn't believe that the federal government had the right to abolish it. * But he most certainly cared about slavery, and he believed that it should be ended some way some how.
> 
> http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm


If he didnt believe the federal govt had the right to abolish slavery.... why did he bother to draft his famous emancipation proclamation? Oh, I see now.... he was only freeing some of the slaves.... keeping slavery intact in states he approved of.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> The absurdity is far more profound than his words, that's why I asked wiscto to think about it.
> To reduce the to the North and Lincoln's compassion for humanity, as the reason leaves a dilemma to answer.
> What about the 500,000+ lives you sent to be slaughtered?
> Is that how you demonstrate your humanity for your fellow man? By sending his brother to kill him and be killed?
> ...


We already discussed this. If you want, I can just copy and paste my reply. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I haven't "thought about it," and it certainly doesn't mean that you are correct.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

wiscto said:


> If you had any clue what Lincoln actually said before during and after his presidency, you would know that he absolutely cared about ending slavery.


Man oh man, you were doing so well up until then. :gaptooth: 

I'm right there with you, slavery is the root cause of the war, but to tell you the truth, I'm unconvinced by any of Abe's thoughts on the matter after his presidency. It's like he quit caring entirely. Heck, I can't find a single speech by him after April 1865. What a slacker.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If he didnt believe the federal govt had the right to abolish slavery.... why did he bother to draft his famous emancipation proclamation? Oh, I see now.... he was only freeing some of the slaves.... keeping slavery intact in states he approved of.


Here ya go. Do you some learnin'... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Whatever is most convenient for_ you_, buddy...
> 
> The issue of the northern states was that he could only emancipate the slaves in the states that were actively in rebellion, because his emancipation proclamation was only allowed under the war powers act. He was not able to do so in states within the union, because they were legitimate states within the union. He strongly urged the 13th amendment, which soon passed. Your fudging of history is pretty "absurd," to quote a friend of yours.


wait a minute.... are you saying that the states that formed the Confederate States of America was no longer a part of the union??? If that was the case, dishonest Abe had NO authority to engage them in his war at all.... Even he was smart enough to never hint that the Confederacy was an independent sovereign nation. He would never even admit there was a war going on.... he was merely "suppressing a rebellion"!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Man oh man, you were doing so well up until then. :gaptooth:
> 
> I'm right there with you, slavery is the root cause of the war, but to tell you the truth, I'm unconvinced by any of Abe's thoughts on the matter after his presidency. It's like he quit caring entirely. Heck, I can't find a single speech by him after April 1865. What a slacker.


Ehhhh. My bad. I forgot that the Confederacy dragged on like a whipped dog for another month after Lee surrendered. SO ABSURD!!! 



> _April 11, 1865: Last Public Address
> 
> In Lincoln's last public address, he recommended extending the right to vote to the African Americans who had fought for the Union. This expressed his belief that African Americans should be granted full political equality._
> 
> It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.


Edit: Seriously. You can all come after me for one mistake, because apparently to you the most important thing is to memorize dates. Meanwhile. You got more than half of your facts completely wrong, but what you find to be absurd is that I forgot that Lincoln died one month before the actual end of the war, because the date that was sticking in my head was Lee's surrender. Wow. I think I've had enough of you people for a while.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> wait a minute.... are you saying that the states that formed the Confederate States of America was no longer a part of the union??? If that was the case, dishonest Abe had NO authority to engage them in his war at all.... Even he was smart enough to never hint that the Confederacy was an independent sovereign nation. He would never even admit there was a war going on.... he was merely "suppressing a rebellion"!


Well once war is declared, chief, you get to use the war powers act apparently. Obviously it's politics, but if you're still trying to argue that he didn't care, maybe you should stick to your argument? He did care. You're full of it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> We already discussed this. If you want, I can just copy and paste my reply. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I haven't "thought about it," and it certainly doesn't mean that you are correct.


I understand.

The fact that Lincoln slaughtered 1/2 a million men in order to help the nation, proves what a noble cause he was fighting for, that's your story and you're stickin' to it.
Maybe you can understand then, why Southerners are so reluctant to let the feds "help" us any more.
Next time, just leave us alone, please.


Which reminds me.....I think I'll check in on the "Neighbors from Hell"/BBQ thread.
LOL


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Well once war is declared, chief, you get to use the war powers act apparently. Obviously it's politics, but if you're still trying to argue that he didn't care, maybe you should stick to your argument? He did care. You're full of it.


Perhaps you can direct us to a link that states when the war was ever declared.... just to help me out with my much needed edgymakation.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> I understand.
> 
> The fact that Lincoln slaughtered 1/2 a million men in order to help the nation, proves what a noble cause he was fighting for, that's your story and you're stickin' to it.
> Maybe you can understand then, why Southerners are so reluctant to let the feds "help" us any more.
> Next time, just leave us alone, please.


That's ridiculous. There was no way in hell the United States of America was going to put up with a slave empire poking and prodding their way across the continent trying to snatch as much land as possible, and fighting proxy wars all the while. The Confederates seceded over slavery and put this country at risk of being a second rate power locked in a decades or century long regional conflict with another second rate power over a bunch of territory out west that Mexico, hell, even Russia had their eyes on. Even if you ignore the slavery issue, which was being fought over unofficially between abolitionists and slave holders, the confederacy had to be whipped back into line out of pure necessity, and you know it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps you can direct us to a link that states that the war was ever declared.... just to help me out with my much needed edgymakation.


Like... I... Said.... It was politics. Which is why he was careful not to push the legality of it. STILL doesn't prove the point you were originally trying to make that he didn't care. Dance around in circles all you want looking for daylight, you were wrong and I flipped the light on for you.

Edit: And yes, it was a presidential proclamation not a declaration of war. Good for you. Keep dancing until I make little mistakes in my writing, and then declare yourself the proud victor.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I have read some speeches from the time that suggests part of the problem the north had was that blacks were counted in the census - not as a whole - but part. This gave a larger representation in congress than the North thought they should have.

One of the reasons Texas gave for leaving the union, according to some writings, is the fact the US promised if they came into the union, it would protect Texas from Mexico and it had not lived up to that promise. The confederacy promised they would, if they won the war.

Not that comes under the heading of 'Things ain't changed all that much.' It is very believable - 

We should read many different sources, even the biased, and from different times and apply a little common sense and we might come up with a bit of wisdom as to why these things happened.

They are never as simple as some would like to believe - 

I, too, believe it was fought for greed and power - "Things ain't changed all that much."


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Trixie said:


> I have read some speeches from the time that suggests part of the problem the north had was that blacks were counted in the census - not as a whole - but part. This gave a larger representation in congress than the North thought they should have.
> 
> One of the reasons Texas gave for leaving the union, according to some writings, is the fact the US promised if they came into the union, it would protect Texas from Mexico and it had not lived up to that promise. The confederacy promised they would, if they won the war.
> 
> ...


And yet the abolitionists believed that the blacks should have voting rights. And yet Texas listed slavery as its primary cause for secession. And yet you seem not to know any of this even though you're talking about reading different sources. Applying common sense without common knowledge is pretty much impossible. It isn't sense at all then, really.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Like... I... Said.... It was politics. Which is why he was careful not to push the legality of it. STILL doesn't prove the point you were originally trying to make that he didn't care. Dance around in circles all you want looking for daylight, you were wrong and I flipped the light on for you.
> 
> Edit: And yes, it was a presidential proclamation not a declaration of war. Good for you. Keep dancing until I make little mistakes in my writing, and then declare yourself the proud victor.


So if I got this right.... just checking... dishonest abe not only disregarded the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold by refusing to recognize the states legal rights to secede, he also ignored it by invading a sovereign nation without Congresses declaration of war because he didnt like southerners keeping slaves? Yankee slaves being special apparently? is that about right? 

Cmon here, just admit the man was a thug and a tyrant who got a slew of people killed before the good and decent actor John Booth put him out of our misery.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

If the North believed that slavery was evil, the census numbers from the northern states should show freed blacks population skyrocket each year beginning about 1830. Wait, they don't show that. They only show slave numbers decreasing. Oh, so these abolitionists sold their slaves down south to get their value back before invading sovereign country to free them. I got it now! It's not about money at all, right!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> There was no way in hell the United States of America was going to put up with a slave empire poking and prodding their way across the continent trying to snatch as much land as possible,
> 
> the confederacy had to be whipped back into line out of pure necessity, and you know it.


I think these two lines speak volumes as to the historical accuracy of that particular incident. The yankees knew they wouldnt have nearly the power they would have if they didnt control the southern resources, and all that land out west still to be claimed for themselves! Yep, those southern boys needed to be put in their place once and for all! I think we might look at what happened after the shooting died down, how the yankees dealt with those southern brothers of theirs during reconstruction.... count on it, the slave issue was gone... what possible motivation could have existed other than the theft of land and resources. Read the 14th amendment if you believe anything else


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

wiscto said:


> And yet the abolitionists believed that the blacks should have voting rights. And yet Texas listed slavery as its primary cause for secession. And yet you seem not to know any of this even though you're talking about reading different sources. Applying common sense without common knowledge is pretty much impossible. It isn't sense at all then, really.


I said 'one of the reasons' was the threat from Mexico - trying to make the point there were others reasons for this war. The raids and incursions of Mexico into Texas and the killing of innocent people by Mexico was a very real thing - speaking of 'common knowledge'. 

A goodly portion of the west - the Southwest had belonged to Mexico until the US invaded and defeated Mexico and was ceded in the treaty following and they had lost Texas during the Texas Revolution. So, yes, I'm thinking we could safely say Mexico 'had their eye on that land'. Actually, they have had their 'eye on that land ever since. 

Now it has taken a while, but if the US fought the South to keep Mexico from getting the Southwest - they failed. Mexico's retaking of the Southwest" has just about been accomplished - took a while, but they've just about got it done.

Just because something is commonly believed to be true does not make it so. In fact, if you are speaking of history - you had better look at the 'less common knowledge', and perhaps less politically correct knowledge, to find the truth.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Even if you ignore the slavery issue, which was being fought over unofficially between abolitionists and slave holders, the confederacy had to be whipped back into line out of pure necessity, and you know it.



Yes, I do know it. I'm glad to see you do as well. It's a far different view than the one taught in schools, that Lincoln was the great emancipator and fought the war to free the slaves.
He fought it to hold on to the empire, he didn't give a hoot about the people involved, at least not enough to prevent the bloodiest war this nation has ever seen.






Did I mention arrogance and egos as contributing factors to the war as well?.......



wiscto said:


> *If you had any clue what Lincoln actually said before during and after his presidency,* you would know that he absolutely cared about ending slavery. The fact that he believed preserving the union was more important does not change the fact that he wanted to end slavery.
> 
> 
> As for the war? Like I said. * No one with half a brain could possibly have believed that* two countries whose people were already engaged hostilities over SLAVERY; which isn't a disputed fact by the way, would have been able to share the content as they both spread west.
> ...





wiscto said:


> Yup. You're right. *Those dang Yankees fought slavery. It was about time really.* Glad you finally see the root cause of the Civil War.





wiscto said:


> Ehhhh. My bad. * I forgot that the Confederacy dragged on like a whipped dog for another month after Lee surrendered. SO ABSURD!!! *


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Ehhhh. My bad. I forgot that the Confederacy dragged on like a whipped dog for another month after Lee surrendered. SO ABSURD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Seriously. You can all come after me for one mistake, because apparently to you the most important thing is to memorize dates. Meanwhile. You got more than half of your facts completely wrong, but what you find to be absurd is that I forgot that Lincoln died one month before the actual end of the war, because the date that was sticking in my head was Lee's surrender. Wow. I think I've had enough of you people for a while.


Facts being wrong? You should check yours!

Lincoln's Presidency would not have ended upon Lee's surrender. He had just been reelected in 1864. He had quite a long time left in office before his death.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Edit: Seriously. You can all come after me for one mistake, because apparently to you the most important thing is to memorize dates. Meanwhile. You got more than half of your facts completely wrong, but what you find to be absurd is that I forgot that Lincoln died one month before the actual end of the war, because the date that was sticking in my head was Lee's surrender. Wow. I think I've had enough of you people for a while.


You've become wound too tight in your debate. For the most part, I'm on your side of this argument. I haven't gotten more than half my facts wrong because my only part in this thread was to like some of the posts, mostly yours. You've made many of the same arguments I would have made...well...at least before this quit being a reasonable discussion and became an argument that you are desperately trying to win. 

You made a minor mistake in your haste, we all do it sooner or later. I found yours amusing, that's all. If you have lost the ability to laugh at yourself, you do need to take a break. Just a few days ago I said something really stupid in the forum that shall not be named because I read "abolition" as "prohibition". I had been arguing elsewhere about prohibition and in my haste made a kind of amusing error. I had to give myself 3 :hammer: as punishment. 

I grew up in the south and was taught at home and in school a huge pack of lies about the south fighting for states rights, the "War of Northern Aggression," and our supposed heroes, Lee and Jackson. I went to a school named after another "hero", Jefferson Davis. In Virginia when there was pressure to create a holiday for MLK Jr, we proudly created Lee, Jackson, King Day. It took a lot of reading, time, and study to over come that education. 

I've explained several times in HT why the Civil War was absolutely not about states rights, and that Jeff Davis's first known reference to states rights is about 20 years after the war when he and his allies were trying to rehabilitate their public image. But a life long miss-education is difficult to part with, so I give Southerners somewhat of a pass when they get some of this stuff wrong. If I didn't enjoy history and reading, I would still be stuck with all the wrong info I learned as a kid.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

deleted.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

> I've explained several times in HT why the Civil War was absolutely not about states rights, and that Jeff Davis's first known reference to states rights is about 20 years after the war when he and his allies were trying to rehabilitate their public image. But a life long miss-education is difficult to part with, so I give Southerners somewhat of a pass when they get some of this stuff wrong. If I didn't enjoy history and reading, I would still be stuck with all the wrong info I learned as a kid.


If I hadn't done some reading - and thinking - I would have believed Abraham Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> You've become wound too tight in your debate. For the most part, I'm on your side of this argument. I haven't gotten more than half my facts wrong because my only part in this thread was to like some of the posts, mostly yours. You've made many of the same arguments I would have made...well...at least before this quit being a reasonable discussion and became an argument that you are desperately trying to win.
> 
> You made a minor mistake in your haste, we all do it sooner or later. I found yours amusing, that's all. If you have lost the ability to laugh at yourself, you do need to take a break. Just a few days ago I said something really stupid in the forum that shall not be named because I read "abolition" as "prohibition". I had been arguing elsewhere about prohibition and in my haste made a kind of amusing error. I had to give myself 3 :hammer: as punishment.
> 
> ...


Do you actually believe Lee was for slavery? Do you believe when Lee refused command of the Union Army prior to the invasion of Virginia, that his reason had anything to do with slavery? You should read a few of his personal letters if you answered yes to either question.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Well once war is declared, chief, you get to use the war powers act apparently. Obviously it's politics, but if you're still trying to argue that he didn't care, maybe you should stick to your argument? He did care. You're full of it.


The war powers act wasn't signed into law until 1941, Lincoln was all seeing.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> You've become wound too tight in your debate. For the most part, I'm on your side of this argument. I haven't gotten more than half my facts wrong because my only part in this thread was to like some of the posts, mostly yours. You've made many of the same arguments I would have made...well...at least before this quit being a reasonable discussion and became an argument that you are desperately trying to win.
> 
> You made a minor mistake in your haste, we all do it sooner or later. I found yours amusing, that's all. If you have lost the ability to laugh at yourself, you do need to take a break. Just a few days ago I said something really stupid in the forum that shall not be named because I read "abolition" as "prohibition". I had been arguing elsewhere about prohibition and in my haste made a kind of amusing error. I had to give myself 3 :hammer: as punishment.
> 
> ...


The rest of them were freaking out and calling it "absurd."


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> The war powers act wasn't signed into law until 1941, Lincoln was all seeing.


Right. Nevertheless, he was given war powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Facts being wrong? You should check yours!
> 
> Lincoln's Presidency would not have ended upon Lee's surrender. He had just been reelected in 1864. He had quite a long time left in office before his death.


I already did check my facts. Like I said. I got the dates stuck in my head and forgot a detail that I apparently don't have memorized anymore.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Do you actually believe Lee was for slavery? Do you believe when Lee refused command of the Union Army prior to the invasion of Virginia, that his reason had anything to do with slavery? You should read a few of his personal letters if you answered yes to either question.


I didn't say a thing about what Lee thought about slavery. It really isn't material to this discussion. As a fan of military history, I greatly admire Lee's skill as a general. I also admire Rommel's. I can't read about what they accomplished, even though they ultimately lost for similar reasons, without being impressed with their skill, leadership, and effectiveness. But admiring them as generals is wholly separate than admiring the causes and gov'ts for which they fought. 

I haven't studied mass psychology enough to understand how the South successfully went from defending slavery to getting the masses to agree to succession and war. But I suspect it was similar to how Hillary, Kerry, and most of the US was all for Iraq War v2 even though they want to back away from their war drumming after all didn't turn out as hoped.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Trixie said:


> If I hadn't done some reading - and thinking - I would have believed Abraham Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves.


Yep, lots of junk history gets taught in schools. Did you expect me to disagree with your statement?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

wiscto said:


> The rest of them were freaking out and calling it "absurd."


Well then, by all means, I accept your apology. :icecream:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> I didn't say a thing about what Lee thought about slavery. It really isn't material to this discussion. As a fan of military history, I greatly admire Lee's skill as a general. I also admire Rommel's. I can't read about what they accomplished, even though they ultimately lost for similar reasons, without being impressed with their skill, leadership, and effectiveness. But admiring them as generals is wholly separate than admiring the causes and gov'ts for which they fought.
> 
> I haven't studied mass psychology enough to understand how the South successfully went from defending slavery to getting the masses to agree to succession and war. But I suspect it was similar to how Hillary, Kerry, and most of the US was all for Iraq War v2 even though they want to back away from their war drumming after all didn't turn out as hoped.


It was fairly easy for the south to convince their citizenry to take up arms once the northern forces had invaded, raped, robbed, and plundered their homes, cities and farms, leaving death and destruction in their wake. Just as predicted prior to the war.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So if I got this right.... just checking... dishonest abe not only disregarded the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold by refusing to recognize the states legal rights to secede, he also ignored it by invading a sovereign nation without Congresses declaration of war because he didnt like southerners keeping slaves? Yankee slaves being special apparently? is that about right?
> 
> Cmon here, just admit the man was a thug and a tyrant who got a slew of people killed before the good and decent actor John Booth put him out of our misery.


No. It's ridiculous to call him a thug. He was a president trying to do the best thing for the nation. Simplifying it just makes you look rigid and...simple. I have no idea if someone else would have done better. I do know that he thought slavery was immoral. I do know that he wanted it to be finished, but that he felt conflicted by the legal trappings. I do know that what you were originally trying to argue was that slavery was not the ROOT CAUSE. Without it, the civil war is highly unlikely to have happened. We know that because we can study the antebellum and read what the people themselves were saying. As I've said several times in this thread, the path to war was complex. But the root cause was slavery. That's what we were talking about. You're the one who drifted aimlessly to Lincoln. It doesn't really matter what Lincoln thought. Without slavery, he could never have thought it up in the first place.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> I haven't studied mass psychology enough to understand how the South successfully went from defending slavery to getting the masses to agree to succession and war. But I suspect it was similar to how Hillary, Kerry, and most of the US was all for Iraq War v2 even though they want to back away from their war drumming after all didn't turn out as hoped.


I would like to know also how they convinced the majority of poor southerners, barefoot ridgerunners, into fighting for the rights of a few to sit on their porches and sip mint juleps - unless there were other reasons.

I would like to know how they have convinced people, through the years, that if you lived north of the Mason Dixon, you were somehow morally superior to anyone who lived to the South - 

Now I was right here, listening, reading, and paying attention and I still don't know how the American people allowed the government - Rep and Dem (no real difference) to convince any of them invading Iraq was necessary and just and would somehow have a good outcome for this country, the Iraqis and the ME.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I liked parts of your post deke01. But, the south didn't agree to war. It got ready, but responded when invaded, IMO. The north, Lincoln, ordered the attack.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> I didn't say a thing about what Lee thought about slavery. It really isn't material to this discussion. As a fan of military history, I greatly admire Lee's skill as a general. I also admire Rommel's. I can't read about what they accomplished, even though they ultimately lost for similar reasons, without being impressed with their skill, leadership, and effectiveness. But admiring them as generals is wholly separate than admiring the causes and gov'ts for which they fought.
> 
> I haven't studied mass psychology enough to understand how the South successfully went from defending slavery to getting the masses to agree to succession and war. But I suspect it was similar to how Hillary, Kerry, and most of the US was all for Iraq War v2 even though they want to back away from their war drumming after all didn't turn out as hoped.


Sorry. I took your statement of " our supposed heroes Lee and Jackson" to imply they were fighting for the retention of slaves as you clearly stated the war was fought over slavery. Guess I was wrong.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I'll agree that Fort Sumter was bait, but I won't agree that a good portion of the south wasn't itching to take it... A stiff knockout punch to Washington and the following crisis would have given the Confederacy the advantage in the all important territories. Let's not forget, the rich slavers loved their money too, and they weren't at all happy about the territories being closed to their industry.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Right. Nevertheless, he was given war powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation


Nothing I can find in this article shows anything about Lincoln being granted "war powers". You will need to do better if you expect people to accept your word on matters such as these. So far you are sounding a bit like my high school teacher who always came off with " coz I said so" when questioned about the nonsense she spewed out as though she was the supreme authority. That didn't sell well then, and it doesn't fly a bit better today. Thus far you have provided zero evidence to support your numerous claims.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Sorry. I took your statement of " our supposed heroes Lee and Jackson" to imply they were fighting for the retention of slaves as you clearly stated the war was fought over slavery. Guess I was wrong.


As a proud Southerner, who lived adjacent to the Manassas Battlefield, The Battles of Bull Run 1 & 2, until last fall, I was taught that Lee and Jackson were our heroes. There are statues and holidays to prove it. But when you get right down to calling a spade a spade, they were traitors to the US, freedom and liberty and equality. 

And they did fight for the retention of slaves. You can argue it wasn't their primary purpose, but you can't honestly state that wasn't the effect. I doubt they believed that defending slavers was the noble purpose upon which they justified treason, but they did fight to retain slavery. I know how hard it is to accept calling a childhood hero a traitor. It took me a long time.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> As a proud Southerner, who lived adjacent to the Manassas Battlefield, The Battles of Bull Run 1 & 2, until last fall, I was taught that Lee and Jackson were our heroes. There are statues and holidays to prove it. But when you get right down to calling a spade a spade, they were traitors to the US, freedom and liberty and equality.
> 
> And they did fight for the retention of slaves. You can argue it wasn't their primary purpose, but you can't honestly state that wasn't the effect. I doubt they believed that defending slavers was the noble purpose upon which they justified treason, but they did fight to retain slavery. I know how hard it is to accept calling a childhood hero a traitor. It took me a long time.


Was secession legal?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

gibbsgirl said:


> I liked parts of your post deke01. But, the south didn't agree to war. It got ready, but responded when invaded, IMO. The north, Lincoln, ordered the attack.


well, to be fair, my sentence said the south agreed to "succession and war." The reason the south got ready for war was it was common knowledge that B was going to follow A.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> No. It's ridiculous to call him a thug. He was a president trying to do the best thing for the nation. Simplifying it just makes you look rigid and...simple. I have no idea if someone else would have done better. I do know that he thought slavery was immoral. I do know that he wanted it to be finished, but that he felt conflicted by the legal trappings. I do know that what you were originally trying to argue was that slavery was not the ROOT CAUSE. Without it, the civil war is highly unlikely to have happened. We know that because we can study the antebellum and read what the people themselves were saying. As I've said several times in this thread, the path to war was complex. But the root cause was slavery. That's what we were talking about. You're the one who drifted aimlessly to Lincoln. It doesn't really matter what Lincoln thought. Without slavery, he could never have thought it up in the first place.


i can see his delima! Every thing about the abolitionist goals were illegal and unconstitutional! That made his "excuse" for war a pretty tough sell. That was also why he didn't have congress declare war..... To do so he would have had to concede that the confederacy was indeed a free and sovereign nation. As others have stated throughout this discussion slavery was the excuse..... Money and power was the real reason.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Trixie said:


> Was secession legal?


that issue has already been skirted previously in this thread. It is a debate with a long and unsettled history. I think it should be legal but until such time as a state actually tries and the case makes it to the Supremes, we will never know for sure what SCOTUS will rule. 

I understand the intellectual debate you can have that if secession is legal, Lee wasn't a traitor. I shouldn't have brought up the issue because it is another rat hole thread drift. So for the moment, I'll retract my statement that he was a traitor to the US, but I won't retract my statement that he was a traitor to the ideals of the the US, freedom, liberty, all me created equal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Was secession legal?


In a word... Yes. If you want the legal reason turn to the bill of rights, way down at the bottom you will find the tenth amendment which state clearly that all powers not specifically forbidden to the states or granted to the Feds by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. Now you can read the rest of the constitution if you want but I can assure you that you will not find secession denied to any state or group of states..... Hence the states were well within their rights to secede if they so desired. Once again the northern states were perfectly willing to ignore the supreme law of the land.... Not at all unusual for them during that era.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As others have stated throughout this discussion slavery was the excuse..... Money and power was the real reason.


why is it important to you to defend and promote this concept? Does it bother you that the South was willing to secede and go to war to keep their slaves?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> that issue has already been skirted previously in this thread. It is a debate with a long and unsettled history. I think it should be legal but until such time as a state actually tries and the case makes it to the Supremes, we will never know for sure what SCOTUS will rule.
> 
> I understand the intellectual debate you can have that if secession is legal, Lee wasn't a traitor. I shouldn't have brought up the issue because it is another rat hole thread drift. So for the moment, I'll retract my statement that he was a traitor to the US, but I won't retract my statement that he was a traitor to the ideals of the the US, freedom, liberty, all me created equal.


I find lee being far more dedicated to the ideals of the u.s. than any of those elected officials who lashed out against and totally ignored the constitution on a regular basis.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

This is from a states rights org and shows how Jeff Davis was not an advocate of states rights. And I want to correct myself. Previously I said JD didn't talk about states rights until 20 years after the war, but I just found a speech he gave in 1882 where he discussed the war as a states rights issue. 

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/03/18/jefferson-davis-confederate-president-vs-nullification/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> why is it important to you to defend and promote this concept? Does it bother you that the South was willing to secede and go to war to keep their slaves?


Because I prefer to deal with the truth every chance I get. Does it bother you to hear that northern interests were perfectly willing to go to war to protect their wealth and power? Do you really think we have troops in the Middle East today to protect women's rights? Or to defend Christians. It is about the money.... It's always the money, and those running the show always have a nice humanitarian excuse to sell it to the masses. Lincoln used slavery, the allies in wwII had hitlers oppression of the Jews and his desire for world domination but the bottom line for any war is always the same.... Money.... Lots and lots of money.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find lee being far more dedicated to the ideals of the u.s. than any of those elected officials who lashed out against and totally ignored the constitution on a regular basis.


Those with the power of the presidency have lashed out against and ignored the constitution on a regular basis since it was written. Obama gave all sots of speeches about the wrongs of Bush2 only to reverse himself once he held the keys to the whitehouse. 

How does that excuse Lee of crimes against humanity? What is the purpose of making that comparison? I know you can argue slavery was once legal, but you can never argue that it was right and just. Even if you look at slavery with the eyes of a mid 1800s citizen, most thought slavery was an abomination. The Brit Empire, the then most powerful and far reaching gov't in the world had outlawed slavery in 1833.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In a word... Yes. If you want the legal reason turn to the bill of rights, way down at the bottom you will find the tenth amendment which state clearly that all powers not specifically forbidden to the states or granted to the Feds by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. Now you can read the rest of the constitution if you want but I can assure you that you will not find secession denied to any state or group of states..... Hence the states were well within their rights to secede if they so desired. Once again the northern states were perfectly willing to ignore the supreme law of the land.... Not at all unusual for them during that era.



I think it may have been legal for them to try, then I think the end of the war proved they were mistaken  That was just before they decided the war was about State's rights.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> This is from a states rights org and shows how Jeff Davis was not an advocate of states rights. And I want to correct myself. Previously I said JD didn't talk about states rights until 20 years after the war, but I just found a speech he gave in 1882 where he discussed the war as a states rights issue.
> 
> http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/03/18/jefferson-davis-confederate-president-vs-nullification/


Interesting article, but my take on it was that he disapproved annulment of constitutional law by the northern states. Ie ignoring our constitution and passing laws that were directly in violation of it. I see no problem with states rights as proscribed by the constitution, his problem seemed to be with states usurping rights not retained.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Because I prefer to deal with the truth every chance I get. Does it bother you to hear that northern interests were perfectly willing to go to war to protect their wealth and power? Do you really think we have troops in the Middle East today to protect women's rights? Or to defend Christians. It is about the money.... It's always the money, and those running the show always have a nice humanitarian excuse to sell it to the masses. Lincoln used slavery, the allies in wwII had hitlers oppression of the Jews and his desire for world domination but the bottom line for any war is always the same.... Money.... Lots and lots of money.


Well, there is some truth in there. You kind of missed the boat with WW2, what with the allies being unwilling to do more that say nasty things about Hitler until he attacked France, and there was that whole Pearl Harbor thing that generated what you apparently think was anti-Japanese propaganda, but yeah, I get your point. 

Follow the money is almost always a good strategy. And if we follow the money on the Southern side of the war you get to...what? Help me out here. It was something about having the money and power generated by buying and selling people to perform labor. I know there is a word for that. Hmmmm...It's on the tip of my tongue. What is that word?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Those with the power of the presidency have lashed out against and ignored the constitution on a regular basis since it was written. Obama gave all sots of speeches about the wrongs of Bush2 only to reverse himself once he held the keys to the whitehouse.
> 
> How does that excuse Lee of crimes against humanity? What is the purpose of making that comparison? I know you can argue slavery was once legal, but you can never argue that it was right and just. Even if you look at slavery with the eyes of a mid 1800s citizen, most thought slavery was an abomination. The Brit Empire, the then most powerful and far reaching gov't in the world had outlawed slavery in 1833.


Ok I want to clear the air here.... I firmly believe that slavery in any of its ugly forms is wrong. 

Now, what exactly are these crimes against humanity you seem to think Lee committed? Defending ones life and property from invasion seems to be acceptable in most cases, and I don't think many would call it a crime to defeat ones enemy in battle.... Pretty sure that is the goal!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Well, there is some truth in there. You kind of missed the boat with WW2, what with the allies being unwilling to do more that say nasty things about Hitler until he attacked France, and there was that whole Pearl Harbor thing that generated what you apparently think was anti-Japanese propaganda, but yeah, I get your point.
> 
> Follow the money is almost always a good strategy. And if we follow the money on the Southern side of the war you get to...what? Help me out here. It was something about having the money and power generated by buying and selling people to perform labor. I know there is a word for that. Hmmmm...It's on the tip of my tongue. What is that word?


I don't think the economy of the south relied too much on the buying and selling of slaves. Yes it was done regularly but that's not where the real money was. The real bucks was in the selling of cotton and tobacco. Both of these corps needed a lot of labor to get it from planting to a marketable crop. I have no experience with cotton but I have raised tobacco and can personally attest it is a labor intensive crop! But that is neither here nor ther, the issue at hand in those days was that southern planters wanted a open market with foreign markets... England and others were willing to buy that cotton at a much better price than our good entrepreneurs in the north. Had the south managed to secede the north would have lost billions to foreign interests.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting article, but my take on it was that he disapproved annulment of constitutional law by the northern states. Ie ignoring our constitution and passing laws that were directly in violation of it. I see no problem with states rights as proscribed by the constitution, his problem seemed to be with states usurping rights not retained.


so what do you think was unconstitutional about a northern state passing a law against slavery, or refusing to allow its prisons to house run away slaves? How did the states not retain these rights? In neither case does it violate the fugitive slave clause of the CONS. 

You are spinning. JD disapproved of nullification and states rights because the free states could act within the confines of the CONS and still make business difficult for slavers.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> I think it may have been legal for them to try, then I think the end of the war proved they were mistaken  That was just before they decided the war was about State's rights.


Yep it was perfectly legal and constitutional for them to secede. Sadly our constitution and laws don't stand up to "might makes right".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> so what do you think was unconstitutional about a northern state passing a law against slavery, or refusing to allow its prisons to house run away slaves? How did the states not retain these rights? In neither case does it violate the fugitive slave clause of the CONS.
> 
> You are spinning. JD disapproved of nullification and states rights because the free states could act within the confines of the CONS and still make business difficult for slavers.


It was a direct violation of the constitution to not capture and cooperate in the return of runaway slaves. Remember that lil clause "state laws not withstanding."? The northern states signed in with those terms on the table, they really should have stood by their word.

Ok, I went back and read the article again,,,,, still can't find his objection to states rights, nullifying yes states rights... No.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok I want to clear the air here.... I firmly believe that slavery in any of its ugly forms is wrong.
> 
> Now, what exactly are these crimes against humanity you seem to think Lee committed? Defending ones life and property from invasion seems to be acceptable in most cases, and I don't think many would call it a crime to defeat ones enemy in battle.... Pretty sure that is the goal!


wow you are fill of spin. 

Read this for yourself http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2007/06/24/the-private-thoughts-of-robert-e-lee


to be fair, "crimes against humanity" is a phrase not in use in his day, but the ground work for the phrase goes back to 1814, when Britain and the US agreed to work towards ending the slave trade because it violated the "principles of humanity and justice". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Why did they fight? 
"The election of Lincoln, declared an Alabama newspaper, âshows that the North [intends] to free the ******* and force amalgamation between them and the children of the poor men of the South.â âDo you love your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter?â a Georgia secessionist asked non-slaveholders. If Georgia remained in a Union âruled by Lincoln and his crew . . . in TEN years or less our CHILDREN will be the slaves of *******.â21 âIf you are tame enough to submit,â declaimed South Carolinaâs Baptist clergyman James Furman, âAbolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.â No! No! came an answering shout from Alabama. âSubmit to have our wives and daughters choose between death and gratifying the hellish lust of the *****!! . . . Better ten thousand deaths than submission to Black Republicanism.â
(The Battle Cry of Freedom, pg 243)


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep it was perfectly legal and constitutional for them to secede. Sadly our constitution and laws don't stand up to "might makes right".



Turns out, they did.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> wow you are fill of spin.
> 
> Read this for yourself http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2007/06/24/the-private-thoughts-of-robert-e-lee
> 
> ...


Spin?!?! Me!?!? I think not. I see no crime in this article... He fulfilled the law (perfectly legal at that time) and he freed his slaves as per the terms of the will. Where's the rub? Tell me you think he should have freed them upon his fathers demise because they wanted them to. Or maybe discipline was not in order for those that defied his orders? Hate to say it but that was the order of the day... Slaves were slaves and their owners were the "boss". Not much difference today, don't do what the boss wants.... You will be disciplined. I think the term for it is yer fired.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It was a direct violation of the constitution to not capture and cooperate in the return of runaway slaves. Remember that lil clause "state laws not withstanding."? The northern states signed in with those terms on the table, they really should have stood by their word.
> 
> Ok, I went back and read the article again,,,,, still can't find his objection to states rights, nullifying yes states rights... No.


I love it. :banana: You've wrapped yourself around your argument so tightly that now you are promoting slavery. Cool. I guess that means I win. You know, some people would say that slavery is such an abomination that no law could compel them to support it. But not Yvonne's Hubby who at Nuremberg would have cried, "But I was only following orders." 

The fugitive slave clause: 

âNo person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.â

Try to do it without spinning and tell me again how outlawing slavery in a northern state and refusing to imprison slaves violates the above clause. It says that if I have your runaway slave, I have to return him at your demand. It doesn't say my state has to actively try to capture the runaways. 

And were you not :spinsmiley: so fast that you've made yourself dizzy, you would see how nullification and states rights go together. Read the article again. I'm not really interested in spending more time with someone who will defend capturing and enslaving people. 

G'night


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Spin?!?! Me!?!? I think not. I see no crime in this article... He fulfilled the law (perfectly legal at that time) and he freed his slaves as per the terms of the will. Where's the rub? Tell me you think he should have freed them upon his fathers demise because they wanted them to. Or maybe discipline was not in order for those that defied his orders? Hate to say it but that was the order of the day... Slaves were slaves and their owners were the "boss". Not much difference today, don't do what the boss wants.... You will be disciplined. I think the term for it is yer fired.



And yet another defense of slavery and beatings. Thank God the country has moved past your kind.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Why did they fight?
> "The election of Lincoln, declared an Alabama newspaper, âshows that the North [intends] to free the ******* and force amalgamation between them and the children of the poor men of the South.â âDo you love your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter?â a Georgia secessionist asked non-slaveholders. If Georgia remained in a Union âruled by Lincoln and his crew . . . in TEN years or less our CHILDREN will be the slaves of *******.â21 âIf you are tame enough to submit,â declaimed South Carolinaâs Baptist clergyman James Furman, â*Abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.â *No! No! came an answering shout from Alabama. âSubmit to have our wives and daughters choose between death and gratifying the hellish lust of the *****!! . . . Better ten thousand deaths than submission to Black Republicanism.â
> (The Battle Cry of Freedom, pg 243)


so it would appear the clergyman was off about 100 years with his prediction.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> And yet another defense of slavery and beatings. Thank God the country has moved past your kind.


Sorry bout that, you obviously can't see the difference between defending slavery and understanding how the laws were in those days. I would have to ask again.... What laws did he break?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Again, it's not hard to figure how the poor, southern whites were enticed to fight. My above post is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of propaganda. The only thing lower than a poor white was a ***** slave and, the southern slavocracy didn't promote much of a middle class. Literacy in the south was way below the north. They were sheep easily led.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> so it would appear the clergyman was off about 100 years with his prediction.



Ah, your true colors do finally come through.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> I love it. :banana: You've wrapped yourself around your argument so tightly that now you are promoting slavery. Cool. I guess that means I win. You know, some people would say that slavery is such an abomination that no law could compel them to support it. But not Yvonne's Hubby who at Nuremberg would have cried, "But I was only following orders."
> 
> The fugitive slave clause:
> 
> ...


Which part of "I think slavery in any of its forms is wrong" are you having trouble grasping? The laws in 1860 were totally different than the laws of today. I am merely pointing out that AT THAT TIME those who refused to return runaway slaves were in violation of those laws. States that passed laws that would hinder a slave being returned were doing so in defiance of the constitution.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm glad you finally came out. It must give you a feeling of great lightness.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Cough!! Cough!!! Sorry, I was laughing too hard.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Ah, your true colors do finally come through.


Now why do I get the feeling that you are not referring to my fondness for the truth? If the prediction was made in the 1850s, and it didn't come true until the1960s, subtract the ten years in the prediction and you get roughly 100 year error. Now, what color do you think my ability for simple arithmetic makes me?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I think you nailed it!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Again, it's not hard to figure how the poor, southern whites were enticed to fight. My above post is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of propaganda. The only thing lower than a poor white was a ***** slave and, the southern slavocracy didn't promote much of a middle class. Literacy in the south was way below the north. They were sheep easily led.


Watching ones farm being destroyed, ground being salted, along with their family members being raped and slaughtered prolly provided a little incentive too.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

So, you're saying that the war was not about slavery at all, but about preventing hoards of free, lusty black men enticing your daughters away from perfectly approvable white men?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Deleted.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> So, you're saying that the war was not about slavery at all, but about preventing hoards of free, lusty black men enticing your daughters away from perfectly approvable white men?


Nope... I think that was you that brought that nonsense to the game. 

I am the guy that thinks money is what caused that war..... Kinda like every other war in the history of man.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope... I think that was you that brought that nonsense to the game.



I can stand by that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Deleted.


I don't blame ya for deleting that one!!! Lol


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

There was a lot of bushwacking going on.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> There was a lot of bushwacking going on.


I will agree with you there..... And since the vast majority of that war took place in the south it don't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who was bush whacking the civilians... There are still farmlands today that were salted and burned by Sherman that won't grow so much as a weed.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

That's simply not true. That would take many tons of salt to do that to a few acres of land. And, the occupying forces would not be the ones, predominantly, doing the bushwacking.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

In my area, and all of the areas near me, the bushwhackers were Rebs. In Southern Appalachia, Rebs. They raped, robbed and pillaged. They didn't have a lot of salt though. They ran, a lot!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> That's simply not true. That would take many tons of salt to do that to a few acres of land. And, the occupying forces would not be the ones, predominantly, doing the bushwacking.


So are you trying to tell me that the southern boys were the ones doing the burning, killing livestock and terrorizing their neighbors in general?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm saying no fields are fallow because they were salted by tons of union salt lol! And, in my area, as is today, the ones doing the mischief were Rebs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> I'm saying no fields are fallow because they were salted by tons of union salt lol! And, in my area, as is today, the ones doing the mischief were Rebs.


Are you sure it's the Rebs? They must be spry for their age!! 

I will have to go through my pics and find the pics of the fallow fields I saw when I was taking a bike trip a few years back.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

No, really, they're not that old. Some are older than me. A few are younger. They do seem to becoming rarer.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Are you sure it's the Rebs? They must be spry for their age!!
> 
> I will have to go through my pics and find the pics of the fallow fields I saw when I was taking a bike trip a few years back.



Can't wait to see them. We're on the coastal plain here. Once you get below the fall line it is sand and a little too soil. We have some desert areas from when they tried to grow cotton for to many years without adding anything back. Pretty much just beach sand now. That delta dirt though. They had it in Mississippi.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> No, really, they're not that old. Some are older than me. A few are younger. They do seem to becoming rarer.


I can see why! Assuming they were ten years old at the end of the war in 1865 they would have to be at least 160 today!


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Haven't you heard? The war never ended.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Can't wait to see them. We're on the coastal plain here. Once you get below the fall line it is sand and a little too soil. We have some desert areas from when they tried to grow cotton for to many years without adding anything back. Pretty much just beach sand now. That delta dirt though. They had it in Mississippi.


I can't remember where I was just off the top of my head, it was a bit over thirty years ago. I do remember talking to some of the locals, they told me those strips were thanks to Sherman on his March to the sea. Strips were about a quarter mile wide and ran for several miles where ever it was.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The ideology is, however, dying a death that can be measured in clock ticks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Haven't you heard? The war never ended.


Yep I hear that often, something about a temporary cease fire....others say it was Lee that surrendered... Not everyone!


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

"I can't remember where I was just off the top of my head, it was a bit over thirty years ago. I do remember talking to some of the locals, they told me those strips were thanks to Sherman on his March to the sea. Strips were about a quarter mile wide and ran for several miles where ever it was."


Imagine, try hard here, how much salt it would take to poison a 1/4 mile x 1/4 mile field for one season. It's sand, ok? When it rains the salt is going into the ground water. Think man, think! Did you see 50' pile of salt on the land? Think man, think? How much damage would it do to a 1/2 acre field if I sowed a hundred pound of salt on it?
I'm sorry man but, you believing that tells me you are a Yankee.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

There's nothing wrong with that,YH. I have lots of cousins who are Yankees and have romantic feelings for the South. They have no idea what they're talking about, but, I still love them. The Southern story was designed that way. It is romanticism at its finest. We're good at that. You should read Faulkner.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

vicker said:


> Can't wait to see them. We're on the coastal plain here. Once you get below the fall line it is sand and a little too soil. We have some desert areas from when they tried to grow cotton for to many years without adding anything back. Pretty much just beach sand now. That delta dirt though. They had it in Mississippi.


I am having a bit of a hard time imagining Sherman's March to the Sea, as it winds through Mississippi....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> I am having a bit of a hard time imagining Sherman's March to the Sea, as it winds through Mississippi....


Yep, just head southeast from Atlanta Ga. keep marching across Mississippi til you get to Savanah.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Speaking of Mississippi, the battlefield at Vicksburg is a nice half-day excursion, if you happen to be in the area...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> As a proud Southerner, who lived adjacent to the Manassas Battlefield, The Battles of Bull Run 1 & 2, until last fall, I was taught that Lee and Jackson were our heroes. There are statues and holidays to prove it. But when you get right down to calling a spade a spade, they were traitors to the US, freedom and liberty and equality.
> 
> And they did fight for the retention of slaves. You can argue it wasn't their primary purpose, but you can't honestly state that wasn't the effect. I doubt they believed that defending slavers was the noble purpose upon which they justified treason, but they did fight to retain slavery. I know how hard it is to accept calling a childhood hero a traitor. It took me a long time.


This is an example of letting the facts guide your thinking rather than emotions or traditions you've been taught.

I might pull back just a little on calling them "traitors" , but technically you're correct, just as George Washington was a traitor to Great Britain.
They weren't traitors to the South, but they were forced to choose loyalties, like if someone told me to choose between my best friend and my wife.
There's not going to be a good outcome to that choice.

But in the same way, I would like people to see Lincoln and the War in the stark light of truth. He wasn't some benevolent, compassionate savior, he conceded to do one evil act over another. He made a choice.
Look at the results and the consequences for what they are, and teach the truth about it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i can see his delima! Every thing about the abolitionist goals were illegal and unconstitutional! That made his "excuse" for war a pretty tough sell. That was also why he didn't have congress declare war..... To do so he would have had to concede that the confederacy was indeed a free and sovereign nation. *As others have stated throughout this discussion slavery was the excuse..... Money and power was the real reason.*


Money and power was the reason the federal government was originally trying to crack down on the abolitionists, actually. The way things were made the rich people in this country rich, north and south. The abolitionists gained a foothold in the north with the common people, they were winning elections, the rich people in the north who were okay with the way things were lost control of the north to the abolitionists. So yes, secession absolutely was about money, greed, and power....but it wasn't northern money and power that caused the south to secede, it was the SOUTH's money and power that caused the south to secede. 

You tried to claim that Lincoln didn't care about slavery, you were wrong. You tried to claim that the north didn't care about slavery, you were wrong. You thought it wasn't about slavery, and you were wrong. 

Here's a little piece of Americana for you. 



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal*, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it*, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


Slavery was a transient cause if there ever was one, because it was immoral. *The abolitionists in the north were the real rebels*, they were the righteous ones. The south seceded for slavery. The south seceded for THEIR money and THEIR greed. They attempted to dissolve the United States of America to protect an immoral system; a TRANSIENT CAUSE, and then they threatened to damage the economy in the north and spread their immoral system west to gobble up land and territory that no longer belonged to them. They had it coming, they fired the first shots, they lost.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Money and power was the reason the federal government was originally trying to crack down on the abolitionists, actually. The way things were made the rich people in this country rich, north and south. The abolitionists gained a foothold in the north with the common people, they were winning elections, the rich people in the north who were okay with the way things were lost control of the north to the abolitionists. So yes, secession absolutely was about money, greed, and power....but it wasn't northern money and power that caused the south to secede, it was the SOUTH's money and power that caused the south to secede.
> 
> You tried to claim that Lincoln didn't care about slavery, you were wrong. You tried to claim that the north didn't care about slavery, you were wrong. You thought it wasn't about slavery, and you were wrong.
> 
> ...


Just for shucks and grins, since you probably have it memorized and I'm too lazy to look it up, how many slaveholders signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

You know, you could ask a group of college professors to dissect the reasons for secession and the civil war and the path of the war and reconstruction, and get wildly different answers, and they all would likely put forth very soundly thought out and supportable points.

The factors were many, slavery, political, economic, sociologic, foreign policy, legal and constitutional law, states rights, personal gain players, banking and the war machine, weaponry advancements that changed what war was like, don't forget wars have always been waged everywhere too it just seems to be the way of humanity, etc.

Trying to determine the single most important factor is a pretty unproductive exercise. All wars and those involved happen for many reasons. The wars take place when it becomes a perfect storm scenario.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Just for shucks and grins, since you probably have it memorized and I'm too lazy to look it up, how many slaveholders signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?


Exactly. The abolitionists couldn't very well have been revolutionaries if the revolution had finished what it started in the first place, could they have? They set this country on the path it was always supposed to be on. You know it. :thumb:




gibbsgirl said:


> *You know, you could ask a group of college professors to dissect the reasons for secession and the civil war and the path of the war and reconstruction, and get wildly different answers, and they all would likely put forth very soundly thought out and supportable points.*
> 
> The factors were many, slavery, political, economic, sociologic, foreign policy, legal and constitutional law, states rights, personal gain players, banking and the war machine, weaponry advancements that changed what war was like, don't forget wars have always been waged everywhere too it just seems to be the way of humanity, etc.
> 
> Trying to determine the single most important factor is a pretty unproductive exercise. All wars and those involved happen for many reasons. The wars take place when it becomes a perfect storm scenario.


You should go ahead and ask every professor in this country the following question. "What was the root cause of secession, was there a single, central issue of the day that was more influential than all of the others?" Go for it. I'll wait. You'll get some fancy pants who think that coming up with an original thought and "going against the grain" makes them smarter than the entire world, but I promise you....you will get an overwhelmingly common answer.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Exactly. The abolitionists couldn't very well have been revolutionaries if the revolution had finished what it started in the first place, could they have? They set this country on the path it was always supposed to be on. You know it. :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, since I'm not as invested in proving me thoughts and conclusions are as valid as you seem to be, I probably won't. So I wouldn't recommend you sit around holding your breath.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

People, we are just going to have to a admit that every person living south of the Mason Dixon was a slave holding rich person and present day Southerners are just hateful bigots.

We will have to admit that everyone living north of the Mason Dixon are/were just wonderful righteous people.

Abraham Lincoln was a saint who made 'those tough decisions' that bathed this country in blood because it simply had to do it.

Come on now, admit it.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Trixie said:


> People, we are just going to have to a admit that every person living south of the Mason Dixon was a slave holding rich person and present day Southerners are just hateful bigots.
> 
> We will have to admit that everyone living north of the Mason Dixon are/were just wonderful righteous people.
> 
> ...


Trixie, what you are doing is creating a strawman. It is the intentional misrepresentation of the other sides position done in a way so as to make it easy to argue against the other side. 

I don't think anyone here has even come close to suggesting what you are saying and if you can find it, I'll join you in calling them what ever mean names we can use that won't get our posts deleted. 

Actually, I think the reason why folks like Yvonne's Hubby rebel :facepalm: against the obvious, substantiated, and historically accurate root cause of the war is that some have an emotional need to deny that their ancestors participated in slavery or at least defended the practice. 

Don't worry, ALL of us have ancestors which, by today's standards, were disgusting bigots. The history of man's inhumanity to man and beast is as old as man. But thankfully the evolution of humanity continues in the direction of acceptance and peaceful coexistence, even if the world has a long way to go. 

So no, not everyone Southern, Northern, slaver, or abolitionist is good or bad. Without slaver holders like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Madison, we wouldn't have a country today where a minority can be elected president twice. Is there any other country that has ever done such a thing? ( I don't know but if there is, it is rare) So in spite of a lot of bad history, the flawed people that came before us gave us the the flawed, but great country that we have today.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I don't think Trixie is making a strawman argument even though it's a cheeky way she put it.

If the north was so fundamentally opposed to slavery and the south were so fundamentally for slavery, you'd think that the north would have taken 100% complete action to abolish slavery before or even during the war. There was more they could have done to work to end slavery without all the bloodshed. Their actions and many stated reasons for their actions don't actually support that the war was about ending slavery.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't think Trixie is making a strawman argument even though it's a cheeky way she put it..


No, she has personalized her feelings that somehow this discussion of a time gone by and people long since dead, is somehow a conviction of people today. Interesting. Why would she do that? Maybe she'll tell us. 

I for one, am a proud Southerner. I think it is absolutely great how far we've come since the 1860s and the 1960s. The south is the land of opportunity today, much more so than the north east. In spite of lots of remaining flaws, we Southerners have much to be proud of. 

I can be proud that we have, for the most part, left institutionalized racism behind. I can acknowledge that without having to manufacture a fiction to deny the central role of slavery in the Civil War and the economics of the South. 

To say that the North could have done more to end slavery sooner is undoubtedly true. So what. List any advancement you want and I can say there was a group of people who wanted it to happen faster than it did. Why didn't women get the vote in 1776? Why weren't slaves freed then? Why was it a crime to have a gay relationship until recently in many parts of the US? Why weren't child labor laws written and enforced 100 years sooner? 

The answer is because mankind is not long removed from the caves and the evolution of humanity takes time. I'm happy we're generally moving in the right direction. Hopefully we'll drag the rest of the world along with us over the next several generations and maybe one day they'll ask in places like Iran why it took so long for women to gain equality and homosexuality to be decriminalized.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

It wasn't a strawman argument - it wasn't even an argument.

It was pure absurdity - 

As in the idea that the only reason the poor people, on either side, fought was to rid the country of slavery or to keep it.

As in the idea that we are all so ridden with guilt about what our ancestors did, we must defend their actions today.

I don't have a clue what my ancestors did during the Civil War, don't even know if they were in the South at the time. Now, I do know about one ancestor, Grover Cleveland, a rich man who bought his way out of the war, and then became President - another 'Things ain't changed all that much."


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Deke01,

I agree with some of things you said.

But, the difference in those other social changes in American history aren't tied to the civil war. Those changes eventually came about without that catastrophic loss of lives and communities.

Slavery was awful. But it was allowed to continue despite the war being declared. The states that seceded left and created another nation. The rest of the united States invaded.

The states that left did talk about slavery as part of why they left. But, the north didn't declare you can't go because we want to free your slaves. Their actions to press for war had far more to do with stopping other states from defecting, and ensuring territories that were being settled did not try and join the confederacy. They didn't want another potential enemy nation becoming allied with Mexico, France, Canada, or England. And, they didn't want the economic looses in materials, products and taxes that the south provided.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Trixie said:


> It wasn't a strawman argument - it wasn't even an argument.
> 
> It was pure absurdity -
> 
> ...


Well I agree your statement was absurd. And once again you create a straw man by misrepresenting that anyone's argument that there was a single reason for the war. It has been fairly consistent argued throughout this thread that getting millions of people to go to war against each other is a complicated issue and that there was not a single simple reason. That's why we keep saying "root cause". Yvonne's Hubby says it was about power and money, and he's right in a way, except that he won't acknowledge that it was power and money derived from a slavery based economic system.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

gibbsgirl said:


> Deke01,
> 
> I agree with some of things you said.
> 
> ...


Agreed. All that's true, to the best of my limited knowledge. You can keep discussing all the resulting consequences of the South's decision to secede till you turn blue. You seem like an intelligent person who recognizes when gov'ts take actions there are both intended and unintended consequences. So I'll probably continue to agree with you. 

But none of that disproves in any way the role of slavery in creating animosity towards the North and the eventual secession of the South. You clearly state valid reasons why the North would not accept the departure of the South. But that was AFTER the South did leave and if you believe people like Jeff Davis when he was a US Senator, the South left because of slavery.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I agree slavery was one of many factors.

But, one of the reasons I really don't like the whole, "just stop and admit that it was about slavery" arguments is because slavery really was only one element of it.

And, I don't like it at all when people are given such simplistic one dimensional impressions of historical happenings. It just encourages an attitude of ignorance.

I really don't think the people on this thread fall into that descriotion. But, a lot of adults, children, and educators do. History in general is being disregarded in this country and what little is left is being considered sufficient as long as the average person is able to check off the correct bubble on a multiple choice question.

For example: true or false the issue of slavery was a primary cause if the civil war?

That gives people the impression that there's not much else that's critical to know.

And, since we've generally disregarded the idea that our kids need to know much more than that, we're raising ignorant adults who have minimal ability to process current events, because they never learned how to it with historical events.

It's one of the reasons, we use minimal amounts of history textbooks at home with our kids. They learn a lot more watching lectures and reading or listening to regular books that are written with a focus one some specific person or event or time period in history.

Life isn't simple. And history isn't simple.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Actually, I think the reason why folks like Yvonne's Hubby rebel :facepalm: against the obvious, substantiated, and historically accurate root cause of the war is that some have an emotional need to deny that their ancestors participated in slavery or at least defended the practice.


If this is what you think..... You are simply wrong. I have done a fair amount of research on my family tree and have no ancestry that owned any slaves nor fought to defend the practice. None of my ancestors fought on either side of Lincolns illegal war. The reason I reject the "obvious, substantiated, and historically correct" crapola is because it is neither obvious, substantiated, nor historically accurate.... It is the history according to the winning side, slanted entirely to make the aggressors appear to have held the moral high ground. I prefer truth and will do my best to dispose of the fraud every chance I get


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I also agree with that assessment, that slavery caused the disagreement and ultimately the secession, but it was the secession that caused the war, because it wasn't accepted by the federal gov't.
Consider this, there have been a few threats of secession since then, as recent as a few years ago. It could be taxes, or revenue sharing, or interstates or national park land or state resources.
Whatever the spark issue, the secession of a state is the moment of decision to go to war or allow them to leave.
If I don't like how I'm being treated and decide to leave, blocking the doorway is NOT going to end well. Better to recognize that right then test it again.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I also agree with that assessment, that slavery caused the disagreement and ultimately the secession, but it was the secession that caused the war, because it wasn't accepted by the federal gov't.
> Consider this, there have been a few threats of secession since then, as recent as a few years ago. It could be taxes, or revenue sharing, or interstates or national park land or state resources.
> Whatever the spark issue, the secession of a state is the moment of decision to go to war or allow them to leave.
> If I don't like how I'm being treated and decide to leave, blocking the doorway is NOT going to end well. Better to recognize that right then test it again.


And why did the federal gov refuse to accept the secession? The constitution plainly states that the states had a right to secede if they wanted to. What possible moral or legal justification was there to invade a newly formed nation?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

You can teach people the complexity of any period in history without subjectively ignoring the logical data... In my opinion, you're the one having a difficult time with complexity. The existence of many dominoes in a complex path to war does not exclude a *root cause*. The complexity of history does sometimes include points in time when one single circumstance, idea, individual, or conflict has become so pervasive that without it, the rest of the dominoes wouldn't even have been standing in the positions they were in when they fell. You cannot logically argue that without slavery the dominoes that fell and created the Civil War would have been standing where they were... Therefore you cannot argue that slavery was not the root cause.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> You can teach people the complexity of any period in history without subjectively ignoring the logical data... In my opinion, you're the one having a difficult time with complexity. The existence many dominoes in the path to war does not exclude a *root cause*. The complexity of history does sometimes include points in time when one single circumstance, idea, individual, or conflict has become so pervasive that without it, the rest of the dominoes wouldn't even have been standing in the positions they were in when they fell.


Well wistco, I don't think many here doubt you have a rather low opinion of myself and several other people's intellectual abilities.

Odd that you don't seem to grasp that when you want to prove your points superior to anyone on anything, you're not likely to attract the endorsement of those you seek after by attempting to stand on others to be heard better.

Be well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You can teach people the complexity of any period in history without subjectively ignoring the logical data... In my opinion, you're the one having a difficult time with complexity. The existence many dominoes in the path to war does not exclude a *root cause*. The complexity of history does sometimes include points in time when one single circumstance, idea, individual, or conflict has become so pervasive that without it, the rest of the dominoes wouldn't even have been standing in the positions they were in when they fell.


If you want the root cause for that war it's quite simple.... People... Had there been no people there would have no economics, no liars, no thieves, no slaves and no one with a bad attitude.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And why did the federal gov refuse to accept the secession? The constitution plainly states that the states had a right to secede if they wanted to. What possible moral or legal justification was there to invade a newly formed nation?


Sadly, many people don't even realize secession was debated heavily on several other issues prior to the civil war. Seceding was not understood by many as an unavailable option, precisely because many understood we existed because of our secession from Britain.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You can teach people the complexity of any period in history without subjectively ignoring the logical data...


i find this quite interesting. Why do you ignore so much of the logical data available with this particular topic? You seem to have swallowed the hype presented in elementary school history books as though it is gospel.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i find this quite interesting. Why do you ignore so much of the logical data available with this particular topic? You seem to have swallowed the hype presented in elementary school history books as though it is gospel.


For someone who's gotten more than half of the specific facts he attempted to list wrong, you sure do try to put on some big britches, don't you chief? Let's just agree to disagree, because I don't think you would know what logical data looked like if I tattooed it on your forehead.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> Well wistco, I don't think many here doubt you have a rather low opinion of myself and several other people's intellectual abilities.
> 
> Odd that you don't seem to grasp that when you want to prove your points superior to anyone on anything, you're not likely to attract the endorsement of those you seek after by attempting to stand on others to be heard better.
> 
> Be well.


How many times do you expect to imply that we just don't understand history and the complexity of it all before I respond? Come on... I reacted to YOU. It isn't like I backed over your puppy, kicked your chickens, and called your kids fat.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> For someone who's gotten more than half of the specific facts he attempted to list wrong, you sure do try to put on some big britches, don't you chief? Let's just agree to disagree, because I don't think you would know what logical data looked like if I tattooed it on your forehead.


I do not recall posting facts that were erronius in this thread. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I do not recall posting facts that were erronius in this thread. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.


 You know how to navigate the website.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You know how to navigate the website.


Quite true, and I also understand some of the basics when it comes to this type discussion in this forum.... Those who make a statement are the ones responsible to verify it if it is questioned. I do not recall making any such post, can't find one either. I ask you again... What specific facts did I make all of those errors about?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And why did the federal gov refuse to accept the secession? The constitution plainly states that the states had a right to secede if they wanted to. What possible moral or legal justification was there to invade a newly formed nation?


I answered that a few pages ago. I think you'll agree, for the most common reason of all........money.

The point has been made but wiscto isn't buying it.

It's the same myth that we were taught about the Boston Tea Party.
Sure, taxes sparked the fire, but the idea of being independent and being forced into something against our will is a spirit that has lived in this country a long time, longer than 150 years ago.

The list of grievances in the original copy of the Declaration of Independence is quite long and detailed. It's worth the read sometime. There was a lot more going on than a tax on tea, that's for sure.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

e


DEKE01 said:


> Well I agree your statement was absurd. And once again you create a straw man by misrepresenting that anyone's argument that there was a single reason for the war. It has been fairly consistent argued throughout this thread that getting millions of people to go to war against each other is a complicated issue and that there was not a single simple reason. That's why we keep saying "root cause". Yvonne's Hubby says it was about power and money, and he's right in a way, except that he won't acknowledge that it was power and money derived from a slavery based economic system.



It was intended as just another example of absurdity.

The government didn't want to loose the South, so they invaded.

Now was slavery a 'root cause' or was 'rights' the root cause.

Was it the greed and lust for power of the South or the greed and lust of the North that caused the war?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> How many times do you expect to imply that we just don't understand history and the complexity of it all before I respond? Come on... I reacted to YOU. It isn't like I backed over your puppy, kicked your chickens, and called your kids fat.


I don't believe many others here don't understand history or complexities. I do think that somethings put in the thread have been dismissive of some other factors that were quite important to understanding the civil war besides just slavery.

Yes, I get that you're a very reactionary personality. And, I don't recall accusing you of saying or doing anything to my animals or children. This is online. So, you're free and welcome to say anything you'd like about them. It's no skin off my back either way. I'm not at all concerned about how anyone would take those types of comments should they fall out of your mouth via your keyboard.

I won't bother explaining the finer points of how attempting to do any of those things in real life to me or mine would likely end, because you haven't gone there that I can see. Would you care to steer back to actually discussing the topic of the thread now?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I answered that a few pages ago. I think you'll agree, for the most common reason of all........money.
> 
> The point has been made but wiscto isn't buying it.
> 
> ...


Yep,,, I do agree. Money was the root cause of both wars. Just like every other war in recorded history. Oddly enough the victors all seem to have a good excuse that overlooks the facts. Usually some wonderful humanitarian thing.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep,,, I do agree. Money was the root cause of both wars. Just like every other war in recorded history. Oddly enough the victors all seem to have a good excuse that overlooks the facts. Usually some wonderful humanitarian thing.


Now that does get to the root of it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> How many times do you expect to imply that we just don't understand history and the complexity of it all before I respond? Come on... I reacted to YOU. It isn't like I backed over your puppy, kicked your chickens, and called your kids fat.


Ok I rarely get involved with this sort of nonsense..... But this time I just gotta. Please let me know if you ever decide to kick these chickens or hurt that puppy.... I happen to know who you are talking to and that's gonna be really fun to watch a full grown man get his clock cleaned! Oh... Nearly forgot.... The kids ain't fat!


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Someone commented earlier about feeling they received a very biased teaching of Confederate history as a child and discovering other telling/teachings of it later in life that changed/opened their understanding and opinions of civil war history.

I thought that was an interesting point because it showed that differing views were being taught and therefore other sides of civil war history were available.

Nowadays with the national education standards, it seems that only one version of history and one list of what topics should even be covered is becoming the norm. Even entire states can't really participate in the discussions and decisions of what publishers will put in texts. It used to be that most states were stuck with whatever Texas and California wanted because they were the customers publishers were most interested in securing orders with.

Now with more and more federal control of curriculum, they may even be losing their votes on content. And, I don't like at all where that path is steering us as far as at least preserving the variety of content, focus, and perspective there used to be.

If there isn't a variety of works available to piece together historical information, its difficult to find text written with comparative contrast and conflicting opinions. And, that means people don't have to do much comprehensive, critical thinking to determine what they believe is important and accurate. It just creates a mindless study in regurgitating facts according to one version.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gibbsgirl said:


> Someone commented earlier about feeling they received a very biased teaching of Confederate history as a child and discovering other telling/teachings of it later in life that changed/opened their understanding and opinions of civil war history.
> 
> I thought that was an interesting point because it showed that differing views were being taught and therefore other sides of civil war history were available.
> 
> ...


Yeppers, I was taught the war was all about the evil slave holders were being horribly abusive to their slaves. It was years later when I moved to Kentucky and talked to the local folks that I got a much different version. After looking into the facts I was able to see just what a snake in the grass dishonest Abe really was. Just for fun you should take a peak in today's history books and see how they have skewed the facts about Nixon and his shenanigans. He too is now pictured as one of the good guys! It seems as though the evil press told so many lies about him that he (through no fault of his own) lost the confidence of the people and resigned for the good of the nation!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

gibbsgirl said:


> Someone commented earlier about feeling they received a very biased teaching of Confederate history as a child and discovering other telling/teachings of it later in life that changed/opened their understanding and opinions of civil war history.
> 
> I thought that was an interesting point because it showed that differing views were being taught and therefore other sides of civil war history were available.


That was me. Teaching different views is fine, except when the opinions are based on lies. The foundation of my civil war education in the 60s and 70s was that the war was not about slavery, that it was about states rights. I read a book a few years ago that took apart the states rights issue and showed it for the fraud it really is. I wish I could remember the title.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep,,, I do agree. Money was the root cause of both wars. Just like every other war in recorded history. Oddly enough the victors all seem to have a good excuse that overlooks the facts. Usually some wonderful humanitarian thing.


as pertains to the Civil War, that is certainly true in a simplistic and juvenile way. I think WW2 was more about a simple lust for power and domination, but money usually follows power. 

You just can't accept you're wrong so you can't acknowledge that the money was based on a slave economy that was being jeopardized by Northern abolitionist movements.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If this is what you think..... You are simply wrong. I have done a fair amount of research on my family tree and have no ancestry that owned any slaves nor fought to defend the practice. None of my ancestors fought on either side of Lincolns illegal war. The reason I reject the "obvious, substantiated, and historically correct" crapola is because it is neither obvious, substantiated, nor historically accurate.... It is the history according to the winning side, slanted entirely to make the aggressors appear to have held the moral high ground. I prefer truth and will do my best to dispose of the fraud every chance I get


I was using "ancestors" in a more general way, Southerners as a whole, not your specific relatives.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> I also agree with that assessment, that slavery caused the disagreement and ultimately the secession, but it was the secession that caused the war, because it wasn't accepted by the federal gov't.


Well, since we keep saying root cause, you agree slavery was the root cause.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep,,, I do agree. Money was the root cause of both wars. Just like every other war in recorded history. Oddly enough the victors all seem to have a good excuse that overlooks the facts. Usually some wonderful humanitarian thing.


in several messages you imply that those of us who acknowledge the role of slavery have fallen for the message of the victors that the North was engaged in a "wonderful humanitarian" thing. I don't know Wistco's thoughts so I'm not speaking for him, but I hold no such delusion. 

I'm not a fan of Lincoln, the USDA he established, his suspension of constitutional rights like habeus corpus, the way he prosecuted the war, or that he established a precedent that states may not voluntarily leave the union. I think the US CONS is the document from which American Exceptionalism emanates but like so many presidents before and after Lincoln, it was dismissed just as soon as it became inconvenient. So don't tell me I've fallen for the history written by the victor.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, I was taught the war was all about the evil slave holders were being horribly abusive to their slaves. It was years later when I moved to Kentucky and talked to the local folks that I got a much different version.


:hysterical: well, you can't find more accurate history than that. You talked to locals 100 years after the war and that changed your view of history. :facepalm: I'm embarrassed for you. :ashamed:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> :hysterical: well, you can't find more accurate history than that. You talked to locals 100 years after the war and that changed your view of history. :facepalm: I'm embarrassed for you. :ashamed:


Some of those people had parents in that war..... Many others had grandparents that survived it. I feel those personal accounts by those that lived through it are much more reliable than the accounts written by some yankee with a college degree that had no dog in the fight. Having a personal one on one chat with men whose grandparents were slaves tend to dispel a lot of myths created by those who merely wish to make "their side" look better.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Well, since we keep saying root cause, you agree slavery was the root cause.


No sir, I have never said it was the root cause, that is attributable to you and wistco. That line of thinking rates right up there with those who believe the hippies throwing fits in our streets got us out of Vietnam. Slavery was the excuse.... Not the root cause.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> as pertains to the Civil War, that is certainly true in a simplistic and juvenile way. I think WW2 was more about a simple lust for power and domination, but money usually follows power.
> 
> You just can't accept you're wrong so you can't acknowledge that the money was based on a slave economy that was being jeopardized by Northern abolitionist movements.


The money in question would have been profits lost by the northern industrialists had the south were allowed to sell their cotton to the European markets instead of shipping it north. The north held the power and could control those markets only if the south remained under the control of the Union. By seceding the northern industrial complex was threatened with the loss of raw cotton. Think about it, had the southern growers freed their slaves and paid them the same wages as the northern factories paid their workers they would still make money. But they could have made a lot more by selling to foreign interest rather than to the northern factories. The north could and did prevent that trade by using congress ability to " regulate" foreign commerce. Which part of that is confusing to you?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Some of those people had parents in that war..... Many others had grandparents that survived it. I feel those personal accounts by those that lived through it are much more reliable than the accounts written by some yankee with a college degree that had no dog in the fight. Having a personal one on one chat with men whose grandparents were slaves tend to dispel a lot of myths created by those who merely wish to make "their side" look better.


:banana: woooo woooo

Let's see, you've defended and advocated laws you imply are unjust and now you are saying family lore of a family that is subject to the biases of having, "a dog in the fight," is more accurate history than a biographer who has analyzed historical documents if the author has a college degree and is from the north. 

I can walk away a happy man. Cheers.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

LOL... All the northern industrialists had to do to protect their precious cotton was put the abolitionists down. They tried. They failed. So the south seceded and threatened the economy of their own people in the north. They threatened to embroil the continent in a decades or century long conflict over control of the territories. They threatened to weaken all of us in the face of an imperialistic, colonial world. OVER SLAVERY. So yea, Lincoln put out the bait so they could get it over with. And the south took that bait happily.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Well, since we keep saying root cause, you agree slavery was the root cause.


No, it was the right of states to secede that was the cause, along with yankee arogance that I see is still alive and well today.
Some people just can't mind their manners and leave others alone, they just gotta keep poking with a sharp stick until they get the reaction they want, or at least THINK they want.
Y'all care to come down here in the heat of summer for a rematch, by any chance?
Like they say, if ya can't run with the big dogs, better stay on the porch.:hand:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> :banana: woooo woooo
> 
> Let's see, you've defended and advocated laws you imply are unjust and now you are saying family lore of a family that is subject to the biases of having, "a dog in the fight," is more accurate history than a biographer who has analyzed historical documents if the author has a college degree and is from the north.
> 
> I can walk away a happy man. Cheers.


Ok this caused a bit of chuckle for me.... Put me in mind of a comment my second wife's daddy made one time. "If there is any truth to ignorance being bliss, there goes one happy man!". Cheers :buds:

I have never defended unjust laws. I do however recall stating that dishonest Abe violated numerous laws some just others unjust during his tyrannical reign.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

wiscto said:


> LOL... All the northern industrialists had to do to protect their precious cotton was put the abolitionists down. They tried. They failed. So the south seceded and threatened the economy of their own people in the north. They threatened to embroil the continent in a decades or century long conflict over control of the territories. They threatened to weaken all of us in the face of an imperialistic, colonial world. OVER SLAVERY. So yea, Lincoln put out the bait so they could get it over with. And the south took that bait happily.


And if you take everything YH just said as fact, it still results from the South seceding because they fear their slaves are going to be freed. S no matter what he claims about the evil North, it all ends up pointing back to one central issue, Slavery. 

South Carolina was something like 43% slave in 1860. I can see why a lot of whites would fear a catastrophic change in their way of life if that many angry voters suddenly entered the picture. A lot of the US is very upset about uncontrolled illegal immigration, including myself, and that represents a much smaller percentage of the US population.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> No, it was the right of states to secede that was the cause, along with yankee arogance that I see is still alive and well today.
> Some people just can't mind their manners and leave others alone, they just gotta keep poking with a sharp stick until they get the reaction they want, or at least THINK they want.
> Y'all care to come down here in the heat of summer for a rematch, by any chance?
> Like they say, if ya can't run with the big dogs, better stay on the porch.:hand:


I'm a born Virginian, proud Southerner, and left Virginia only 9 months ago to move further south where I can have a summer that lasts 9 months. So don't dare me to come down for a rematch in the heat of summer. :hammer:

And your comment about the big dogs might have worked better if our side had not had its dog's rear end kicked, whipped, and chased across GA.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I already did check my facts. Like I said. I got the dates stuck in my head and forgot a detail that I apparently don't have memorized anymore.


You still don't realize what your mistake was. It wasn't thinking of the wrong date. The dates of Lee's surrender and the end of the war are completely irrelevant to your original absurd statement about what Lincoln said before, during, and after his presidency. He said nothing after his presidency because he was not alive after his presidency. That's what makes it absurd.

Perhaps you meant to say before, during, and after the war? Then your explanations about thinking of the wrong date would be relevant.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kuriakos said:


> You still don't realize what your mistake was. It wasn't thinking of the wrong date. The dates of Lee's surrender and the end of the war are completely irrelevant to your original absurd statement about what Lincoln said before, during, and after his presidency. He said nothing after his presidency because he was not alive after his presidency. That's what makes it absurd.
> 
> Perhaps you meant to say before, during, and after the war? Then your explanations about thinking of the wrong date would be relevant.


LOL!!!!! Apparently you're the one who doesn't get it. I made two mistakes, and honestly I didn't know that I said presidency, I thought I said war. And the reason I said what I said is because I pulled up a link that showed all of his speeches and statements regarding the slaves, and one of them was just after Lee surrendered at Appomatox. I forgot the date of the actual end to the war...which was after Lincoln was dead. Ya'll were just looking for a reason discredit my argument, which was that Lincoln indeed cared about the issue of slavery from the beginning to the end. I was posting relatively quickly and made a couple of mistakes. Ya'll are making HUGE mistakes, repeatedly. For example. You're wrong. "Before, during, and after the war" is also incorrect. Because Lee's surrender did not end the war, and that was the date that was stuck in my head. Lincoln couldn't have said anything after the war was over, because he was dead.

And now I see two people who like your post who are also making the same mistake as you, apparently. So I guess we're all even up on the whole Lincoln mistake.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

wiscto said:


> LOL!!!!! Apparently you're the one who doesn't get it. I made two mistakes, and honestly I didn't know that I said presidency, I thought I said war. And the reason I said what I said is because I pulled up a link that showed all of his speeches and statements regarding the slaves, and one of them was just after Lee surrendered at Appomatox. I forgot the date of the actual end to the war...which was after Lincoln was dead. Ya'll were just looking for a reason discredit my argument, which was that Lincoln indeed cared about the issue of slavery from the beginning to the end. I was posting relatively quickly and made a couple of mistakes. Ya'll are making HUGE mistakes, repeatedly.
> And now I see two people who like your post who are also making the same mistake as you, apparently. So I guess we're all even up on the whole Lincoln mistake.


Relax, dude. I was just trying to help you see your real error that lead to the remark about it being absurd and one or two thinking it was funny. It wasn't that big of a deal, but you made it a bigger error by missing the point of the people who noticed the original error, and now you're continuing to dig deeper.



> For example. You're wrong. "Before, during, and after the war" is also incorrect. Because Lee's surrender did not end the war, and that was the date that was stuck in my head. Lincoln couldn't have said anything after the war was over, because he was dead.


No, I'm not wrong. I didn't say that would have been correct. I know that would have also been wrong. What I said was that your explanation about confusing the dates would have made more sense IF that had been the error you made. But it wasn't, so it doesn't make sense.

Don't be a jerk and lump me in with "ya'll" the way you do so often. There are a lot of different people here and your way of lecturing us as if we're all the same is unacceptable. Try and find all my mistakes in this thread. Quote them all and correct me. And quote where I have agreed with those saying Lincoln didn't care about slavery. Go ahead. I'll wait.

You need to learn to differentiate between individuals. We're not all the same and we're not all what you think we are. But you've certainly shown us all what you are. It's unfortunate really, because I appreciate your bringing the real history, but you do it in such a condescending way that nobody is going to learn anything from you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

sorry double post


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I wouldn't count on that..... Same thing happened to me and I issued the same request..... No responses, not even from the crickets.



wiscto said:


> For someone who's gotten more than half of the specific facts he attempted to list wrong, you sure do try to put on some big britches, don't you chief? Let's just agree to disagree, because I don't think you would know what logical data looked like if I tattooed it on your forehead.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> I do not recall posting facts that were erronius in this thread. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.





wiscto said:


> You know how to navigate the website.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Quite true, and I also understand some of the basics when it comes to this type discussion in this forum.... Those who make a statement are the ones responsible to verify it if it is questioned. I do not recall making any such post, can't find one either. I ask you again... What specific facts did I make all of those errors about?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kuriakos said:


> No, I'm not wrong. I didn't say that would have been correct. I know that would have also been wrong. What I said was that your explanation about confusing the dates would have made more sense IF that had been the error you made. But it wasn't, so it doesn't make sense.


Mmmkay. But the thing is, it's so obvious that Lincoln couldn't have spoken after his presidency, that everyone could have given me the benefit of the doubt that I was just making a mistake. I don't appreciate people jumping on me when I've clearly demonstrated my aptitude; no wait, I don't appreciate people jumping on me *because* I've clearly demonstrated my aptitude everywhere else. It's just frustrating to constantly have people pulling at threads because they can't directly refute what I've said. Read these threads. I'm not going to pretend that everyone here wasn't taking shots just because they did it subtly enough that it didn't bother you. But I'll acknowledge that I could refuse to take the bait. I guess I share that problem with the Confederate Army. ;-)


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I wouldn't count on that..... Same thing happened to me and I issued the same request..... No responses, not even from the crickets.
> 
> Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby View Post
> Quite true, and I also understand some of the basics when it comes to this type discussion in this forum.... Those who make a statement are the ones responsible to verify it if it is questioned. I do not recall making any such post, can't find one either. I ask you again... What specific facts did I make all of those errors about?


Dude if you felt like you had the responsibility to prove anything you've said, I wouldn't have had to go out and find Links to Lincoln's beliefs on slavery. You would have done it yourself. You offer absolutely no supporting details to your statements. No sources. No websites. Nothing. So... Practice what you preach. I'm going to try to be nice here at the end, so, :thumb:.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Trying to bring an entire post may be difficult, but here goes.

_*The following is a sampling of Lincoln&#8217;s racist and white supremacist beliefs (&#8220;CW&#8221; stands for Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, followed by the volume and page numbers):*_


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Abraham Lincolns words:

_&#8220;Free them [black slaves] and make them politically and socially our equal? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.&#8221; (CW, 2, 256). &#8220;There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races.&#8221; (CW, 2, 405). &#8220;What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.&#8221; (CW, 2, 521). &#8220;I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge [Stephen] Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position.&#8221; (CW, 2, 16).

_
_&#8220;I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.&#8221; (CW, 3, 145-146). &#8220;I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [i.e., Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with *******.&#8221; (CW, 3, 146). &#8220;Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for *******. Why, in point of fact, I think so too.&#8221; (CW, 2, 281).

_
_As proven in the book, Colonization After Emancipation by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page (University of Missouri Press), Lincoln plotted and schemed to deport all black people out of the country &#8211; so-called &#8220;colonization&#8221; &#8211; until his dying day. He even had his secretary of state, William Seward, hard at work figuring out how many ships it would take, and negotiating with foreign governments about land purchases where the former American black people could be dumped. &#8220;I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation,&#8221; he declared, and &#8220;such separation . . . must be affected by colonization.&#8221; (CW, 2, 409). &#8220;Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime [i.e., Africa], he said (CW, 2, 409). &#8220;The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.&#8221; (CW, 5, 373-374). _


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

_Lincoln supported Southern slavery in his first inaugural address, promising to support its explicit enshrinement in the Constitution via the Corwin Amendment, which had just passed the House and Senate, thanks to the efforts of William Seward, working on Lincoln&#8217;s instruction. He opposed only the extension of slavery into the Territories, but only so that they could remain the domain of &#8220;free white people.&#8221; He very strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act that compelled Northerners to round up runaway slaves and return them to their owners, and enforced it during his presidency. He championed the Illinois Black Codes, and supported the Illinois constitution&#8217;s prohibition of black people migrating into his state. He never defended a runaway slave in court, but he did defend a slave owner in court.

According to the book, Lincoln, by Harvard&#8217;s David Donald, the preeminent Lincoln scholar of the last generation (and contrary to Stephen Spielberg&#8217;s silly movie), Lincoln barely lifted a finger to help get the Thirteenth Amendment passed, even refusing to help the genuine abolitionists when they asked him for political assistance in procuring votes from the New Jersey delegation to Congress._


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

More of Lincolns words:

_"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861._
_"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year._


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Okay. But Lincoln still believed that SLAVERY was immoral. 
http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm



> *March 3, 1837
> 
> At the age of 28, while serving in the Illinois General Assembly, Lincoln made one of his first public declarations against slavery.
> *
> ...


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

*Great Emancipator was a white supremacist.*
_During his March 4, 1861, inaugural address, Lincoln endorsed a constitutional amendment, commonly referred to as the Corwin Amendment, as an inducement for the South to rejoin the Union if it were ratified.
This amendment would have forever protected slavery where it existed at the time.
Lincoln told the inaugural audience: &#8220;I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.&#8221;
In an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: &#8220;&#8230; if I could save it [the Union] without freeing any slaves I would do it &#8230;&#8221;
During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas,* Lincoln explained to the crowd: &#8220;I am not now, nor ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not now, nor ever been, in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races from living on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.&#8221;*
Lincoln was no different than most white males both North and South. He was a white supremacist.
To be fair, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but one of his major objections to slavery was that it competed with free white labor and gave unfair economic advantage to slave owners. But while opposed to and very uncomfortable with slavery, he did not support equality.
Lincoln was also an advocate of deportation and colonization of free blacks to Central America or Africa._


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

If Lincoln was so passionately opposed to slavery, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation free all slaves? 

Lincoln wanted to save the Union and as stated, he would have guaranteed slavery in the Southern states forever to save the Union. Kinda defeats that theory that Lincoln went to war to end slavery doesn't it?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> If Lincoln was so passionately opposed to slavery, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation free all slaves?
> 
> Lincoln wanted to save the Union and as stated, he would have guaranteed slavery in the Southern states forever to save the Union. Kinda defeats that theory that Lincoln went to war to end slavery doesn't it?


I didn't argue that Lincoln went to war to end slavery. We've been over this and over this. I said the root cause was slavery. There's a difference. And you answered your first question with your second paragraph. Don't be afraid to read direct quotes by the way, two posts above yours.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Marshloft said:


> *Great Emancipator was a white supremacist.*
> _During his March 4, 1861, inaugural address, Lincoln endorsed a constitutional amendment, commonly referred to as the Corwin Amendment, as an inducement for the South to rejoin the Union if it were ratified.
> This amendment would have forever protected slavery where it existed at the time.
> Lincoln told the inaugural audience: &#8220;I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.&#8221;
> ...


God dude, just read ALL of it. Don't just stop when you think you've found enough. Read all of it. ONE OF his objections. True, ya got me there, that is ONE of his objections. He had many, many more. One of those was the pure immorality of it. Another was that it did not reflect our values of freedom. All of these were important to him, you just decided to gloss over it because it didn't suit you. And as I've said a million times in these debates. You all love to fall back on Lincoln. Do you know why? Because he's an easier target than the full fledged abolitionists whom the south hated so much, who had taken control of politics and government in the north. And you all hate that Lincoln did change his mind over time. Before he died, he was arguing to give the blacks the right to vote. Oh I bet that just kills you.

And in the end, none of it matters. Lincoln was just one domino. Slavery was the root cause of all of this. No slavery, no secession. No secession, no war. Get over it.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Several people always trot out those statements by Lincoln. Hell, very nearly every white person in America was racist. Most believed the blacks to be barely human at best. Very many today don't believe that a person with coal black skin, a flat nose and kinky hair is just exactly like any other person. 

Lincoln is about my favorite person from history. I've read everything that I know of that he wrote and most of what his contemporaries wrote of him. Lincoln grew. He learned and changed over time until, in the end, he knew the truth. As far as I'm concerned, no President has felt the weight of office as he did. Now, THAT is an opinion.

The South wanted a war. They'd been moving and posturing toward it for years. They thought they could win it handily with charm, heritage, loyalty and chivalry. As Buchanan left office they pilfered the country's war chest, moving cannon and other supplies to the south. Lincoln was just the excuse they needed.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

vicker said:


> Several people always trot out those statements by Lincoln. Hell, very nearly every white person in America was racist. Most believed the blacks to be barely human at best. Very many today don't believe that a person with coal black skin, a flat nose and kinky hair is just exactly like any other person.
> 
> Lincoln is about my favorite person from history. I've read everything that I know of that he wrote and most of what his contemporaries wrote of him. Lincoln grew. He learned and changed over time until, in the end, he knew the truth. As far as I'm concerned, no President has felt the weight of office as he did. Now, THAT is an opinion.
> 
> The South wanted a war. They'd been moving and posturing toward it for years. They thought they could win it handily with charm, heritage, loyalty and chivalry. As Buchanan left office they pilfered the country's war chest, moving cannon and other supplies to the south. Lincoln was just the excuse they needed.


No, I think you might be mistaken about whether the South, or at least its military leaders thought they could win a war of any length.

I think Marse Robert knew the day he accepted the job of command, that the best he could hope for was to bloody the Union's nose so badly, they'd leave the Confederacy alone.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

_Lincoln supported Southern slavery in his first inaugural address, promising to support its explicit enshrinement in the Constitution via the Corwin Amendment, which had just passed the House and Senate, thanks to the efforts of William Seward, working on Lincoln&#8217;s instruction. He opposed only the extension of slavery into the Territories, but only so that they could remain the domain of &#8220;free white people.&#8221; He very strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act that compelled Northerners to round up runaway slaves and return them to their owners, and enforced it during his presidency. He championed the Illinois Black Codes, and supported the Illinois constitution&#8217;s prohibition of black people migrating into his state. He never defended a runaway slave in court, but he did defend a slave owner in court.

According to the book, Lincoln, by Harvard&#8217;s David Donald, the preeminent Lincoln scholar of the last generation (and contrary to Stephen Spielberg&#8217;s silly movie), Lincoln barely lifted a finger to help get the Thirteenth Amendment passed, even refusing to help the genuine abolitionists when they asked him for political assistance in procuring votes from the New Jersey delegation to Congress._


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

So,,, what makes you think I didn't read it all, I did. I only put in bold for you to see plainly who and what Lincoln was.
NOW,,,,,,, that being said. I also read your's.
very conflicting arguments as to who and what Lincoln stated I'd say.
I can't read your post's and state they are false, they sure look legit to me.
But what I posted is not false either.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

_As Lerone Bennett, Jr., the longtime editor of Ebony magazine wrote in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s White Dream, Lincoln so habitually used the N-word that he sometimes befuddled and embarrassed members of Congress and others with his obsessive use of the racial slur. He was also a devoted fan of &#8220;minstrel shows&#8221; that portrayed black people as buffoons, wrote Bennett._


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

vicker said:


> Lincoln grew. He learned and changed over time until, in the end, he knew the truth. As far as I'm concerned, no President has felt the weight of office as he did. Now, THAT is an opinion..


 Based on this bold part, I agree that he changed and had to have had a tremendous weight on his shoulders. I mean, who wouldn't after seeing thousands and thousands of men on both sides killing their neighbors.

_Lincoln told the inaugural audience: âI have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.â
In an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: ââ¦ if I could save it [the Union] without freeing any slaves I would do it â¦â
During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: âI am not now, nor ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not now, nor ever been, in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races from living on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.â
Lincoln was no different than most white males both North and South. He was a white supremacist.
To be fair, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but one of his major objections to slavery was that it competed with free white labor and gave unfair economic advantage to slave owners. But while opposed to and very uncomfortable with slavery, he did not support equality.
Lincoln was also an advocate of deportation and colonization of free blacks to Central America or Africa.
*As the war progressed, Lincolnâs views mellowed somewhat, primarily due to the bravery of black Union soldiers. He said he was in favor of allowing âintelligentâ blacks to vote if they had served in the Union Army.*_


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I think his friendship with Fredrick Douglas had more to do with it. Lincoln grew up on the Frontier. He was president of the USA before he was ever exposed to an educated black man.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

People just couldn't imagine how blacks and whites could possibly live together side by side as equals. There were many white theories on what to do with the free blacks. I don't think any of of them involved living with them side by side. Lol!


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Mmmkay. But the thing is, it's so obvious that Lincoln couldn't have spoken after his presidency, that everyone could have given me the benefit of the doubt that I was just making a mistake. I don't appreciate people jumping on me when I've clearly demonstrated my aptitude; no wait, I don't appreciate people jumping on me *because* I've clearly demonstrated my aptitude everywhere else. It's just frustrating to constantly have people pulling at threads because they can't directly refute what I've said. Read these threads. I'm not going to pretend that everyone here wasn't taking shots just because they did it subtly enough that it didn't bother you. But I'll acknowledge that I could refuse to take the bait. I guess I share that problem with the Confederate Army. ;-)


Yes, you're probably right that people jumped on your mistakes because they don't like you or your condescension/arrogance. I wasn't one of those people; I was genuinely trying to help you see what appeared to be going over your head. But now I don't like you or your style either, so I'll refrain from trying to clarify things for you. Carry on with the condescending lessons.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

kuriakos said:


> Yes, you're probably right that people jumped on your mistakes because they don't like you or your condescension/arrogance. I wasn't one of those people; I was genuinely trying to help you see what appeared to be going over your head. But now I don't like you or your style either, so I'll refrain from trying to clarify things for you. Carry on with the condescending lessons.



Ye done good bo, now come on home.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Marshloft said:


> So,,, what makes you think I didn't read it all, I did. I only put in bold for you to see plainly who and what Lincoln was.
> NOW,,,,,,, that being said. I also read your's.
> very conflicting arguments as to who and what Lincoln stated I'd say.
> I can't read your post's and state they are false, they sure look legit to me.
> But what I posted is not false either.


I feel like you're just misunderstanding the argument. The argument wasn't about Lincoln's racial views. Personally, I think he was a compassionate bigot who believed that slavery was gravely immoral, and who went through a deep philosophical and intellectual transformation throughout the antebellum and the war. He never liked slavery, and he was never malicious toward the slaves even if he did believe whites were superior. Most of his "support" of slavery was something he considered to be a matter of necessity. The union came first in his mind. You quoted a passage that shows he wanted to move them to Liberia, but you missed the part where he said it was because he didn't believe whites would accept equality, you also missed the part where he had written it off as an impossibility...he didn't want to just send them there in small groups at a time to be killed in a hostile land...he believed that was wrong. His mind ultimately changed over time and he became a full believer in not just abolition of slavery, but of equality. He wanted them to have the vote, and they got it. And honestly, if we don't think his mind should have changed, then we all have some serious problems. 

Anyway, the argument, because Yvonne's Hubby over there made some false claims about Lincoln not caring about slavery at all, was that Lincoln did in fact care about slavery, and that he did in fact say so on several important occasions before the war. 

Which again, doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, because slavery was still going to be the root cause of everything even if Lincoln had never been born.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> That was me. Teaching different views is fine, except when the opinions are based on lies. The foundation of my civil war education in the 60s and 70s was that the war was not about slavery, that it was about states rights. I read a book a few years ago that took apart the states rights issue and showed it for the fraud it really is. I wish I could remember the title.


One thing I've enjoyed with my kids is reading through history books from different eras. Over the years we've been able to pick up or borrow many books both American and world history topics that were published in different generations. It's been nice to feel like they are getting a real chance as kids to hear history retold in different ways with different perspectives.so they can have a chance to process some of the contrasts we've encountered during childhood instead of after the fact as adults.

The civil war is an obvious example. But, last year we studied a lot of revolutionary war history and traveled back east to sight see. Now, I have some British history books we're going to work through next. Should be fun for them to read a bit about what some British children are taught of that era.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> I'm a born Virginian, proud Southerner, and left Virginia only 9 months ago to move further south where I can have a summer that lasts 9 months. So don't dare me to come down for a rematch in the heat of summer. :hammer:
> 
> And your comment about the big dogs might have worked better if our side had not had its dog's rear end kicked, whipped, and chased across GA.


Good for you.
My family is from the swamps of Florida, intermixed with Creek and Seminole and have been here hundreds if not thousands of years.
The arrogance of remarks from several on here and in other threads is what I was referring to. It's not the first time I've heard stinging insults slung in the southerly direction, and I've had about all I can stand.
That is the very attitude that gets yankees in hot water when they open their mouth about "root causes".
They are always surprised to find that the reason we fought was more than slavery, and for some, it had NOTHING to do with it.
But they just keep running that gator and never learn.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

nchobbyfarm said:


> . Kinda defeats that theory that Lincoln went to war to end slavery doesn't it?


Ahhhhhh. Now I get it. I see what may be the confusion. When I'm saying root cause = slavery, I am NOT saying Lincoln had some great noble intentions to end slavery. Those two theories are not dependent on one another. 

I was wondering why marsloft was posting so much stuff about Lincoln being a white supremacist. Fine, no argument from me. I'm not a Lincoln fan. But it is irrelevant to the root cause of the war.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Dude if you felt like you had the responsibility to prove anything you've said, I wouldn't have had to go out and find Links to Lincoln's beliefs on slavery. You would have done it yourself. You offer absolutely no supporting details to your statements. No sources. No websites. Nothing. So... Practice what you preach. I'm going to try to be nice here at the end, so, :thumb:.





wiscto said:


> Anyway, the argument, because Yvonne's Hubby over there made some false claims about Lincoln not caring about slavery at all, was that Lincoln did in fact care about slavery, and that he did in fact say so on several important occasions before the war.
> 
> Which again, doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, because slavery was still going to be the root cause of everything even if Lincoln had never been born.


And I thank you for bringing forth all of the evidence for me.... after reading the past page and a half contributed by yourself and Marshloft that pretty much confirms my statement I am quite relieved, you guys saved me all the trouble of bringing it all forward myself. :buds:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And I thank you for bringing forth all of the evidence for me.... after reading the past page and a half contributed by yourself and Marshloft that pretty much confirms my statement I am quite relieved, you guys saved me all the trouble of bringing it all forward myself. :buds:


:thumb:

"I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself." Abraham Lincoln, 1854


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> No. It's ridiculous to call him a thug. He was a president trying to do the best thing for the nation. Simplifying it just makes you look rigid and...simple. I have no idea if someone else would have done better. I do know that he thought slavery was immoral. I do know that he wanted it to be finished, but that he felt conflicted by the legal trappings. I do know that what you were originally trying to argue was that slavery was not the ROOT CAUSE. Without it, the civil war is highly unlikely to have happened. We know that because we can study the antebellum and read what the people themselves were saying. As I've said several times in this thread, the path to war was complex. But the root cause was slavery. That's what we were talking about. You're the one who drifted aimlessly to Lincoln. It doesn't really matter what Lincoln thought. Without slavery, he could never have thought it up in the first place.


The problem anyone has supporting Lincoln's actions is there is NOTHING in the USC which restricts a state's right to leave the union. Once they realize that all the other things he did are seen in a completely different light. To put a nasty spin on it what Lincoln did is just what Saddam tried to do with Kuwaiti, claim that another nation is actually part of his nation and use military force to take it from those who thought otherwise.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Well, there is some truth in there. You kind of missed the boat with WW2, what with the allies being unwilling to do more that say nasty things about Hitler until he attacked France, and there was that whole Pearl Harbor thing that generated what you apparently think was anti-Japanese propaganda, but yeah, I get your point.
> 
> Follow the money is almost always a good strategy. And if we follow the money on the Southern side of the war you get to...what? Help me out here. It was something about having the money and power generated by buying and selling people to perform labor. I know there is a word for that. Hmmmm...It's on the tip of my tongue. What is that word?


The problem with the slavery boogieman is the fact that slavery was very quickly becoming economically unviable. I have pointed out before that today a lot of farmers no longer own combines. Why? Because it doesn't make sense for them to buy a $500,000 machine which will spend most of the year sitting in the barn when they can hire someone to harvest their crop for many years for that same money.

This was quickly becoming the same with slaves. You only need a large number of workers a couple of times a year (planting and harvesting) and the population of the South had grown to the point it was cheaper to hire workers when you needed them than to take care of slaves year round.

To put it another way which would be the better deal for you: To buy a new riding mower and when you were not actually using it to mow let it set in the garage RUNNING requiring you to keep it fueled, oil changed, etc. or to just pay someone to mow your yard when needed?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> And yet another defense of slavery and beatings. Thank God the country has moved past your kind.


Interesting thought. Right now abortion is legal, as slavery was then. What the states were doing then would be the same as states passing laws today to ban abortion on the grounds its citizens think it is "wrong". As we have seen many times right or wrong have nothing to do with legal and illegal.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The Civil War had many causes. States Rights was one of them, but, not how History has taught. The Fugitive Slave Law was a Federal law that many Northern states wished to nullify, using a states rights argument. Many southern states wanted no part of States Rights, in that context.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> So, you're saying that the war was not about slavery at all, but about preventing hoards of free, lusty black men enticing your daughters away from perfectly approvable white men?


Saying the war was about slavery is like saying Spanish-American War was about the Maine and WWI was about the sinking of the Lusitania. The so called civil war was about the federal government exerting powers it did not have slavery was just the flash that set off the charge.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> The problem with the slavery boogieman is the fact that slavery was very quickly becoming economically unviable. I have pointed out before that today a lot of farmers no longer own combines. Why? Because it doesn't make sense for them to buy a $500,000 machine which will spend most of the year sitting in the barn when they can hire someone to harvest their crop for many years for that same money.
> 
> This was quickly becoming the same with slaves. You only need a large number of workers a couple of times a year (planting and harvesting) and the population of the South had grown to the point it was cheaper to hire workers when you needed them than to take care of slaves year round.
> 
> To put it another way which would be the better deal for you: To buy a new riding mower and when you were not actually using it to mow let it set in the garage RUNNING requiring you to keep it fueled, oil changed, etc. or to just pay someone to mow your yard when needed?


From a Monday morning QB perspective, I agree with you about the economics angle. It's so much easier to see that clearly after the industrial revolution. But perhaps not so easy when technology has stood fairly still for 2000 years. 

In 1860 when the possibility of the economic system being turned upside down and all those lusty black men getting freed to come after our women was a possibility, it was too much change too fast for lots of folk. The South seceded because they didn't want to see an end to black slavery.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> From a Monday morning QB perspective, I agree with you about the economics angle. It's so much easier to see that clearly after the industrial revolution. But perhaps not so easy when technology has stood fairly still for 2000 years.
> 
> In 1860 when the possibility of the economic system being turned upside down and all those lusty black men getting freed to come after our women was a possibility, it was too much change too fast for lots of folk. The South seceded because they didn't want to see an end to black slavery.


Actually the change would have been gradual enough to allow for a smoother integration of former slaves than what happened after the war. There have been and always will be biases and trying to use force to end them only results in them being inflamed.

Slavery did have a lot to do with secession but putting all, or even most, of the blame on it is wrong. But if you think that let's think about it this way. There's a hostage situation. Hours have been spent talking to the hostage taker and some concessions have been gained. Most people can see that he is wearing down and will probably release the hostages in a few more hour. Then the mayor tells the chief of police he want's it ended and the chief sends in the SWAT team. The hostages are freed but 20 bystanders and 10 SWAT members are killed. Would you say the results were worth the cost?

One last thing, do you not agree that after the war states not only had fewer rights but most likely feared trying to use them?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

The economic changed watcher is talking about that were changing how business owners were managing workforces is frequently referred to as the market revolution.

Just wanted to add that for anyone interested in learning anymore about that.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

That is an opinion, Watcher. It is my opinion that most slave owners had no intention of phasing out slavery. They intended to spread it to the territories, they intended to annex Cuba and other Mediterranean islands, they intended to grow their empire to include most of Mexico, Central and S. America. That is my opinion. 

The slaves did not slack between jobs in the field. There was plenty of work to do around the plantations, and hiring them out for private and public projects. And, it didn't end after the fourteenth amendment. States and localities passed vagrancy laws and the like to force poor blacks to sign labor contracts, or to incarcerate them to be hired out by the sheriff. Orphaned black children, and those from destitute families were sold into "apprenticeships" until they reached adulthood. 
If slavery was so uneconomical, why did it persist in barely veiled forms up to and including the 1960s in the rural south?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Vicker, undoubtedly blacks struggled mightily with the situations you've described. And, I would wager that the population of blacks was quite large in the south, and in the no rth the blacks had a bit of a head start on southern blacks by some already being freemen before the war.

But, many people suffered mightily. One interesting similar practice common in that century was the poorhouses and workhouses, sometimes they are called poor farms too. Lots of Americans have at least heard if them. But, many assume they were just a British institution. They were not. And, they were pretty bad.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I was born a raised in one of three most rural counties in SC. I saw with my own eyes what can only be described as slavery. I've known people to be shot for getting others to not want to work that day, and then heard the laughter when the story was repeated. The blacks in my area lived in shacks on the farmers' land and wore rags. They had no running water or plumbing. They ate what the farmer gave them. They worked the fields. If you asked, "who is that?", you got, " that's so and so, one of so and so's ------s." They weren't in the poorhouse or the poor farm. In those places you have the hope of paying your debts and moving on. They were going to die right there. 
Oh, and whites were allowed to claim a waiver of poverty, or some such thing, and were free from those types of "punishments".


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> Actually the change would have been gradual enough to allow for a smoother integration of former slaves than what happened after the war. There have been and always will be biases and trying to use force to end them only results in them being inflamed.
> 
> Slavery did have a lot to do with secession but putting all, or even most, of the blame on it is wrong. But if you think that let's think about it this way. There's a hostage situation. Hours have been spent talking to the hostage taker and some concessions have been gained. Most people can see that he is wearing down and will probably release the hostages in a few more hour. Then the mayor tells the chief of police he want's it ended and the chief sends in the SWAT team. The hostages are freed but 20 bystanders and 10 SWAT members are killed. Would you say the results were worth the cost?
> 
> One last thing, do you not agree that after the war states not only had fewer rights but most likely feared trying to use them?


Your entire theory is opinion and rests upon the fact that a deeply entrenched economic system older than anyone of the time could remember, can be seen as dying by those benefiting from it. Again, it may be perfectly clear in hindsight, but not necessarily in 1850s. 

Perhaps you should think about it this way, which in my mind is a much more apt analogy than your SWAT team. Greece is dying. It would already be dead if it hadn't repeatedly been given billions of dollars to postpone its death. Anyone who can't see it is dying is blind. Yet the people have rioted in the streets, turned over the gov't, and protested any change that takes away their pensions and welfare. They fear change, the change that must come sooner or later no matter what they do. And the people of Greece have much greater access to information today than did any Southerner in 1860

If Southerners were as enlighten as you believe they were would mean that the masses who overwhelming had little education and almost no access to unbiased information could somehow divine the coming technological and sociological changes. Can you find any Southern newspaper editorials of the time to back up your theory?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> One last thing, do you not agree that after the war states not only had fewer rights but most likely feared trying to use them?


I forgot to address that. Yes, I agree to that. I don't see how it is relevant to defining the root cause of the Civil War. The fed gov't has always gotten stronger. I can't think of a single pres who didn't work to acquire more pres power except for maybe Washington who self imposed a 2 term limit and W H Harrison who got pneumonia and died before he could do much of anything.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

A little side story.  I love to do these. 

When I was first married, I rented a little house out in the country from an old man who was the postmaster of a little town out in the county that had dried up when the highways passed it by, and the RR quit stopping. He had a pretty good sized hog operation, and was old blood around there. One of the richest men in the county was an old farmer that owned all the land around that little old town, thousands of acres. That man was about 80 at the time. 

The man I rented from had a man that lived in a little block house on his farm. It was the typical arrangement, and he had lived there, and worked for him, and his father before him, his entire life. At that time, he was up in his 80s, he did the yard work, fed the pigs, that kind of stuff. He was what you would call a red-bone in them days. 
I had never met the rich man before, even though I had grown up around there. I was somewhat surprised when I did meet him. He and my landlord's man could have been twin brothers, identical except the one was a little darker than the other and, of course, had far fewer prospects in life.
To my knowledge, the rich man never did come and visit his brother.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Jolly said:


> No, I think you might be mistaken about whether the South, or at least its military leaders thought they could win a war of any length.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Marse Robert knew the day he accepted the job of command, that the best he could hope for was to bloody the Union's nose so badly, they'd leave the Confederacy alone.



No, I think you are mistaken. If you read the newspapers, periodicals and speeches from that area, during that time, you will find I am right. 

Robbie may very well have said that, but he'd have been in the minority. The only reason the war lasted as long as it did was because the Union Generals in the East were dunderheads. As soon as the Union got a real general the war was over. 
Maybe, if Robbie had been a smart man, he would have expressed himself.

It is fitting that so many of our honored dead are buried in his yard.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> If slavery was so uneconomical, why did it persist in barely veiled forms up to and including the 1960s in the rural south?


For the same reason it persisted in the north... and right on up until today. Slavery takes on many forms, one does not have have an iron ring around their neck to qualify for the position.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

No white man ever held that position in this country, you had to be born into it. If your mamma had a drop of black blood...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> No white man ever held that position in this country, you had to be born into it. If your mamma had a drop of black blood...


Really? No white man has ever been a wage slave in this country, forced by a wife and kids needing to be taken care of to work in the bottom of a coal mine? What about all those people forced to work in carnegies steel mills earning barely enough to buy enough beans and taters to survive? Like I said slavery comes in many ugly forms. What about government slaves? A lot of good men have been pulled out of their homes and away from their families and forced to do our governments bidding in spite of the thirteenth amendment. Think "draft" here. Only one type of slavery was abolished with that amendment, many others are still very much alive and well.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Really? No white man has ever been a wage slave in this country, forced by a wife and kids needing to be taken care of to work in the bottom of a coal mine? What about all those people forced to work in carnegies steel mills earning barely enough to buy enough beans and taters to survive? Like I said slavery comes in many ugly forms. What about government slaves? A lot of good men have been pulled out of their homes and away from their families and forced to do our governments bidding in spite of the thirteenth amendment. Think "draft" here. Only one type of slavery was abolished with that amendment, many others are still very much alive and well.



Looky here folks! YH just figured out how to put 20 cubic yards into a 10 cubic yard manure spreader.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Looky here folks! YH just figured out how to put 20 cubic yards into a 10 cubic yard manure spreader.


Which part of my post qualifies as manure in your mind? Do you really believe that just because one isn't wearing an iron collar he isn't just as trapped or enslaved as a black man picking cotton on a southern plantation? What do you think happened to draft dodgers?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

I'm not going to debate with a person who equates the needs of a wife and kids with a slave master. 

That is a new low.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

vicker said:


> No white man ever held that position in this country, you had to be born into it. If your mamma had a drop of black blood...


 Do a little research on the Irish. Many of them were slaves here. (multi-generational, forced to work for no money slaves.)


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

It was never legal in this country to own a white man. You could own his contract. There were laws protecting these indentured servants (not slaves). There were, of course, some instances of indentured servants being treated in ways opposed to those laws. This is a classic issue that is commonly brought up to be compared to chattel slavery. They don't compare. Please stop. .


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Really, when you look at all of the turmoil of the months and years leading up to Southern States secession, what issue inflamed the south? They wanted slavery extended into the territories. They wanted slavery extended to cover as much of the hemisphere as they could control. They produced the great majority of the cotton on the world market, and were going to increase that production exponentially. They believed they had built the better mouse trap, and that the world would beat a path to their door.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

In 1860 the value of the human chattel held in bondage in the southern states exceeded the value of all of the factories, all of the banks and all of the RRs in the entire nation. I didn't provide a link because, I couldn't remember where I read that. When I googled it, the Internet lit up. So, just google, "value of slaves in southern states" and pick a site you like. 

Farmerga, for ****s and giggles you can google, value of irish slaves in the southern states". .D


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

vicker said:


> That is an opinion, Watcher. It is my opinion that most slave owners had no intention of phasing out slavery. They intended to spread it to the territories, they intended to annex Cuba and other Mediterranean islands, they intended to grow their empire to include most of Mexico, Central and S. America. That is my opinion.
> 
> The slaves did not slack between jobs in the field. There was plenty of work to do around the plantations, and hiring them out for private and public projects. And, it didn't end after the fourteenth amendment. States and localities passed vagrancy laws and the like to force poor blacks to sign labor contracts, or to incarcerate them to be hired out by the sheriff. Orphaned black children, and those from destitute families were sold into "apprenticeships" until they reached adulthood.
> 
> ...


You answered your own question. I was going to do it for you, but it seems you already knew the price of slaves. In today's money, it would be more than a new luxury car.




vicker said:


> In 1860 the value of the human chattel held in bondage in the southern states exceeded the value of all of the factories, all of the banks and all of the RRs in the entire nation. I didn't provide a link because, I couldn't remember where I read that. When I googled it, the Internet lit up. So, just google, "value of slaves in southern states" and pick a site you like.
> 
> Farmerga, for ****s and giggles you can google, value of irish slaves in the southern states". .D







DEKE01 said:


> Your entire theory is opinion and rests upon the fact that a deeply entrenched economic system older than anyone of the time could remember, can be seen as dying by those benefiting from it. Again, it may be perfectly clear in hindsight, but not necessarily in 1850s.
> 
> Perhaps you should think about it this way, which in my mind is a much more apt analogy than your SWAT team. Greece is dying. It would already be dead if it hadn't repeatedly been given billions of dollars to postpone its death. Anyone who can't see it is dying is blind. Yet the people have rioted in the streets, turned over the gov't, and protested any change that takes away their pensions and welfare. They fear change, the change that must come sooner or later no matter what they do. And the people of Greece have much greater access to information today than did any Southerner in 1860
> 
> *If Southerners were as enlighten as you believe they were would mean that the masses who overwhelming had little education and almost no access to unbiased information could somehow divine the coming technological and sociological changes. Can you find any Southern newspaper editorials of the time to back up your theory?*


Nope.
But my grand father was one of the smartest men I ever knew. He made a small fortune investing in stocks on his own research. Of course he only went thru the 3rd grade and had to go pick crops in the field to support the family.
I know the prevailing theory is we're all a bunch of uneducated, ignorant bigots who can't think our way out of a wet paper bag.........and sometimes we like to let y'all think that too.
It makes it easier for both of us when you get back in your cars headed North saying, "This just isn't the place we want to stay."
:gaptooth:


----------



## beenaround (Mar 2, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> Do a little research on the Irish. Many of them were slaves here. (multi-generational, forced to work for no money slaves.)


good example, but they weren't the only ones. 

People have always hated and taken advantage of others. The first black slave to N.A. were brought by as a result of a priest. He'd witnessed the Aztecs treatment at the hands of the Spaniards after their defeat, it was horrendous (deserved many would say). His answer was to bring other slaves to take their place. He regretted that decision for the rest of his life and worked to reverse it. Obviously failed.

The Civil War like all wars was about money. The North was envious of the Souths "free" labor, even though the North treated most labor's just as you described. Follow the money up to the war, it's there.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

vicker said:


> It was never legal in this country to own a white man. You could own his contract. There were laws protecting these indentured servants (not slaves). There were, of course, some instances of indentured servants being treated in ways opposed to those laws. This is a classic issue that is commonly brought up to be compared to chattel slavery. They don't compare. Please stop. .


 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot#

Sounds an awful lot like chattel slavery to me.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> Nope.
> But my grand father was one of the smartest men I ever knew. He made a small fortune investing in stocks on his own research. Of course he only went thru the 3rd grade and had to go pick crops in the field to support the family.
> I know the prevailing theory is we're all a bunch of uneducated, ignorant bigots who can't think our way out of a wet paper bag.........and sometimes we like to let y'all think that too.
> It makes it easier for both of us when you get back in your cars headed North saying, "This just isn't the place we want to stay."
> :gaptooth:


You and VH have both, at times, interpreted this thread as some sort of personal attack on Southerners. That has never been my intention. What you've written here is non sequitur. I was discussing 150 - 200 years ago, not today. 

I never said Southerners are stupid. You have confused poorly educated with stupid, they are not the same thing. 

I never said Southerners are ignorant bigots. In fact, I've said I'm proud of how far the South has come. But you can not deny most of those who defended slavery were bigoted by today's standards.

And both of you have wrongly assumed I must be a Northerner because I honestly say the root cause of the Civil War was slavery instead of trying to obfuscate with a bunch of lies that have been perpetuated to save Southern pride. 

Others have posted Civil War era newspaper editorials which show the ignorance and bigotry of the time. If you want to find similar contemporary editorials to show that the Southerners of the time had access to the full information we have today, that they were enlightened equalitarians, and that it was a common belief that slavery was a dying economic model, I'll happily entertain your sources.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot#
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like chattel slavery to me.


Very interesting I learned a lot there. But of course, that is irrelevant to the root cause of the Civil war, slavery.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> And both of you have wrongly assumed I must be a Northerner because I honestly say the root cause of the Civil War was slavery instead of trying to obfuscate with a bunch of lies that have been perpetuated to save Southern pride.


Naw, I don't assume you are a northerner, just that you refuse to see what actually caused the civil war. Slavery played a pretty insignificant role.... As with all wars greed, money and power was the real cause. The lie that is commonly believed is that the war was all about slavery. One needs only to look at the economic factors in play during the time period to see the real cause.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

" Sounds an awful lot like chattel slavery to me."

They are also talking about English law in the 1600s.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> Very interesting I learned a lot there. But of course, that is irrelevant to the root cause of the Civil war, slavery.


 The only thing I was replying to was the statement that there were no white slaves, which was false.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Naw, I don't assume you are a northerner, just that you refuse to see what actually caused the civil war. Slavery played a pretty insignificant role.... As with all wars greed, money and power was the real cause. The lie that is commonly believed is that the war was all about slavery. One needs only to look at the economic factors in play during the time period to see the real cause.


You did assume I was a Northerner. Money and economic factors involved in slavery...agreed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> You did assume I was a Northerner. Money and economic factors involved in slavery...agreed.


Yeppers those Yankees just couldn't wait to get those slaves set free so they could shop in all the northern stores!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers those Yankees just couldn't wait to get those slaves set free so they could shop in all the northern stores!


I suppose when you have run out of defenses of slavery, after you've tried to justify the fugitive slave law, you've equated a husband and father's duty to provide for his family with slavery (Hmmm...what does that say about your relationship with Yvonne?), you've argued that 100+ year old family lore is more accurate history than an examination of historical documents, you've defended beating slaves because of it not being against the law at the time, you've gotten it factually wrong that Abe was not interested in slavery, you've called JW Booth good, you got it wrong that it was a legal and constitutional violation to not capture run away slaves, and you've repeated as fact the myth about Sherman salting farm acreage. 

So let's see, where you were factually correct, you defended the moral reprehensible and where you weren't morally reprehensible, you were wrong. 

:thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> I suppose when you have run out of defenses of slavery, after you've tried to justify the fugitive slave law, you've equated a husband and father's duty to provide for his family with slavery (Hmmm...what does that say about your relationship with Yvonne?), you've argued that 100+ year old family lore is more accurate history than an examination of historical documents, you've defended beating slaves because of it not being against the law at the time, you've gotten it factually wrong that Abe was not interested in slavery, you've called JW Booth good, you got it wrong that it was a legal and constitutional violation to not capture run away slaves, and you've repeated as fact the myth about Sherman salting farm acreage.
> 
> So let's see, where you were factually correct, you defended the moral reprehensible and where you weren't morally reprehensible, you were wrong.
> 
> :thumb:


Right on schedule.... No facts to prove your point.... Attack the messenger.

I have never defended slavery in any of its forms.
I have never defended beating slaves. 
I have seen the barren strips of land, remnants of Sherman's March.
I have read our constitution.... Including the section requiring runaway slaves be turned over to their owners. 
I have never defended any morally reprehensible practices.
In short I have merely brought forward the plain facts as they existed at the time.

Oh, one more thing..... How about you leave my Yvonne out of your tirade.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

YH, salting the earth just doesn't work like that. Even if Sherman had spread tons of salt all over the South, rainwater would have washed it away in short order. Someone saw you coming , or they believed untrue stories that had been passed down the generations.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> YH, salting the earth just doesn't work like that. Even if Sherman had spread tons of salt all over the South, rainwater would have washed it away in short order. Someone saw you coming , or they believed untrue stories that had been passed down the generations.


I spose it's possible that some farmers just sprayed round up in strips across their fields just so they could grin and giggle at tourists who asked what was up. :shrug:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I spose it is. There are any number of reasons for what you saw, but Sherman's salting of the earth ain't one.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Right on schedule.... No facts to prove your point.... Attack the messenger.
> 
> I have never defended slavery in any of its forms.
> I have never defended beating slaves.
> ...


Your record is there for all to see right here in this thread. Its a disgusting record and I understand why you are trying to run away from it. And how your stated opinions reflect on your personal relationships is a reasonable question when you say such odd things.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Your record is there for all to see right here in this thread. Its a disgusting record and I understand why you are trying to run away from it. And how your stated opinions reflect on your personal relationships is a reasonable question when you say such odd things.


I have no problem with anything I have posted in this forum. What I do question is your "interpretation" of my posts. I do not find bringing forth basic information as odd. It's a discussion, I wasn't aware that I was on trial here.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no problem with anything I have posted in this forum.


Yeah, that's the problem.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

As you pointed out, all of my posts are there for anyone to read, I just hope most folks have at least average reading/comprehension ability. Wouldn't want them to confuse what I wrote with what you seem to think I wrote.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Caint we all just get along?  YH, I alway admire that, for a big horse's ass, you don't offend easily.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> You and VH have both, at times, interpreted this thread as some sort of personal attack on Southerners. That has never been my intention. What you've written here is non sequitur. I was discussing 150 - 200 years ago, not today.
> 
> I never said Southerners are stupid. You have confused poorly educated with stupid, they are not the same thing.
> 
> ...


I was glad you asked that. 
I did, and was enlightened and reaffirmed by what I found.
In fact there was a small but vocal abolitionist movement throughout the early 19th century in the South. Slavery was certainly not the way of most of the Scotch-Irish settlers that dominated the region.
Although the slave holders objected to them, they had the best chance of changing the South........until about 1850 when talk of white southerners being killed and burned out by their slaves became advocated by the Northern abolitionists.
Cuz, you know, if they won't do it peacefully, we can always go down there and start whoopin' them.

That's a brief synopsis of what I found from the period, but it goes to show what I've said from the beginning.
If y'all want somethin', just ask, but if you start talking about how you're gonna MAKE us do somethin', pack a lunch.
It's gonna be an all day event.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The slave owners also owned the state politics. The Scott/Irish farmers had just about 0 pull. The large plantation class were in the top richest people in the world. They controlled the politics, and they wanted a war. They had no intention in taking a pay cut. The Scott/iris settlers played right into the aristocracy's hand. They were clannish people and didn't like ANY outside interference. They fought and died just as the aristocracy knew they would. ...honor, and all that. Of course, about 50% fought for the Union.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

There was a Union officer, I can't think of his name, I think he was a General, he was from the South and, my God he hated the planter class. The main Scott/Irish Rebels in my area were murdering bushwhackers up in the Smokey Mntns, or running around in the swamps. Most were for the union. There were of course splits.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

What always tickles me is how they try and call it the war of "Northern Aggression".  
The South had been whining, crying and rattling their sabers for years! As soon as poor old Abe was elected they stole cannons, powder and munitions and shipped them south, they fired a hellacious bombardment, unprovoked, on a federal fort in Charleston Harbor, called up arms and marched to the outskirts of Washington. At some point, yeah, the Union did get aggressive.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

During the decade or so prior to the war the population of the South was almost static compared to the North. European emigrants were pouring into the North, but not the South. Why? This is the largest reason why the Union could muster men exponentially compared to the South.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Caint we all just get along?  YH, I alway admire that, for a big horse's ass, you don't offend easily.


thank you...... I think :buds:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> I was glad you asked that.
> I did, and was enlightened and reaffirmed by what I found.
> In fact there was a small but vocal abolitionist movement throughout the early 19th century in the South. Slavery was certainly not the way of most of the Scotch-Irish settlers that dominated the region.
> Although the slave holders objected to them, they had the best chance of changing the South........until about 1850 when talk of white southerners being killed and burned out by their slaves became advocated by the Northern abolitionists.
> ...


While you don't provide a single source, which is what I asked for, your brief outline reaffirms my stance that there was no widespread belief slavery was a dying institution and economic model.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> While you don't provide a single source, which is what I asked for, your brief outline reaffirms my stance that there was no widespread belief slavery was a dying institution and economic model.



Well, no, there wasn't a widespread belief slavery was a dying institution and economic model.
That was the inevitable fact that everyone witnessed the decades after the war, whether they believed it was coming or not. 
The objections were on moral grounds, not economics.
The war, on the other hand was fought on economic grounds, not a moral one.

In either case, Winston Churchill was right........

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Well, your sentence structure is nice, and I like the spaces, your words fit together nicely but, what the heck are you saying? I didn't get anything out of that. Well, I did get a chuckle from mr. Churchill.  I'm a poor southern boy, could you clarify what you're trying to say?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Well, your sentence structure is nice, and I like the spaces, your words fit together nicely but, what the heck are you saying? I didn't get anything out of that. Well, I did get a chuckle from mr. Churchill.  I'm a poor southern boy, could you clarify what you're trying to say?


My take on it was the war was fought over economic issues at the same time slavery was opposed by some on moral grounds.... Pretty much parallel with my own views of that period of history.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Oh, ok.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby, your reference to the Churchill quote made me laugh. It reminded me of watching the movie sweet home Alabama with my hubby years ago.

There's a part in the movie where the star guy gets real exasperated with the star girl and says something to the effect of, "what is it with all you southern girls? You gotta try out all the wrong decisions before you finally try the rights ones?!"

My hubby said something to the effect of "nailed it". Then, gave me quite a stare and a wink and a grin.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gibbsgirl said:


> Yvonne's hubby, your reference to the Churchill quote made me laugh. It reminded me of watching the movie sweet home Alabama with my hubby years ago.
> 
> There's a part in the movie where the star guy gets real exasperated with the star girl and says something to the effect of, "what is it with all you southern girls? You gotta try out all the wrong decisions before you finally try the rights ones?!"
> 
> My hubby said something to the effect of "nailed it". Then, gave me quite a stare and a wink and a grin.


As much as I would like to take credit for that it seems to me that was farmer brown that brought that into the discussion. I do have to agree with Winston though, we do seem to take the long road to get where we are going.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Oops, you're right. Sorry farmrbrown. Great quote.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

vicker said:


> Well, your sentence structure is nice, and I like the spaces, your words fit together nicely but, what the heck are you saying? I didn't get anything out of that. Well, I did get a chuckle from mr. Churchill.  I'm a poor southern boy, could you clarify what you're trying to say?


The South was wrong to commit to slavery, although not all, I doubt most Southerners agreed with it.

The North was wrong to not allow the South to secede and to send brother to kill brother in order to enforce it, and I doubt that most of them agreed that such violence was necessary.

They were both trying to protect economic interests rather than morality. In 20 short years after the War, the Industrial Revolution made slavery a moot point and would have happened eventually WITHOUT all that bloodshed, had anyone had enough sense to wait it out.

As Churchill pointed out, Americans have a knack for ending up on the right side, after we have succeeded in doing everything else wrong.
:hammer:


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Just for info to help any interested in looking for info online to explain more about the economic changed impacting society before, during, and after the civil war.

The industrial revolution actually started before th civil war, then the market revolution, the n the second industrial revolution.

The dates and decades are a bit of a grey area because so much was changing and different nations and continents got things going in different years, etc.

But, they were hugely impactful on economies, particularly western ones, but also globally, and you s it has an impact on where America was headed regardless of whether we had a civil war or not.

The treaties of Paris are also interesting to learn about and helps to show where international control and alliances came from. International politics was part of the civil war. And, the political landscape of the 1800s was very affect d by the wars in the 1700s. The treaties really were ending the first world war. Lots of people tend to think if our revolution as a stand alone war, but it was really one theater of a world war.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

And, for those interested in history, here is some more info on slavery in the South during the 80 years after the Civil War. 

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OdBSsvHuJIo[/ame]


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> And, for those interested in history, here is some more info on slavery in the South during the 80 years after the Civil War.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OdBSsvHuJIo


Yeppers. Slavery takes many forms, I don't care much for any of them. Not even the ones practiced up nawth.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers. Slavery takes many forms, I don't care much for any of them.


Yes, we remember. Like when you said a husband having to provide for a wife and kids is slavery.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, we remember. Like when you said a husband having to provide for a wife and kids is slavery.


That situation can and has been exploited many thousands of times in our history. Other times not so much, there are plenty of men in this country who are not "forced" into taking a job in the mines to feed and care for their family. Its when a feller sees no other options and feels he has to take that crummy job and ends up trapped in it that it qualifies as one more form of slavery.

"I owe my soul to the company store" was based on a very real form of slavery.


----------

