Looks like people DO have issues with the confederate flag

FUCK i had 8 paragraphs written....

here we go again.

the civil was is and is not about slavery...

The war started when Lincoln was legally elected on a platfrom that included emancipation of slaves.

No one (obvious exageration) in the south voted for him, why?

Cause they where dirty bigots?

NOPE

Cause their entire economic base at that point revolved around slaves, and the lose of slaves would mean total ruin the the economics of the region, for everyone, not just the slave owners (imagine what would happen to arab countries without oil). Now while a slower process of emancipation might have worked, and been accepted, this was not offered.

Hence the South cesseded, a move that was only declared illegal after the war was won (or lost depending on your POV).

This seccestion was not accepted by the United States (even though at the time there was no law against it) and war was fought.

As a stratigic move the emancipation proclomation was announced, a plan to decimate the economic base of the south and hasten the end of the war by ruining the abilities of the south to resupply. whether it did speed things up is still a matter of debate, BUT it did free slaves, as the either escaped (now having a place to run to they could reach) or when Union soldiers took control of lands they where on.

Hence the civil war was about economics and slavery, or maybe the economics of slavery.


the 13th amendment was fufilling lincolns campain promise of an end of slavery. Though equal rights where not thought about and came years later.
 
you posted a link claiming NO slaves where freed, some where

The souths economy at that point revolved around the cotton trade, which revolved around the cotton gin, and slavery.

you take a car plant out if flint michigan flint dies, even the guys working at mcdonalds lose their jobs.

only the rich owned slaves, but they contributed to the economy, without them, and no slow change to other practices the region dies.

you need an amendment because the proclomation does, and could NOT include states that the union was not at war with, he had the power to do this under the war measures act of the time.
 
paul_valaru said:
Cause their entire economic base at that point revolved around slaves, and the lose of slaves would mean total ruin the the economics of the region, for everyone, not just the slave owners
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that simply is not true.

Less than 30% of Southerners ever owned a slave. Thus, the notion that it was the entire base of our economy is, well, just plain wrong. More to the point, almost no one here in the mounatinous regoins owned a slave. That is historically and economically borne out.

The very county I live in desired to remain union loyal. Numerous acts of sabotage against Confederate troops were perpetrated here. Try Googling the Bridge Burners Greene County. It should show up.

A conference was held on the town square here to rally support for remaining union. Curiously, lincoln's vice president, andrew johnson, is from Greene County. Does it start to fall in place yet?

Mountain farmers could not afford slaves. They had no railroads to get their crops (corn and tobacco mainly) to market, so they made the corn into moonshine. We improvised. We survived.

BUT it did free slaves, as the either escaped (now having a place to run to they could reach) or when Union soldiers took control of lands they where on.

Hence the civil war was about economics and slavery, or maybe the economics of slavery.
Click to expand...

If it freed slaves, then why did there need to be a Constitutional Amendment freeing slaves? it just doesn't make sense...because it isn't accurate. I don't know how else to state it. It's simple deduction.

Slaves generally did not "run toward" union troops. There are hundreds upon hundreds of accounts of what actually happened. Many fought off the union troops and defended the very plantations they lived on after their "owners" were dead. Most of those "rescued" by union troops were murdered by those same troops. I have read excerpt from the letters of union soldiers who recounted using them as "target parctice at river crossings...while their bobbing black heads floated along". There are documented accounts of scores of murdered black people, free and slave, along the side of Louisiana roads, killed by union troops, and the only medical attention they received was from Confederate troops and Southern citizens. The myth of the saving union army simply is not true. Therefore, it is again simple deduction to realize that the fabricated motivations of said troops are equally false.

It would make a pleasant fairy tale if the account we always hear was true. If it was, I'd lay down my cross in a second. I held the same beliefs for over 35 years. But the simple fact is, it just didn't happen that way.

I will give you this much though. The economics of slavery played a role. just not the one you think it played. Somewhere on here I have a link posted to a book written by New England scholars detailing the complicity of New England with the business of slave marketing. Do some digging into how the Adams family (John and John Quincey, two of our first six presidents) made their fortune. See how cities such as Hartford and Providence and Boston and New York financed all their fabulous historic districts and infrastructure. Then ask yourself why Dixie has remained economically inferior all these years...why, if all this money was floating around, none of it made it down here...people, it just does not fit what you were taught.

OK, I'm REALLY going to bed now...
 
as the either escaped (now having a place to run to they could reach)
Click to expand...

Then why is the South more densely populated with blacks than the north, and always has been? They obviously didn't run very far.

Sorry to be so blunt, but dayum...
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Then why is the South more densely populated with blacks than the north, and always has been? They obviously didn't run very far.

Sorry to be so blunt, but dayum...
Click to expand...

Because black people is meant to live in warmer weather? ;)

*waits patiently until someone calls me a racist bastard
 
well I replied to that post that you deleted, so my reply is before your post.

yes all of the US had slavery at one point, at the time the civil war started most northern states had illeminated it.

Not everyone was involved with slavery in the south, but those not involved where in secondary and thesery economic businesses, the primary businesses where involved with slavery, providing a BASE of the economic system.

the economic diffrences between the north and south have many reasons, not just the war.

1 population density.
2 major ports.
3 embraced the industrial revalution earlier.
4 after effects of civil war (yes it is a reason, not the only one)
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Then why is the South more densely populated with blacks than the north, and always has been? They obviously didn't run very far.

Sorry to be so blunt, but dayum...
Click to expand...


because most where freed when the union invaded those lands. the rest where freed when the war ended.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
For the record, what I deleted was partial bits of the whole post. The board went wacky on me for a minute.
Click to expand...


I never suggested, nor meant to suggest you changed anything.
 
Just got struck by a passing thought...



AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Click to expand...

END of the war. Why didn't the holy human rights loving hypocrites of the day pass it before? I guess because they couldn't lock the dissenting legislators in the hall like they did to get it passed.

Interesting that a four-year war had to be fought over, presumably if you subscribe to the myth, something that the very invaders themselves never made law until it was time to cover their political asses. I guess all the residency restrictions they put in place made them comfy enough.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Just got struck by a passing thought...





END of the war. Why didn't the holy human rights loving hypocrites of the day pass it before? I guess because they couldn't lock the dissenting legislators in the hall like they did to get it passed.

Interesting that a four-year war had to be fought over, presumably if you subscribe to the myth, something that the very invaders themselves never made law until it was time to cover their political asses. I guess all the residency restrictions they put in place made them comfy enough.
Click to expand...


the war got in the way?

and as to what the war was started because, the South secceded because they didn't want an end to slavery. the war was about maintaining a whole united states.
 
some food for thought, the corwin amendment, meant to protect slavery (still pending) a last ditch effort to stop the civil war, rejected by the confederacy.
passing it now would not reinstitute slavery, but probably give more power to state rather than federal gov't
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
the very invaders themselves never made law until it was time to cover their political asses.
Click to expand...

You expected more?

Slavery was not the be all & end all of the Civil War. It was a factor, no matter how hard you make it not to be. Expecially when every seceding state referenced to it. Had only the Union PR guys talked about it, you'd have a point of propaganda.
 
*Throws hands in the air*

That's it. Believe what you want to. I am tired of answering the same twelve questions fifty times each.

I have but one request.

In the future, when issues such as this or anything loosely related to it come up, don't ask me shit. You guys refuse to read, refuse to learn, and refuse to accept anything but the myth. Deluded ya are, deluded ye shall be, and as far as I care, deluded ye shall remain.

Deo vindice. All others pay cash with three forms of valid ID.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
You guys refuse to read, refuse to learn, and refuse to accept anything but the myth. Deluded ya are, deluded ye shall be, and as far as I care, deluded ye shall remain.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem a fair statement. I think all the people participating in this conversation have brought a lot of facts to the table and it's a decent discussion. Can you point out where the refusal to read, learn, or accept anything but a myth were?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top