Civil war refresher
- Thread starter Majicmike
- Start date
- Replies 128
- Views 8,001
- Status
Ok follow me on this for a bit.
Slavery was what basically put the food on the table for the plantation owner and allowed him to live the lifestyle of comfort. We all know NOW that slavery was horrible but at that time he was just making money and living the life of high cotton.
Fast forward to 2017. A drug kingpin is just making money supplying heroin to his dealers. We all know it is wrong but to him it is putting food on the table and allowing him the life of luxury he chooses to have. We all know that drugs and heroin are bad now but does he care? No it's a business transaction of property and products just as slavery was in the 1860's
Slavery was what basically put the food on the table for the plantation owner and allowed him to live the lifestyle of comfort. We all know NOW that slavery was horrible but at that time he was just making money and living the life of high cotton.
Fast forward to 2017. A drug kingpin is just making money supplying heroin to his dealers. We all know it is wrong but to him it is putting food on the table and allowing him the life of luxury he chooses to have. We all know that drugs and heroin are bad now but does he care? No it's a business transaction of property and products just as slavery was in the 1860's
Last edited:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Haven't heard it put that way before, but based on the mindset of the times, I think that is a fair analogy.
Chuckman
Senior Member
Well, we knew then it was bad. We knew in the 1700s it was bad. But to your analogy, people were OK with putting up with it because of the economic benefit it provided; the whole cost-benefit analysis worked for them.
So how's this for a twist:
Suppose the CSA negotiated a peace, allowed to secede, and thus keep slavery. While the north would have had to negotiate trade terms because it needed the materials and goods from the south, England/Europe would have boycotted, or have imposed outrageous tariffs. There is a strong argument that the CSA would have been strangled economically, and would have ended up far worse.
of course these scenarios could play out a dozen different ways.
That outcome is a very very plausible outcome. Either way if the CSA had won slavery would have been outlawed eventually and the US and CSA would either live much like North and South Korea today or would eventually get back together for the economic benefit
You make a specious argument based on mores that did not exist a century and a half and more ago. You will never understand the world of the early-1800s if you only view it through a 2017 lens.
The concept of "individual rights" of slaves before the mid-1800s was similar to the concept of "animal rights" today. A few people had odd ideas, but the vast majority of the population held the simple view -that had existed since the dawn of time- that you didn't grossly mistreat living property, whether that property was a dog or cat, horse or oxen ... or slave.
Are you a citizen? I assume when you become a citizen you'll be allowed to vote. I thought when you marry a citizen of the US you were automatically a citizen.
That's a common misconception, no I'm not a citizen I have a greencard ( I will naturalize once I am able to) I pay the same taxes, am subject to the same law's but don't have the same rights.
I am not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that not all tax payers get a vote
Just wondering here....... WHO owned the slave ships? WHO sailed to Africa and BOUGHT the slaves and brought them to the US to be sold in the south to the plantation owners (at a huge markup, I'm sure). As someone posted up thread - follow the money. As I said ....Just wondering.
That's a common misconception, no I'm not a citizen I have a greencard ( I will naturalize once I am able to) I pay the same taxes, am subject to the same law's but don't have the same rights.
I am not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that not all tax payers get a vote
Please take no offense in my thoughts but, if you are not a legal US citizen you should not get a vote plain and simple. Now once your naturalize and legally become a citizen you should be given all the same privileges including the right to vote as all other legal citizens. Any other way and illegals or green card visitors could come and sway a vote and then leave. It would not be the will of the people and their voice via the ballot box.
Honestly to answer your question a lot of black African men on the continent of Africa gathered up the slaves and loaded them to the ships owned by many foreign countries and Yankee business men as well.
Views on slavery were changing during the decades before the Civil War, but the dominant view was certainly nothing near today's views of slavery.
Look at Lincoln's home state of Illinois as an example. The Illinois Constitution of 1848 forbade slavery ("§ 16. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this state"). But the people of Illinois also wanted nothing to do with freed slaves ("Article XIV. The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state;and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free."). See the subsequent Illinois Black Codes of 1853.
Whatever discomfort the vast majority of the population might have had about holding other humans as property, it did not extend to viewing those humans as 'people' who should rightfully join society.
I completely agree, i don't think non citizens should vote. I was just pointing out to whoever said that if you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to vote that there are people who pay taxes and still can't vote.
Well the good thing is you have intelligence and education on the issues at hand and will be a voter soon enough.
I'm sorry I must have phrased myself poorly, I know that property owners pay taxes, what I am asking about is non-property owners that also pay taxes, according to your logic they have no right to vote even though they pay in to the system.
Last edited:
Also native americans were captured and sold as slaves. I've heard of irish prisoners being sold into slavery. Some say its not true.
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
There's a brand new novel out, an allegory re-experiencing historical events in the not-to-distant future. Where did I see that?...Oh yeah, right there.
I can't see how very many people aren't taxpayers in one way or another. Every purchase at retail, every utility payment, etc has a tax on it. Granted, there are those that pay income tax and get more back than paid in. In the end, though, taxation is still theft.
If he's not busy trying to bang his self proclaimed "hot muslim neighbor". Oh, sorry @OverMountainMan you don't have enough tenure to know that story.
Last edited:
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
Like David St. Hubbins said, "Some mysteries are better left unsolved."
So it has somthing to do with Irish slaves?
Since the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves of 1807 (which took effect in 1808), the answer to your question is "Nobody brought slaves to the US for about 4 generations."
FIFY.
We can certainly debate power vs money, but the bottom line is nations deal in power and influence. Money is just one medium of exchange by which this happens.
Let's discuss the difference between "wrong" and "illegal".
Whether or not something is "wrong" is a moral question. Laws proclaiming such as "illegal" are supposed to be based upon this (malum in se, or illegal because it's inherently bad), not the other way around (malum in prohibitum, or illegal because it's prohibited).
We all can (and have) discussed various laws and acts in current events on the basis of "moral" and "legal". This isn't new to us. We know of laws by which some things are made legal and others illegal, neither of which have a moral basis.
Slavery was LEGAL in the times we're discussing. But I submit that it was never MORAL. And therein lies the difference.
"Cultural inferiority"? I would argue that any "culture" which endorses slavery to be inferior at its roots.
Put it this way, for your last comments there...would you rather you and your descendants live as a well cared for slaves in perpetuity, or would you rather you and your descendants live in primative conditions as free people?
Here is a small reading list to sample if you want to know more about what started the Civil War. I'm sure Amazon carries most of these books.
Why Lincoln Chose War,
Spencer Gantt
33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask -Tom E Woods
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History Unabridged
H. W. Crocker III
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (The Politically Incorrect Guides)
Lochlainn Seabrook
Everything You Were Taught about the Civil War Is Wrong, Ask a Southerner!
Thomas DiLorenzo
Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
Thomas DiLorenzo
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Gene Kizer Jr
Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States: The Irrefutable Argument. 2014
Charles Adams
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
Leonard M Scruggs
The Un-Civil War Shattering the Historical Myths
Clifford Dowdey
The History of the Confederacy: 1832-1865
Henry Charles Carey
The Slave Trade Domestic And Foreign Why It Exists And How It May Be Extinguished
Susan Lawrence Davis
Authentic history of the Ku Klux Klan, 1865-1877
Why Lincoln Chose War,
Spencer Gantt
33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask -Tom E Woods
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History Unabridged
H. W. Crocker III
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (The Politically Incorrect Guides)
Lochlainn Seabrook
Everything You Were Taught about the Civil War Is Wrong, Ask a Southerner!
Thomas DiLorenzo
Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
Thomas DiLorenzo
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Gene Kizer Jr
Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States: The Irrefutable Argument. 2014
Charles Adams
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
Leonard M Scruggs
The Un-Civil War Shattering the Historical Myths
Clifford Dowdey
The History of the Confederacy: 1832-1865
Henry Charles Carey
The Slave Trade Domestic And Foreign Why It Exists And How It May Be Extinguished
Susan Lawrence Davis
Authentic history of the Ku Klux Klan, 1865-1877
Last edited:
And if you want to know why the Civil War became inevitable, and planned by domestic and foreign banking powers as far back as 1832 read this absolute gem by John Remington Graham...
Blood money : the Civil War and the Federal Reserve.
Blood money : the Civil War and the Federal Reserve.
Last edited:
Which of Lincoln's speeches are you referring to? In his inaugural address he explicitly said he was not going after slavery, and used as evidence his own many prior speeches:
"... Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, 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.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes...."
Last edited:
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
I can't dispute that.
My simple answer is the latter. My point was poorly worded; cultural quality is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I was just trying to suggest they weren't necessarily worse off in every single regard.
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
The history on which it's based involves the corsair pirates. In the afterword, the author references "In 1631 Murad led another group of raiders to the village of Baltimore, Ireland, and abducted more than a hundred local inhabitants, mostly women and children bound for sex slavery." Over a million Europeans were abducted this way in the 16th through 19th centuries.
The novel, set in the near future, tells a story of 66 Irish and English schoolgirls abducted from a private boarding school in Ireland by Moroccan sea-jihadis. European navies are too crippled to mount a quick reaction. And a team consisting of former SAS, former IRA, a former Marine sniper, an Italian Alpini, and some civilian others, go and try to save them from being auctioned into sex-slavery.
Lincoln personally was opposed to slavery but that developed over time. Politically he would have allowed slavery in the south but not new expansion states in exchange for keeping the Union who left. So, my question is if slavery were the root cause of the war, and this was on the table, then why would the south not take it and join back up to the Union?
That's because slavery was s part of the reason for secession not the Only reason.
That's because slavery was s part of the reason for secession not the Only reason.
The act leading to the start of the Civil War started March 1st 1833 when congress passed the Force Bill authorizing President Jackson to use military forces against South Carolina, who deemed the Federal Tarrifs imposed on the state unconstitutional. Read about the nullification crisis, and how average southern people, not just rich plantation/ slave owners came to dislike the federal government who was causing economic hardship on average southerners.
Preserving that horrible institution of slavery was one of the causes for secession, especially for the rich plantation owners in leadership positions who wrote these documents of secession, but not the only cause. Without the average southerner being economically depressed thanks to the federal governments tarrifs benefiting Northern states, you don't have the average southern man willing to fight a war. They wouldn't fight only for the rich plantation and slave owners, you have to look at the cause of the average man.
Slavery in all races had been the norm for mankind for thousands of years. War and Succession is what you are confusing @toddje. War was caused by a Federal governments growing power. Licoln and the North are deemed as heros, it's far from the truth. Licoln never had any intent of freeing slaves until it was a benifit to the war to cause chaos in the south. Granted it turned out good for equal liberty. This can be proven in his own writings in which you can see just how he felt about the black man. The writings of Lincoln are text book white supremacist propaganda.
Preserving that horrible institution of slavery was one of the causes for secession, especially for the rich plantation owners in leadership positions who wrote these documents of secession, but not the only cause. Without the average southerner being economically depressed thanks to the federal governments tarrifs benefiting Northern states, you don't have the average southern man willing to fight a war. They wouldn't fight only for the rich plantation and slave owners, you have to look at the cause of the average man.
Slavery in all races had been the norm for mankind for thousands of years. War and Succession is what you are confusing @toddje. War was caused by a Federal governments growing power. Licoln and the North are deemed as heros, it's far from the truth. Licoln never had any intent of freeing slaves until it was a benifit to the war to cause chaos in the south. Granted it turned out good for equal liberty. This can be proven in his own writings in which you can see just how he felt about the black man. The writings of Lincoln are text book white supremacist propaganda.
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
FIFY: In other words, he clearly said sometimes that he hated slavery, and he clearly said completely different things other times.
Politician and A#1 scumbag.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
History disagrees with you.
He owned a few until after the war and the passing of the 13th amendment.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
FWIW I've seen some things out there now that claim he didn't but everything I've read from the time well before the internet says he did.
At one time that was even taught in school during history.
It's a commonly misunderstood fact that the emmanucipation proclamation only freed slaves in southern occupied territories.
At one time that was even taught in school during history.
It's a commonly misunderstood fact that the emmanucipation proclamation only freed slaves in southern occupied territories.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Then please provide a real reference that he didn't.
And Illinois wasn't always a free state.
Chuckman
Senior Member
It did. Now, the emancipation proclamation freed slaves in the north.
I kid, I kid.....
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Ahh Wikipedia. That's never wrong.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Stupid fingers.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
That is incorrect. It was a calculated move to cause civil unrest.
And it wasn't in the entire states. It was only in southern occupied territories. It didn't even free slaves in areas of southern states that were currently held by northern troops.
- Status