[QUOTE=Master X;33594056]Cracker and cracka are both derogatory words, but they're not really powerful like the N word is.[/QUOTE]
becausssse
[video=youtube;TG4f9zR5yzY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY[/video]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593042]No, actually the main issue with the Confederate Government and the number one reason they seceded from the Union was slavery.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#History[/url][/QUOTE]
But it wasn't the reason why the North was fighting.
I know I'm taking a risk by skipping many comment pages, but...
Back in grade school, I did a large research report on the Civil War. All the historical books (no internet) i found at the library stated the primary cause of the war was taxes. The North had lots of manufacturing and the south was only agriculture at the time. The taxes hurt the already poorer southern economy. Also, slavery was legal all over the nation.
The south succeeded after the taxes were refused to be let up. And the war started after it was apparent the North was preparing for an attack (ft. Sumter was still union controlled).
Lincoln also only abolished slavery after the first couple years of the war to help support in both moral and in troop numbers.
and the rest is history. North finally got the upper hand and Lee surrendered.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33592853]or separatism and sectarianism to uphold one of the most horrible practices imaginable. depends on the perspective...[/QUOTE]
You're sure about that?
If I do recall the legal institution of Slavery was not in anyway threatened leading up to, [I]and during[/I] the Civil War, with the Emancipation Proclamation authored as a punitive act against the Confederate States which refused to return to the Union by 1863, and left 1 million union held slaves unfreed since it only applied to the states that were in 'rebellion'
Since remember, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia owned slaves yet never joined the CSA, with Delaware and Kentucky continuing the tradition of slavery until the day the Thirteenth Amendment was passed
But you wouldn't know that would you since they apparently don't teach history in American schools anymore
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33592933]i'm confused about how the confederate battle flag could represent freedom when it represented fighting to continue keeping freedom from others.[/QUOTE]
Except, you know, the Union owned over a million slaves at the time of the civil war who were exempted from freedom under the Emancipation Proclamation since it only applied to Confederate held slaves
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33592972]i dunno man, the confederacy kept slaves, the confederacy then fought a war so that they could continue to keep slaves. i don't see how that's subjective? it's fact isn't it?[/QUOTE]
The Union kept slaves, and then they fought a war so to keep the union together after the Southern States got sick of the North's shit and mistreatment since as they held a minority in Congress and could do nothing about it short of secession
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593052]the fight was about the right to keep slaves. yeah you could say states rights vs federal rights but i thought the issue it came down to was the confederacy refusing to abolish slavery?[/QUOTE]
Why would the Confederacy fight a war about the abolishment of slavery when the Union never abolished slavery during the course of the civil war?
[QUOTE=thisispain;33592853]or separatism and sectarianism to uphold one of the most horrible practices imaginable. depends on the perspective...[/QUOTE]
what flag doesn't indicate that, though
[editline]7th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zah;33596677]I know I'm taking a risk by skipping many comment pages, but...
Back in grade school, I did a large research report on the Civil War. All the historical books (no internet) i found at the library stated the primary cause of the war was taxes. The North had lots of manufacturing and the south was only agriculture at the time. The taxes hurt the already poorer southern economy. Also, slavery was legal all over the nation.
The south succeeded after the taxes were refused to be let up. And the war started after it was apparent the North was preparing for an attack (ft. Sumter was still union controlled).
Lincoln also only abolished slavery after the first couple years of the war to help support in both moral and in troop numbers.
and the rest is history. North finally got the upper hand and Lee surrendered.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you'll notice that most wars have very little to do with rights, and very much to do with economics.
after the fact we like to tell ourselves 'oh we did it for the slaves!' or 'oh we did it for the holocaust victims!' when it's not really the case
[QUOTE=Contag;33597435]what flag doesn't indicate that, though[/QUOTE]
[img]http://news.pinkpaper.com/uploads/gay_pride_flag.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33597471][img]http://news.pinkpaper.com/uploads/gay_pride_flag.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I thin he means what flag doesn't indicate some form of status.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33597471][img]http://news.pinkpaper.com/uploads/gay_pride_flag.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I meant what flag of a state
[editline]7th December 2011[/editline]
it's not like these three
[img]http://flagdog.facepunchstudios.com/img/16x11/US.png[/img][img]http://flagdog.facepunchstudios.com/img/16x11/GB.png[/img][img]http://flagdog.facepunchstudios.com/img/16x11/AU.png[/img]
don't indicate the similar things
If words like 'queer' can be reclaimed and turned to positive meaning, I'm down with this
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;33600164]If words like 'queer' can be reclaimed and turned to positive meaning, I'm down with this[/QUOTE]
Didn't it have a positive meaning before it was made negative? Like gay.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
I also don't see the relevance lol
I'm confused as to where half of the information in this thread is coming from.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593089]slavery wasn't even a relevant problem until Lincoln made it a point to abolish slavery because the south had a lot of money in slaves. Lincoln himself did own slaves before his presidency, but if the south won the war Lincoln would have been out of office. He did what it took to stay in office, he didn't free them on an issue of morality.[/QUOTE]
Lincoln never owned slaves, and was raised in opposition of slavery. Slavery was not a major issue until the early to mid 1800's when the new territories of Texas, California, Kansas, and Nebraska were being decided upon, but the debate of slavery was long before Lincoln entered into the presidential political campaign. Show me where Lincoln claimed he wanted to abolish slavery because the south had a major investment into it.
Show me proof that I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593120]Um Lincoln did abolish slavery out of morality. Lincoln was an abolitionist[/QUOTE]
Only for the presidential election of 1864, before that he passed a act reaffirming the legality of slavery in the Union
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;33600164]If words like 'queer' can be reclaimed and turned to positive meaning, I'm down with this[/QUOTE]
Positive meaning? The original meaning of the word before it was hijack was 'strange; odd; unusual.', it's adoption by the homosexuals is almost as counterproductive as blacks adopting 'nigger' to refer to their selves
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33601751]Only for the presidential election of 1864, before that he passed a act reaffirming the legality of slavery in the Union[/QUOTE]
What act was that?
[QUOTE=Zareox7;33601720]I'm confused as to where half of the information in this thread is coming from.
Lincoln never owned slaves, and was raised in opposition of slavery. Slavery was not a major issue until the early to mid 1800's when the new territories of Texas, California, Kansas, and Nebraska were being decided upon, but the debate of slavery was long before Lincoln entered into the presidential political campaign. Show me where Lincoln claimed he wanted to abolish slavery because the south had a major investment into it.
Show me proof that I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
I'd say the fact he gave the states that seceded a deadline to return to the union or else he would make slavery illegal in those states that did not as proof enough he didn't give a damn about abolishing slavery until it suited him, as he never freed the 1 million union owned slaves until his reelection campaign brought the issue up again
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33601852]What act was that?[/QUOTE]
The Emancipation Proclamation
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33596860]The Union kept slaves, and then they fought a war so to keep the union together after the Southern States got sick of the North's shit and mistreatment since as they held a minority in Congress and could do nothing about it short of secession[/QUOTE]
The union had slaves, yes. Excluding the four border states that ended up siding with the union, there were 20 slaves. Even including the border states, there wasn't even close to a million slaves as you said.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33601874]I'd say the fact he gave the states that seceded a deadline to return to the union or else he would make slavery illegal in those states that did not as proof enough he didn't give a damn about abolishing slavery until it suited him, as he never freed the 1 million union owned slaves until his reelection campaign brought the issue up again
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
The Emancipation Proclamation[/QUOTE]
Lincoln did not want to split the union. The seceding states began doing so shortly after Lincoln became president. Against his morals, he decided that if the states would agree to return to the union, he wouldn't issue the proclamation abolishing slavery in the Confederate states. Of course, they didn't want to come back, so he issued the proclamation and made abolition one of the main goals of the war.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
Also, his re-election came up in the middle of the war, don't forget that.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33601874]proof enough he didn't give a damn about abolishing slavery until it suited him[/QUOTE]
i don't why time and time again i have to re-iterate that he was an abolitionist long before he was president
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33596860]
If I do recall the legal institution of Slavery was not in anyway threatened leading up to, [I]and during[/I] the Civil War[/QUOTE]
the ban of the slave trade, the northwest ordinance, and the abolitionists don't count???
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33596860]But you wouldn't know that would you since they apparently don't teach history in American schools anymore[/QUOTE]
bugger off
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33601874]he never freed the 1 million union owned slaves until his reelection campaign brought the issue up again[/QUOTE]
[quote]Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on 1 January 1863, and in the next 24 months it effectively ended slavery throughout the Confederacy. The passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (ratified in Dec. 1865) officially ended slavery in the United States, and freed the 50,000 or so remaining slaves in the border states.[/quote]
you're either a big-faced liar or completely ignorant of history.
Whatever the Confederate government's reasons for secession were, "the South" is characterized by the people fighting the war for the Confederates. They -- the people, not the politicians -- were not fighting in the interest of slavery, they were fighting because the Northern states treated the Southern states like Britain treated the 13 colonies. That's what the Civil War was about. Not slavery. Southerners didn't give a damn about slavery. Oppressive policies toward the South caused the people to fight.
[QUOTE=Zareox7;33601942]The union had slaves, yes. Excluding the four border states that ended up siding with the union, there were 20. Even including the border states, there still were not over a million slaves as you said.[/QUOTE]
First off, you don't even fucking know what the correct number of Slave holding states are
Secondly how many slaves do you think there were in the United States?
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;33602083]i don't why time and time again i have to re-iterate that he was an abolitionist long before he was president[/QUOTE]
And? He didn't actively pursue it until his reelection bid, with the Emancipation Proclamation sanctioning Slavery in states that remained loyal to the Union while being a punitive action against the states that seceded and refused to return to the union.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33602083]the ban of the slave trade, the northwest ordinance, and the abolitionists don't count???
you're either a big-faced liar or completely ignorant of history.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]On September 22, 1862, [B]Lincoln announced that he would issue a formal emancipation of all slaves [I]in any state [U]of[/U] the Confederate States of America[/I] [U][I]that did not[/I] return to Union control by January 1, 1863[/U]. [/B]None returned and the actual order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect except in locations where the Union had already mostly regained control.
The Proclamation [B][I]applied only in ten states [U]that were still in rebellion[/U] in 1863[/I][/B], thus [U][B][I]it did not cover[/B][/I][/U] the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) [B]which were Union states[/B][/U]
[B]The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so [I]it was not named and was exempted.[/I][/B] Virginia was named, but [B]exemptions were specified for the 48 counties then in the process of forming the new state of West Virginia[/B], seven additional Tidewater counties individually named, and two cities. [I]Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and 13 named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.[/I] [B][U]These exemptions left unemancipated an additional 300,000 slaves[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
Take a history class fucker
As for the Northwest Ordinance that was passed in 1787, and the ban on Slave Trade was passed in 1808, long before [B][I][U]the lead up to[/U][/I][/B] the Civil War, meanwhile a citing a political movement as a threat? Now you're just grasping at straws.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33602733]First off, you don't even fucking know what the correct number of Slave holding states are
Secondly how many slaves do you think there were in the United States?[/QUOTE]
I just said, 20 slaves as of 1860 excluding the four border states that sided with the union. Sorry if I worded that a little odd. As of 1860, the union, including the border states, had 429,421 slaves, which at the end of the war, were freed from the bonds of slavery.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33602733]As for the Northwest Ordinance that was passed in 1787, and the ban on Slave Trade was passed in 1808, long before [B][I][U]the lead up to[/U][/I][/B] the Civil War, meanwhile a citing a political movement as a threat? Now you're just grasping at straws.[/QUOTE]
How about the Missouri Compromise of 1820? Or the Compromise of 1850? The Fugitive Slave Law as part of the Compromise of 1850 was a major portion of history.
As the 1800's began, less debates were held over the issue of slavery because it was so controversial, and in turn only hurt politicians. When the issue of Texas arose, so too did the debates over slavery in the territories. By the middle of the 1800's Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, and California became heated debates over the decision of free and slave states.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593010]despite popular belief the civil war was not about slavery. it happened to be an issue at the time but nowhere near the number one cause for the war.
The civil war was about states rights vs federal rights. I don't know if you ever actually paid attention in middle school but there were blacks that fought by choice for the rebels because they believed in larger local government.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of political issues we have today would be gone if the south won the war. they might be replaced by something else and whether or not it would be an improvement today isn't really for us to know.[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that popular belief of conservatives here in South Carolina, is that slavery wasn't the main cause for the Civil War. It was technically about states rights, that being states rights to own human beings. For proof, I show you direct quotes of the first lines of the declarations of succession from Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas.
[quote]The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. [/quote]
[quote]In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. [/quote]
^And yes, above it does say that only the black race can work in the sun.
[quote]Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. [b]She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.[/b] Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? [/quote]
While I understand that there were other issues, slavery was definitely the main cause of succession. As a resident of South Carolina, I view the confederate flag as nothing more than a symbol of shame. I'm not here to argue weather or not they would have abolished slavery eventually, or that Northerners were less racist. I'm simply saying that slavery was the leading cause of the civil war, and the Confederacy was not justified.
[QUOTE=Zareox7;33602947]I just said, 20 slaves as of 1860 excluding the four border states that sided with the union. Sorry if I worded that a little odd. As of 1860, the union, including the border states, had 429,421 slaves, which at the end of the war, were freed from the bonds of slavery.[/QUOTE]
And what about Tennessee, West Virginia, and New Orleans?
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Emancipation_Proclamation.PNG/640px-Emancipation_Proclamation.PNG[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Zareox7;33602947]How about the Missouri Compromise of 1820? Or the Compromise of 1850? The Fugitive Slave Law as part of the Compromise of 1850 was a major portion of history.[/QUOTE]
What about them, nether of those acts made slavery illegal nor effected the southern state's ability to own slaves, and Lincoln never wanted to abolish slavery until forced too by the threat of European intervention and a last ditch attempt to convince several states to return to the Union, and to help his reelection bid.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33602083]i don't why time and time again i have to re-iterate that he was an abolitionist long before he was president[/QUOTE]
I think he was a politician first
and an abolitionist second
If Stephen Douglas and Dred Scot had kept their mouths shut, we probably wouldn't be having these kinds of conversations.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33603465]And what about Tennessee, West Virginia, and New Orleans?[/QUOTE]
New Orleans wasn't, and still isn't a state, and Tennessee was a state that had officially secede from the union and most attempts to reunite with the union were quelled by Confederate forces up until 1862 when Union soldiers advanced onto Tennessee. Officially, Tennessee wasn't reunited into the union until after the war when its elected members were allowed back into Congress. West Virginia became its own state during the war, to which it also abolished slavery.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33603465]What about them, nether of those acts made slavery illegal nor effected the southern state's ability to own slaves, and Lincoln never wanted to abolish slavery until forced too by the threat of European intervention and a last ditch attempt to convince several states to return to the Union, and to help his reelection bid.[/QUOTE]
Those acts contributed greatly to the debates of the slavery institution. Do you know nothing about the topic you're arguing? You posted:
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33603465]If I do recall the legal institution of Slavery was not [B]in anyway[/B] threatened leading up to, and during the Civil War[/QUOTE]
Do I need to go into depth to what exactly these compromises did? I'll elaborate just a little bit, the Missouri Compromise banned slavery north of the parallel 36°30' inside the former Louisiana Territory. I'm pretty sure this threatens the legal institution of slavery.
For someone being so aggressive about how american schools apparently don't teach history anymore, you should probably go back.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33592949]well at least you posted enough convincing evidence and reasoning to convince others that your posi...[/QUOTE]
yeah, if only he had the same amount of evidence you've provi..
I will say that I agree with you on one part that Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery in some sense. Lincoln wanted to stop the spread and extension of slavery. But in 1854 he did say that:
[quote]I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world...[/quote]
[QUOTE=Contag;33603594]I think he was a politician first
and an abolitionist second[/QUOTE]
Actually Lincoln never wanted to abolish slavery, simply to stem it's spread, he personally said this back in the 1850s
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33604395]yeah, if only he had the same amount of evidence you've provi..[/QUOTE]
too late didn't read thread
The thing is most Southerners really aren't huge racists (WOAAHHH!!! NO WAY!!!) and see the Rebel flag as a symbol of Southern pride. In a way I suppose, it's embracing history. It may not have been a pretty time but we can't change it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.