| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Facts about slavery |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Facts about slavery |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Facts about slavery | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2011 09:57 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
Sorry Natty, but starting a thread and posting 8 one-line statements because of your immaturity constitutes abuse of the board. This on top of all your other attempts to make this into a board for prepubescents has crossed the line. You have been banned.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2011 11:07 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Natty- If you're still reading out there, I wish to tell you that everything you've said here about slavery is true. I will amplify on the posting about General Grant being a slave owner. Grant married into a slave holding family. Julia Dent Grant's parents, Colonel Frederick Dent and his wife Ellen Wrenshall, were both pro slavery and pro south. General Grant's parents were not. Colonel Dent made some of his slaves available to Julia as servants. The only slave actually owned by Grant was one William Jones. Grant freed Jones in March of 1859. This was obviously before General Grant became General Grant. At that time, Grant could have used the money that he could have gotten by selling Jones, but he passed that up. Grant was certainly not enamored of the institution of slavery. Having said that I agree with your postings on slavery and also on the right of secession, I must also say that your method of advancing your ideas leaves much to be desired. Making posting after posting, carrying on a conversation with yourself won't impress anyone, except with the degree of your immaturity. Even those of us who agree with much that you've said can only wince as we watch you antagonize people on this board. Ideas can be put forward with enthusiasm without the need to be bellicose or inflammatory. Having a confrontational attitude won't make others accept your ideas and might well have the opposite effect. Acting as a provocateur only serves to enrage those who oppose you and put off those who might otherwise have been on your side. Last edited on Thu Apr 7th, 2011 11:13 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu May 12th, 2011 12:39 am |
|
12th Post |
|
MMSHAW Member
|
The fact that slavery was NOT the cause was the proposal of the Corwin Amendment. Since the amendment would have retained slavery for the south and no further interference by the north, then the south would have jumped at the chance.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu May 12th, 2011 02:27 am |
|
13th Post |
|
Mark Member
|
As much as I loath am drawn into such a loaded debate, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the Corwin Amendment said nothing about the Federal territories—and thus did not really touch the main debate over slavery in 1861. No one except a few well-intentioned rabid abolitionists ever called for the ending of slavery in states were it was already established. The real debate was over the extension of slavery into the territories won during the Mexican War. The Republican platform was adamantly against it (not primarily for humanitarian grounds—mainly because they wanted land available for small scale white farmers and didn’t want to have to compete with Southern planters or free blacks). Southern sentiment was just as adamantly for it. Southerners believed, correctly or not, that not allowing slavery in the territories was tantamount to killing the institution. The seceded states refused the compromise because the Corwin Amendment did nothing about the real heart of the slavery issue—not because slavery was not somehow central to the secession crisis.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu May 12th, 2011 02:28 am |
|
14th Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
Looking at the major news-making and political issues of the 1850s reveals the causes of the war (in no particular order): Kansas-Nebraska Act bleeding Kansas caning of Charles Sumner publication of Uncle Toms Cabin Dred Scott decision John Browns raid Lincoln-Douglas debates
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 05:09 am |
|
15th Post |
|
Unionblue Member
|
"Slavery is the element of all value." http://deadconfederates.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/slavery-is-the-element-of-all-value/ Sincerely, Unionblue Last edited on Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 05:09 am by Unionblue ____________________ Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 10:52 am |
|
16th Post |
|
Doc Ce Member
|
The true cause of the war was the founding fathers failure to settle the issue of slavery thus resorting to a compromise, imho. Doc C
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 11:04 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Unionblue- To borrow a phrase from the article you linked to, you are again: "pounding that particular drum." I don't agree with the person referred to in the article, Mr. Bragg, that the southerners were: "Forced" to fire on Ft. Sumter. They could have waited out Major Anderson who actually told them that he would have to leave after the 15th of April. That would have been the more prudent thing to do. I do agree with Mr. Bragg that Mr. Lincoln had made his choice to fight. He would under no conditions accept secession. What he needed was an incident to inflame the northern public so that he could raise an army to occupy the states that had seceded. At Ft. Sumter, he got exactly what he hoped for. Aside from having the seven states rescind secession and rejoin the Union, they could not have given him a better gift. Once Mr. Lincoln was elected, it was inevitable that there would be war. Those who were determined to leave (Many more people than: "A small number of fire-eaters") in response to his election felt that they had the right to leave, and Mr. Lincoln felt that they did not. Neither side would back down. I would not place "Full and utter responsibility for the war" on the sixteenth president. His positions regarding slavery and regarding secession were no different in 1861 than they were in 1860. At least part of the blame for the war can be put on the democrats who split their party and allowed Mr. Lincoln to be elected with less than 40% of the vote. If northern and southern democrats had not handed Mr. Lincoln the election, its unlikely that the southern states would have seceded in 1860 or 1861. What would have happened after that if, say, Stephen A. Douglas had been elected president can only be speculated on. To me, the: "Hoary old trope" here is the contention that secession and the war were about slavery and nothing else. You have found a soulmate in Mr. Hall who chose to quote certain statements by those attending secession conventions and the state ordinances as well. No doubt Mr. Hall would discount the Kentucky Ordinance of Secession, just as you did when we went over some of this same ground in 2009. (See on this forum: "The Declaration of Independence" thread in the: "Other Civil War Talk" section). Kentucky Ordinance of Secession The Constitutional argument... I'll repeat what I said in the other section: "The issue of slavery was of course the catalyst issue, but it wasn't the only one. The larger question was (And do a degree still is) how much authority the federal government rightfully has over the states."
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 11:57 am |
|
18th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Doc Ce- The Founding Fathers were geniuses but they could not resolve the issue of slavery. Without the southern states, the Constitution could not have been ratified. The best that they could do was to institute partial measures such as banning the importation of new slaves in 1808. I believe that you are correct that the seeds for the Civil War were sown in the beginning of the Republic. As time passed, sectional differences became more and more profound, and it became more difficult to find compromises that were acceptable to both north and south. After many decades, two very different cultures developed. (Economic and philosophical). The: "Bonds of affection" between the sections became strained, and many began to view northern interests and southern interests as a kind of zero sum game. The westward expansion of the country continually forced these differences to be addressed, and eventually, many people (especially in the south) believed that the sections could not be reconciled. They believed that it was better that the sections should go their separate ways. "We are divorced, North and South, because we hated each other so." - Mary Chesnut Last edited on Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 12:15 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 02:38 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
Texas Defender wrote: To me, the: "Hoary old trope" here is the contention that secession and the war were about slavery and nothing else. You have found a soulmate in Mr. Hall who chose to quote certain statements by those attending secession conventions and the state ordinances as well. No doubt Mr. Hall would discount the Kentucky Ordinance of Secession, just as you did when we went over some of this same ground in 2009. (See on this forum: "The Declaration of Independence" thread in the: "Other Civil War Talk" section). please note that Kentucky did *not* actually secede. Perhaps they do not feel the ordinance compelling enough without a slavery component? or maybe leaving slavery out is an attempt to sway the large anti-secession and neutral population? or something else? After all, there are fewer slaves in KY (both total and per capita) than the states further south. The $3 billion value in US slaves dwarfs the capital in all other economic ventures: manufacturing, real estate, shipping, railroads and personal property. HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 02:52 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Hank C- A lot of folks in Kentucky considered that they had seceded, as there were two separate governments at war with each other in the state. Perhaps they DID feel that the ordinance was compelling enough without the slavery component. Or perhaps that was not their most compelling reason. You can: "Perhaps" all you want, but until it is shown that they didn't mean what they said, I'm willing to take them at their word. On the one hand, you say that there weren't all that many slaves in Kentucky. Then you talk about the total value of slaves throughout the US. These points seem at odds with each other if you are trying to maintain that slavery was really the most compelling reason for the ordinance written by the secessionists in Kentucky.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 04:29 am | Page: 1 2 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Facts about slavery | Top |
