It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:41 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Yes. Northerners weren't interested in competing with former slaves for jobs. They were always opposed to the expansion of slavery not the system. The abolitionist movement was never as strong as has been portrayed. Even they weren't in favor of equality. Most abolitionists believed in black inferiority. As long as slavery was viewed as that "peculiar institution" employed by Southerners they were fine.


The question is why would they allow slavery to continue if they had the South beaten? The people in power did not care about lowering the cost of labor. That was fine to them. Northeners saw slavery as a symbol of Southern power, which they wanted broken.

As to the bolded, you are just throwing out opinions now. Portrayed where by whom?

The ruling classes of the late 1800s saw more than just blacks as inferior. Jay Gould famously said he could hire one half of the working class to slaughter the other half. At the time of the Civil War there were still restrictions on white men voting. It would take awhile before ideas of equality would take shape.

The idea that the North would have allowed the South to keep their power after a short war though is again pure speculation, and it does not hold up to what happened in history. The war was fought and the South lost slavery.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Yes. Northerners weren't interested in competing with former slaves for jobs. They were always opposed to the expansion of slavery not the system. The abolitionist movement was never as strong as has been portrayed. Even they weren't in favor of equality. Most abolitionists believed in black inferiority. As long as slavery was viewed as that "peculiar institution" employed by Southerners they were fine.


The question is why would they allow slavery to continue if they had the South beaten? The people in power did not care about lowering the cost of labor. That was fine to them. Northeners saw slavery as a symbol of Southern power, which they wanted broken.

As to the bolded, you are just throwing out opinions now. Portrayed where by whom?

The ruling classes of the late 1800s saw more than just blacks as inferior. Jay Gould famously said he could hire one class of the working class to slaughter the other half. At the time of the Civil War there were still restrictions on white men voting. It would take awhile before ideas of equality would take shape.

The idea that the North would have allowed the South to keep their power after a short war though is again pure speculation, and it does not hold up to what happened in history. The war was fought and the South lost slavery.



Beaten and ravaged are two different things. The objective of the North was never to end slavery. Ending Slavery was a byproduct of the South Losing. Lincoln was quoted as saying that he wasn't interested in it and his actions clearly demonstrated it.

The greatest abolitionist in history (John Brown) according to you accomplished nothing. It is hard to say that the movement was all that strong if the greatest member of it failed mightily. Many historians have chronicled the limitations of the movement and few that I have ever read credit them for bringing about an end to slavery.


As far as inferiority yes others namely the Irish were considered inferior. It doesn't excuse the abolitionists from holding such beliefs since theoretically they were supposed to be for blacks.


The North was primarily interested in salvaging the Union. They weren't interesting in killing slavery. My opinion is based not only on actions prior and during, but post slavery also. Different forms of slavery took place immediately after Emancipation. No one was interested in addressing that so it is easy to make the claim that slavery wouldn't have been addressed had the South not been eviscerated.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Beaten and ravaged are two different things. The objective of the North was never to end slavery. Ending Slavery was a byproduct of the South Losing. Lincoln was quoted as saying that he wasn't interested in it and his actions clearly demonstrated it.

The greatest abolitionist in history (John Brown) according to you accomplished nothing. It is hard to say that the movement was all that strong if the greatest member of it failed mightily. Many historians have chronicled the limitations of the movement and few that I have ever read credit them for bringing about an end to slavery.


As far as inferiority yes others namely the Irish were considered inferior. It doesn't excuse the abolitionists from holding such beliefs since theoretically they were supposed to be for blacks.


The North was primarily interested in salvaging the Union. They weren't interesting in killing slavery. My opinion is based not only on actions prior and during, but post slavery also. Different forms of slavery took place immediately after Emancipation. No one was interested in addressing that so it is easy to make the claim that slavery wouldn't have been addressed had the South not been eviscerated.


It they were not interested in ending slavery, then why do it at all?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:

It they were not interested in ending slavery, then why do it at all?


Come on Ruffie, passing Constitutional Amendments is easy. The North just did it by accident during Reconstruction.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Beaten and ravaged are two different things. The objective of the North was never to end slavery. Ending Slavery was a byproduct of the South Losing. Lincoln was quoted as saying that he wasn't interested in it and his actions clearly demonstrated it.

The greatest abolitionist in history (John Brown) according to you accomplished nothing. It is hard to say that the movement was all that strong if the greatest member of it failed mightily. Many historians have chronicled the limitations of the movement and few that I have ever read credit them for bringing about an end to slavery.


As far as inferiority yes others namely the Irish were considered inferior. It doesn't excuse the abolitionists from holding such beliefs since theoretically they were supposed to be for blacks.


The North was primarily interested in salvaging the Union. They weren't interesting in killing slavery. My opinion is based not only on actions prior and during, but post slavery also. Different forms of slavery took place immediately after Emancipation. No one was interested in addressing that so it is easy to make the claim that slavery wouldn't have been addressed had the South not been eviscerated.


It they were not interested in ending slavery, then why do it at all?



The South was destroyed by the Civil War. They wouldn't have been able to keep the institution alive even if they'd desired. Many actually did but former slaveowners lacked werewithal, will, and might to keep it going. Most former slavemasters were ruined following the Civil War.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
denisdman wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:

It they were not interested in ending slavery, then why do it at all?


Come on Ruffie, passing Constitutional Amendments is easy. The North just did it by accident during Reconstruction.


Constitutional amendment passing was rather anti- climactic by that point. Not that I'm unappreciative however :lol:

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
denisdman wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:

It they were not interested in ending slavery, then why do it at all?


Come on Ruffie, passing Constitutional Amendments is easy. The North just did it by accident during Reconstruction.


If they did not care about slavery, as was claimed in the thread, what is the point of banning it?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
denisdman wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:

It they were not interested in ending slavery, then why do it at all?


Come on Ruffie, passing Constitutional Amendments is easy. The North just did it by accident during Reconstruction.


If they did not care about slavery, as was claimed in the thread, what is the point of banning it?



Don't know. Isn't the more pertinent question related to why exactly did they wait so long?

Outlawing a system that's already dead isn't anything to congratulate anyone over. Again not that I am complaining :lol:

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
long time guy wrote:


Don't know. Isn't the more pertinent question related to why exactly did they wait so long?


The Northern states starting banning slavery before the Constitution was drafted.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
denisdman wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Don't know. Isn't the more pertinent question related to why exactly did they wait so long?


The Northern states starting banning slavery before the Constitution was drafted.


It wasn't based on being morally superior. Slavery was insolvent in the North.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
denisdman wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Don't know. Isn't the more pertinent question related to why exactly did they wait so long?


The Northern states starting banning slavery before the Constitution was drafted.


It wasn't based on being morally superior. Slavery was insolvent in the North.


This simply is not true. The Declaration of Independence inspired Northern Colonies to gradually begin to outlaw slavery. There was a clear demand for slave like labor in the North. See the factories during the Industrial Revolution. You are just projecting. And getting completely off topic. Why did the North outlaw slavery if they did not care about it?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
blacks don't like the cold weather of course.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Dusty Baker wrote:
blacks don't like the cold weather of course.


Image

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
denisdman wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Don't know. Isn't the more pertinent question related to why exactly did they wait so long?


The Northern states starting banning slavery before the Constitution was drafted.


It wasn't based on being morally superior. Slavery was insolvent in the North.


This simply is not true. The Declaration of Independence inspired Northern Colonies to gradually begin to outlaw slavery. There was a clear demand for slave like labor in the North. See the factories during the Industrial Revolution. You are just projecting. And getting completely off topic. Why did the North outlaw slavery if they did not care about it?


Slavery was abolished in the North for economic not moral reasons. Why would the Declaration apply to Northern but Not Southern region? I didn't know that the there is a sectional constitution in this country.


Slavery simply didn't work in the north even when it was legal.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
So it sounds like we don't need minimum wage laws in the North. Slavery was free labor, and that didn't work in the North. Northern businesses prefer to pay for labor rather than having cheap (or free) labor. Glad it's settled.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
denisdman wrote:
So it sounds like we don't need minimum wage laws in the North. Slavery was free labor, and that didn't work in the North. Northern businesses prefer to pay for labor rather than having cheap (or free) labor. Glad it's settled.



Wage Slave vs Slave Labor debate is right in your wheelhouse!

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 79877
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
denisdman wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Don't know. Isn't the more pertinent question related to why exactly did they wait so long?


The Northern states starting banning slavery before the Constitution was drafted.


It wasn't based on being morally superior. Slavery was insolvent in the North.


This simply is not true. The Declaration of Independence inspired Northern Colonies to gradually begin to outlaw slavery. There was a clear demand for slave like labor in the North. See the factories during the Industrial Revolution. You are just projecting. And getting completely off topic. Why did the North outlaw slavery if they did not care about it?


Slavery was abolished in the North for economic not moral reasons. Why would the Declaration apply to Northern but Not Southern region? I didn't know that the there is a sectional constitution in this country.


Slavery simply didn't work in the north even when it was legal.


You can always find a way to make free labor work as part of a business plan

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
good dolphin wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
denisdman wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Don't know. Isn't the more pertinent question related to why exactly did they wait so long?


The Northern states starting banning slavery before the Constitution was drafted.


It wasn't based on being morally superior. Slavery was insolvent in the North.


This simply is not true. The Declaration of Independence inspired Northern Colonies to gradually begin to outlaw slavery. There was a clear demand for slave like labor in the North. See the factories during the Industrial Revolution. You are just projecting. And getting completely off topic. Why did the North outlaw slavery if they did not care about it?


Slavery was abolished in the North for economic not moral reasons. Why would the Declaration apply to Northern but Not Southern region? I didn't know that the there is a sectional constitution in this country.


Slavery simply didn't work in the north even when it was legal.


You can always find a way to make free labor work as part of a business plan


Slavery was deemed incompatible from an ecological/economic standpoint. Couldn't grow cotton and the surplus of European immigrants willing to work for cheap labor made slavery a non necessity. Actually its one of the main reasons that the North was reluctant to fight for an end to slavery. Northern politicians were fearful of the problems that the unleashing of millions of blacks might cause. From an economic and social standpoint some deemed it necessary for slavery to continue. (albeit in existing slave states).

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:

Slavery was abolished in the North for economic not moral reasons. Why would the Declaration apply to Northern but Not Southern region? I didn't know that the there is a sectional constitution in this country.


Slavery simply didn't work in the north even when it was legal.


Quote:
The Declaration of Independence not only declared the colonies free of Britain, but it also helped to inspire Vermont to abolish slavery in its 1777 state constitution. By 1804, all Northern states had voted to abolish the institution of slavery within their borders.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experie ... story.html

Does not seem to be the case. And if the North did not care about slavery, why outlaw it at the end of the Civil War?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Slavery was abolished in the North for economic not moral reasons. Why would the Declaration apply to Northern but Not Southern region? I didn't know that the there is a sectional constitution in this country.


Slavery simply didn't work in the north even when it was legal.


Quote:
The Declaration of Independence not only declared the colonies free of Britain, but it also helped to inspire Vermont to abolish slavery in its 1777 state constitution. By 1804, all Northern states had voted to abolish the institution of slavery within their borders.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experie ... story.html

Does not seem to be the case. And if the North did not care about slavery, why outlaw it at the end of the Civil War?


Your efforts at being a contrarian are rather foolish. Slavery in the North was rather miniscule even while legal. The Northern States didn't have much use for it and I explained why earlier.

I have already answered the question of regarding the outlawing of it at the end of the Civil War. I'm not addressing that again.

You aren't making much sense at this point. You are trying to counterargue but I don't know what you are trying to say.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Slavery was abolished in the North for economic not moral reasons. Why would the Declaration apply to Northern but Not Southern region? I didn't know that the there is a sectional constitution in this country.


Slavery simply didn't work in the north even when it was legal.


Quote:
The Declaration of Independence not only declared the colonies free of Britain, but it also helped to inspire Vermont to abolish slavery in its 1777 state constitution. By 1804, all Northern states had voted to abolish the institution of slavery within their borders.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experie ... story.html

Does not seem to be the case. And if the North did not care about slavery, why outlaw it at the end of the Civil War?



If Northern States were all that interested in abolishing slavery they would have abolished it long before there was a damn war that they didn't even want. They would not have attacked the few people (abolitionist) that did want to see slavery end. They would not have gone out of their way to placate Southern states throughout the Early portion of the Union's history. They wouldn't have struggled to maintain some silly ass sectional balance. They would not have degraded black people every chance they got. They would not have turned a blind's eye to the tacit forms of slavery still permeating the region after it was abolished.

They also would not have repeatedly stated that the peculiar institution was OK as long as it wasn't expanded either.

You have been outright lying with the notion that slavery ended because the Southern states were threatened by Abe Lincoln too.

It's a damn lie. They seceded because they wanted to take slavery into the territories. They obviously believed that secession was necessary to keep the institution going or else they would not have seceded. Lincoln wasn't interested in crushing slavery. He was concerned about expansion.

It's simply disingenuous to suggest that they were interested in killing slavery when the only time that they seriously considered it was when slavery was already dead. Slavery couldn't have been revived even if the slave masters or southern states wanted it to be. It was impossible given the state of the Southern region.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
It's a damn lie. They seceded because they wanted to take slavery into the territories.


Why would Georgia exercise its sovereignty to influence laws in a part of the country in which it had not vesting interest? Georgia wouldn't have gotten a cut of Nebraska's or Montana's slavery spoils.

Quote:
They obviously believed that secession was necessary to keep the institution going or else they would not have seceded.


So you mean to say the South was so desperate to get slavery into the expanding territories that when it looked like that wouldn't happen (despite the largest court victory they could have imagined, where the Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional), they...seceded from the Union which controlled those territories, thereby ensuring that slavery would never enter them? The logical conclusion of your narrative here doesn't make a whole lot of sense, neither do you.

EDIT: And before you can say "well that's what the war was for", let me remind you that the Confederacy never once operated north or northwest of Kansas-Missouri. They seemingly had no strategic interest in the [loosely-garrisoned] territory in which you say they were so desperate to introduce slavery that they seceded from the Union.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
It's a damn lie. They seceded because they wanted to take slavery into the territories.


Why would Georgia exercise its sovereignty to influence laws in a part of the country in which it had not vesting interest? Georgia wouldn't have gotten a cut of Nebraska's or Montana's slavery spoils.

Quote:
They obviously believed that secession was necessary to keep the institution going or else they would not have seceded.


So you mean to say the South was so desperate to get slavery into the expanding territories that when it looked like that wouldn't happen (despite the largest court victory they could have imagined, where the Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional), they...seceded from the Union which controlled those territories, thereby ensuring that slavery would never enter them? The logical conclusion of your narrative here doesn't make a whole lot of sense, neither do you.



You really don't have a damn clue. Georgia, Texas, Mississippi stated during their declaration of secession statement that Western expansion was one of the reasons that they were seceding. The Republican Party was created as a reaction to efforts aimed at expanding.

You clearly don't understand the difference between anti slavery and abolitionist. Being anti slavery doesn't mean that you seek to get rid of it. In fact Abolitionist were targeted by many of anti slavery types because anti slavery types didn't necessarily want it to end.

Lincoln for the last time was against the spread of slavery not the demise of it. His speeches and his actions demonstrated it. He fought a war that was forced on him by a rebellious group of slaveowners. If they don't rebel he does nothing about slavery. Despite being presented with facts about this stuff you continue to ignore it because it contradicts what you believe.

You are trying to present him as some sort of crusader against the institution an he simply wasn't.

You keep dismissing expansion as if it doesn't matter yet

you have a major political party that was created because of it.

A violent outbreak in Kansas Territory "bleeding Kansas" as well as a war, Civil War itself started over it.

Every major question at least from 1820-1860 related to it.

If slavery expansion wasn't important then why was it necessary that there be "sectonal balance" from 1820-1860?


As far as Nebraska/Montana go it doesn't even deserve a response so I won't.

Declaration of Causes of Secession
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/a ... ssion.html


They even provide historical context which predates the arrival of Lincoln by 40 years. I could have gotten into that also but what would be the point?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Declaration of Causes of Secession
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/a ... ssion.html


They even provide historical context which predates the arrival of Lincoln by 40 years. I could have gotten into that also but what would be the point?


Again, you post a source that clowns you:

Quote:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. . . .

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "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." [editor's note: this is the Fugitive Slave Clause in the original Constitution whereby the North promised to return escaped slaves to their "owners" in the South]

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens [editor's note: this is refering to former slaves or their descendants]; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. . . .


We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860


Nothing in there is about the expansion of slavery, Kansas, or the territories in general. In fact, they specifically state that they are seceding because Lincoln and the Northern states are effectively running the Union, disobeying the Constitution, and are hostile to slavery in the South. Not one mention of expansion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Slavery was abolished in the North for economic not moral reasons. Why would the Declaration apply to Northern but Not Southern region? I didn't know that the there is a sectional constitution in this country.


Slavery simply didn't work in the north even when it was legal.


Quote:
The Declaration of Independence not only declared the colonies free of Britain, but it also helped to inspire Vermont to abolish slavery in its 1777 state constitution. By 1804, all Northern states had voted to abolish the institution of slavery within their borders.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experie ... story.html

Does not seem to be the case. And if the North did not care about slavery, why outlaw it at the end of the Civil War?


Your efforts at being a contrarian are rather foolish. Slavery in the North was rather miniscule even while legal. The Northern States didn't have much use for it and I explained why earlier.

I have already answered the question of regarding the outlawing of it at the end of the Civil War. I'm not addressing that again.

You aren't making much sense at this point. You are trying to counterargue but I don't know what you are trying to say.


You said you did not know. Then you started with passive aggressive personal attacks, which leads me to claim victory. Lincoln was the best president for ending slavery and preserving the Union.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Slavery was abolished in the North for economic not moral reasons. Why would the Declaration apply to Northern but Not Southern region? I didn't know that the there is a sectional constitution in this country.


Slavery simply didn't work in the north even when it was legal.


Quote:
The Declaration of Independence not only declared the colonies free of Britain, but it also helped to inspire Vermont to abolish slavery in its 1777 state constitution. By 1804, all Northern states had voted to abolish the institution of slavery within their borders.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experie ... story.html

Does not seem to be the case. And if the North did not care about slavery, why outlaw it at the end of the Civil War?


Your efforts at being a contrarian are rather foolish. Slavery in the North was rather miniscule even while legal. The Northern States didn't have much use for it and I explained why earlier.

I have already answered the question of regarding the outlawing of it at the end of the Civil War. I'm not addressing that again.

You aren't making much sense at this point. You are trying to counterargue but I don't know what you are trying to say.


You said you did not know. Then you started with passive aggressive personal attacks, which leads me to claim victory. Lincoln was the best president for ending slavery and preserving the Union.


If that were the case victory was claimed a while ago with the whole me the "historian". You have gotten so much wrong that it is futile to go back and extract it. I will end with you on this point. Lincoln had a role in ending slavery but Southern slaveowners played a far greater role in ending it. I will agree to disagree on that one.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:

If that were the case victory was claimed a while ago with the whole me the "historian". You have gotten so much wrong that it is futile to go back and extract it. I will end with you on this point. Lincoln had a role in ending slavery but Southern slaveowners played a far greater role in ending it. I will agree to disagree on that one.


Let's raze the Lincoln Memorial and build one for Southern slaveholders then. :lol:

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Declaration of Causes of Secession
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/a ... ssion.html


They even provide historical context which predates the arrival of Lincoln by 40 years. I could have gotten into that also but what would be the point?


Again, you post a source that clowns you:

Quote:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. . . .

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "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." [editor's note: this is the Fugitive Slave Clause in the original Constitution whereby the North promised to return escaped slaves to their "owners" in the South]

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens [editor's note: this is refering to former slaves or their descendants]; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. . . .


We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860


Nothing in there is about the expansion of slavery, Kansas, or the territories in general. In fact, they specifically state that they are seceding because Lincoln and the Northern states are effectively running the Union, disobeying the Constitution, and are hostile to slavery in the South. Not one mention of expansion.



This is just bad. They mentioned "Missouri Compromise" at some point. They mentioned expanding to the "Pacific" at some point. They mentioned specifically "expanding in the territories" at some point. Guess Kansas didn't qualify as a "territory". I believe the Texas fight for Independence was specifically named too.

Expansion of slavery was the central issue facing the new nation during the early 1800's. Each time the country added a state the question arose. It's why the Missouri Compromise was necessary in the first place.

Republican party formed in 1854 for the purpose of:

Republican Party | political party, United States [1854-present] | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Republican-Party

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:

If that were the case victory was claimed a while ago with the whole me the "historian". You have gotten so much wrong that it is futile to go back and extract it. I will end with you on this point. Lincoln had a role in ending slavery but Southern slaveowners played a far greater role in ending it. I will agree to disagree on that one.


Let's raze the Lincoln Memorial and build one for Southern slaveholders then. :lol:


Do you think the people fighting for the Reestablishment of the Confederacy would disagree? :lol:

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Oh hey, look, this is from LTG's source--the Texas secession declaration--saying exactly what I have been saying (and what LTG has been arguing against) all along:

Quote:
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the [federal territories] as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions [editor's note: "unconstitutional restrictions" means the prohibition on slavery], from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nardi and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group