Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

He is saying the south didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated.
Are you that simple or just can't read?

---

They didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated in large part by having their right to own other people taken away.

---

There was not a single law proposed by the Republican Party in 1861 to end slavery.

Not a single state GOP party had ever called for the ending of slavery.

The Supreme Court had constantly sided with the slave owing side.

Lincoln and every other Republican leader I can find said slavery was a matter left to the States.

And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that would have gone further and shielded slavery from any possible Federal interference in the future.

Again you are assuming the North was abolitionist in 1861….it was far from it.

---

I need not assume anything of the sort, but southern politicians certainly believed just that. The sought to leave the union in large part because of the threat they saw to their ability to own other human beings as property. It is what it is.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

He is saying the south didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated.
Are you that simple or just can't read?

---

They didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated in large part by having their right to own other people taken away.

---

There was not a single law proposed by the Republican Party in 1861 to end slavery.

Not a single state GOP party had ever called for the ending of slavery.

The Supreme Court had constantly sided with the slave owing side.

Lincoln and every other Republican leader I can find said slavery was a matter left to the States.

And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that would have gone further and shielded slavery from any possible Federal interference in the future.

Again you are assuming the North was abolitionist in 1861….it was far from it.

---

I need not assume anything of the sort, but southern politicians certainly believed just that. The sought to leave the union in large part because of the threat they saw to their ability to own other human beings as property. It is what it is.

---

Again you are assuming there was in fact a threat. Where is the proof that the North was abolitionist and committed to to doing anything against slavery in the South?

"All parties affirm that Congress has no power to abolish slavery in any of the 15 States, nor to establish it in either of the 18 States; & that it has no right to interfere with that subject directly or indirectly in either of the States."
-Sen. John Sherman-(R-OH) 1/18/1861

"Indiana solemnly protests against the diversion of her blood & treasure for the enforcement of....any abolition scheme. We believe such a policy to be destructive of the Union, & a fraud upon the Gov't, the citizens & the soldiers."
-IN General Assembly 3/7/1863

[In Illinois, at the time, an abolitionist was rarely seen, and scarcely ever heard of. In many parts of the State such a person would have been treated as a criminal. It was only when it was proposed to introduce slavery into Illinois by an alteration of that "heathen" Constitution, that the Covenanters consented to take part in public affairs. Many of the antislavery leaders in this contest-conspicuous among whom was Gov. Coles- were gentleman from Slave States, who had emancipated their slaves, and were opposed to slavery, not upon religious or moral grounds, but because they believed it would be a material injury to the new country. Practically no other view of the question was discussed; and a person who should have undertaken to discuss it from the "man and brother" stand point of the more modern times would have been set down as a lunatic. A clear majority of the people were against the introduction of slavery in the State; but that majority were fully agreed with their brethren of the minority, that those who went about to interfere with slavery in the most distant manner in the places where it already existed were deserving of the severest punishment, as common enemies of society. It was a moral offense to call a man abolitionist, for abolitionist was synonymous with theft and crime.] -The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon

"We are for...not interfering with slavery where it is, but shaping the policy of the country so as to prevent its expansion & leaving it as the Constitution has left it, for the States where it exists, to manage it as shall seem to them best."
-Sen. Trumbull (R-IL) 8/7/1858

"And so much of it [slavery] remains after the war is over, it will remain precisely in the same condition that it was before the war and must be let to the exclusive control of the States where it may exist." Letter from Lincoln to Senator Browning affirming that Congress possessed no power over slavery in the States, The Diary of Orville Browning (2 vols; Springfield: Illinois State Historical library)

"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."
- Abraham Lincoln

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

He is saying the south didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated.
Are you that simple or just can't read?

---

They didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated in large part by having their right to own other people taken away.

---

There was not a single law proposed by the Republican Party in 1861 to end slavery.

Not a single state GOP party had ever called for the ending of slavery.

The Supreme Court had constantly sided with the slave owing side.

Lincoln and every other Republican leader I can find said slavery was a matter left to the States.

And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that would have gone further and shielded slavery from any possible Federal interference in the future.

Again you are assuming the North was abolitionist in 1861….it was far from it.

---

I need not assume anything of the sort, but southern politicians certainly believed just that. The sought to leave the union in large part because of the threat they saw to their ability to own other human beings as property. It is what it is.

---

Again you are assuming there was in fact a threat. Where is the proof that the North was abolitionist and committed to to doing anything against slavery in the South?

"All parties affirm that Congress has no power to abolish slavery in any of the 15 States, nor to establish it in either of the 18 States; & that it has no right to interfere with that subject directly or indirectly in either of the States."
-Sen. John Sherman-(R-OH) 1/18/1861

"Indiana solemnly protests against the diversion of her blood & treasure for the enforcement of....any abolition scheme. We believe such a policy to be destructive of the Union, & a fraud upon the Gov't, the citizens & the soldiers."
-IN General Assembly 3/7/1863

[In Illinois, at the time, an abolitionist was rarely seen, and scarcely ever heard of. In many parts of the State such a person would have been treated as a criminal. It was only when it was proposed to introduce slavery into Illinois by an alteration of that "heathen" Constitution, that the Covenanters consented to take part in public affairs. Many of the antislavery leaders in this contest-conspicuous among whom was Gov. Coles- were gentleman from Slave States, who had emancipated their slaves, and were opposed to slavery, not upon religious or moral grounds, but because they believed it would be a material injury to the new country. Practically no other view of the question was discussed; and a person who should have undertaken to discuss it from the "man and brother" stand point of the more modern times would have been set down as a lunatic. A clear majority of the people were against the introduction of slavery in the State; but that majority were fully agreed with their brethren of the minority, that those who went about to interfere with slavery in the most distant manner in the places where it already existed were deserving of the severest punishment, as common enemies of society. It was a moral offense to call a man abolitionist, for abolitionist was synonymous with theft and crime.] -The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon

"We are for...not interfering with slavery where it is, but shaping the policy of the country so as to prevent its expansion & leaving it as the Constitution has left it, for the States where it exists, to manage it as shall seem to them best."
-Sen. Trumbull (R-IL) 8/7/1858

"And so much of it [slavery] remains after the war is over, it will remain precisely in the same condition that it was before the war and must be let to the exclusive control of the States where it may exist." Letter from Lincoln to Senator Browning affirming that Congress possessed no power over slavery in the States, The Diary of Orville Browning (2 vols; Springfield: Illinois State Historical library)

"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."
- Abraham Lincoln

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

---

I am not assuming that there was a threat, (although there clearly was a growing threat against acceptance of slavery).

It does not matter whether "the North" would have done anything to end slavery in "the South." History clearly demonstrates that the southern leaders who led their states into the disaster that was the Civil War certainly thought that they were doing so in large part because their ability to own other human beings was, in fact, under threat.

Here is but one example from South Carolina as they sought to break from the Union because they saw a long-term, real and growing threat against their right to own other human beings as property:

"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 "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; 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."

Again, the Civil War happened because southern states rightly believed that anti slavery sentiment would lead northern states to impose an end to their ability to own other people.

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

No where did Lincoln or the Republicans ever say they wanted to end slavery in the South...that is historic revisionism. Lincoln never said he wanted to end it and had no Constitutional power to do so.

And if you are looking for racism you can find plenty of it in the North.

The "Abolitionist North" is the biggest myth. Racism was just a strong (possibly stronger) in the North at the time.

"We...are the white man's party...We are for free white men, & for making white labor respectable & honorable, which it can never be when negro labor is brought into competition with it."
-Lyman Trumbull (R-IL, 13th Amendment Author)
8/7/1858

"[The negro is] a foreign & feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation...a pitiful exotic unwisely & unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, & which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard."
-William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of War

"But to assert that the object of the war is to secure the freedom of the negroes, is false. There is no such object."
-John Brough (Gov OH 7/4/1863)

"We cannot permit them to come into Ohio. Wherever they have been permitted to come, it has almost cost us a rebellion. Before we begin to preach abolition I think we had better see what is to be done with the negroes. As one northern man, I do not want the negroes distributed throughout the North. We have got enough of them now. I have watched the operation of this emigration of slaves to the North. 10 negroes will commit more petty thefts than 1,000 white men."
-Sen. Thomas Ewing

"We are uncompromisingly opposed to all schemes the tendency of which is calculated to overrun the state of Indiana with a worthless & degraded negro population"
-IN General Assembly, 3/7//1863

"That the unoccupied territory of the United States and such as they may hereafter acquire shall be reserved for the sole possession of the white race, I think cannot be except by the exclusion of black." Horace Greeley on the Republican Party platform, 1856

"Let a man be Christian or infidel; let him be Turk, Jew, or Mahometan; let him be of good character or bad; even let him be sunk to the lowest depths of degradation; he may be witness in our Courts if he is NOT black."
Jordan v. Smith, 14 Ohio 199, 201 (1846), Supreme Court of Ohio

[Michigan belonged to the 10th legion of Republicanism. In 1860, 1864, and 1869, she gave that party unshaken majorities, ranging from nineteen thousand to thirty-eight thousand. The negro men in that State over 21 years of age amounted to less than 1% of the White voters, and it was hoped that the State could be carried for negro suffrage, not- withstanding that it had before been rejected it. Accordingly, the question was submitted to the people of that State on April 6th 1868. It was defeated at the polls by nearly 39,000 majority."]

"In OH , the state legislature petitioned Congress to inquire into the expediency of surveying and appropriating a portion of the territory recently acquired from Mexico for the exclusive resettlement of all Negros; a CT legislative committee indorsed the Liberian project after affirming the hopelessness of Negroes' ever attaining social or economic equality with Whites in the US; and Gov Hunt of NY...pointed to the practicality and desirability of immediate colonization and urged liberal state and federal financial support"
-Litwack

"We will make inducements for every free black among us to find his home in Central America...& we will be divested of every one of them; & then we will invite the poor, the destitute, industrious white men from every clime under heaven."
-Benjamin Wade (R-OH) 12/17/1860

"I agree with Judge Douglas he [African Americans] is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." - Abraham Lincoln

"I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count negros as their equals. Let us capture negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage as labor." -Gen. William T Sherman

"From 1861 to 1863, with the American Civil War underway, and enslaved people escaping to Northern territory controlled by the Union, United States President Abraham Lincoln and his administration, instead of trying to find funding to help the ex-slaves and enact any polices to help alleviate their condition, instead looked abroad for places to relocate them including those who expressed their wish to stay in the United States. It opened negotiations with the Dutch government regarding African-American emigration to and colonization of the Dutch colony of Suriname. Nothing came of the idea, and the idea was dropped after Lincoln's assassination in April of 1865"

[Lincoln told his cabinet about the preliminary emancipation. According to Welles, he "came to the conclusion that it was a military necessity, absolutely essential for the salvation of the nation, that we must free the slaves or be ourselves subdued."
"The Proclamation became necessary to hold his remaining supporters and to forestallso he believedEnglish recognition of the Confederacy...It was evidently an unhappy frame of mind in which Lincoln resorted to the Emancipation Proclamation"]
-Prof. Hofstadter

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Why would the South have not eventually given up slavery at one point?

Why would Brazil (with more slaves per captia, more slaves numerically, and with less of an industrial economy and thus more dependent on slave labor) agree to a slave buy out but the U.S. South would not?

One might guess you are making that claim to justify war...and less from any real historical judgment on the likely hood of a peaceful ending to the practice.

Most decent people look at that war as a tragedy...you seem to celebrate it.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

No where did Lincoln or the Republicans ever say they wanted to end slavery in the South...that is historic revisionism. Lincoln never said he wanted to end it and had no Constitutional power to do so.

And if you are looking for racism you can find plenty of it in the North.

The "Abolitionist North" is the biggest myth. Racism was just a strong (possibly stronger) in the North at the time.

"We...are the white man's party...We are for free white men, & for making white labor respectable & honorable, which it can never be when negro labor is brought into competition with it."
-Lyman Trumbull (R-IL, 13th Amendment Author)
8/7/1858

"[The negro is] a foreign & feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation...a pitiful exotic unwisely & unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, & which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard."
-William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of War

"But to assert that the object of the war is to secure the freedom of the negroes, is false. There is no such object."
-John Brough (Gov OH 7/4/1863)

"We cannot permit them to come into Ohio. Wherever they have been permitted to come, it has almost cost us a rebellion. Before we begin to preach abolition I think we had better see what is to be done with the negroes. As one northern man, I do not want the negroes distributed throughout the North. We have got enough of them now. I have watched the operation of this emigration of slaves to the North. 10 negroes will commit more petty thefts than 1,000 white men."
-Sen. Thomas Ewing

"We are uncompromisingly opposed to all schemes the tendency of which is calculated to overrun the state of Indiana with a worthless & degraded negro population"
-IN General Assembly, 3/7//1863

"That the unoccupied territory of the United States and such as they may hereafter acquire shall be reserved for the sole possession of the white race, I think cannot be except by the exclusion of black." Horace Greeley on the Republican Party platform, 1856

"Let a man be Christian or infidel; let him be Turk, Jew, or Mahometan; let him be of good character or bad; even let him be sunk to the lowest depths of degradation; he may be witness in our Courts if he is NOT black."
Jordan v. Smith, 14 Ohio 199, 201 (1846), Supreme Court of Ohio

[Michigan belonged to the 10th legion of Republicanism. In 1860, 1864, and 1869, she gave that party unshaken majorities, ranging from nineteen thousand to thirty-eight thousand. The negro men in that State over 21 years of age amounted to less than 1% of the White voters, and it was hoped that the State could be carried for negro suffrage, not- withstanding that it had before been rejected it. Accordingly, the question was submitted to the people of that State on April 6th 1868. It was defeated at the polls by nearly 39,000 majority."]

"In OH , the state legislature petitioned Congress to inquire into the expediency of surveying and appropriating a portion of the territory recently acquired from Mexico for the exclusive resettlement of all Negros; a CT legislative committee indorsed the Liberian project after affirming the hopelessness of Negroes' ever attaining social or economic equality with Whites in the US; and Gov Hunt of NY...pointed to the practicality and desirability of immediate colonization and urged liberal state and federal financial support"
-Litwack

"We will make inducements for every free black among us to find his home in Central America...& we will be divested of every one of them; & then we will invite the poor, the destitute, industrious white men from every clime under heaven."
-Benjamin Wade (R-OH) 12/17/1860

"I agree with Judge Douglas he [African Americans] is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." - Abraham Lincoln

"I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count negros as their equals. Let us capture negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage as labor." -Gen. William T Sherman

"From 1861 to 1863, with the American Civil War underway, and enslaved people escaping to Northern territory controlled by the Union, United States President Abraham Lincoln and his administration, instead of trying to find funding to help the ex-slaves and enact any polices to help alleviate their condition, instead looked abroad for places to relocate them including those who expressed their wish to stay in the United States. It opened negotiations with the Dutch government regarding African-American emigration to and colonization of the Dutch colony of Suriname. Nothing came of the idea, and the idea was dropped after Lincoln's assassination in April of 1865"

[Lincoln told his cabinet about the preliminary emancipation. According to Welles, he "came to the conclusion that it was a military necessity, absolutely essential for the salvation of the nation, that we must free the slaves or be ourselves subdued."
"The Proclamation became necessary to hold his remaining supporters and to forestallso he believedEnglish recognition of the Confederacy...It was evidently an unhappy frame of mind in which Lincoln resorted to the Emancipation Proclamation"]
-Prof. Hofstadter

---

NO where did I say he was going to end slavery.

Yes there were racists in the north... just as there are today.

Doesn't change anything I said.

cowboycwr said:

---

NO where did I say he was going to end slavery.

Yes there were racists in the north... just as there are today.

Doesn't change anything I said.

---

Look back at your post...you said Lincoln was going to end slavery.

He did not want to do that and did not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

"Altho' Mr Lincoln is, or was a Fremont man, you must not include him with so many of those, who belong to that party, an Abolitionist. In principle he is far from it. All he desires is, that slavery, shall not be extended, let it remain, where it is"
-Mary Todd Lincoln

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." -Abraham Lincoln

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can hardly believe that the South and North can ever live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Gen. Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward on the issue at once.]

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

NO where did I say he was going to end slavery.

Yes there were racists in the north... just as there are today.

Doesn't change anything I said.

---

Look back at your post...you said Lincoln was going to end slavery.

He did not want to do that and did not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

"Altho' Mr Lincoln is, or was a Fremont man, you must not include him with so many of those, who belong to that party, an Abolitionist. In principle he is far from it. All he desires is, that slavery, shall not be extended, let it remain, where it is"
-Mary Todd Lincoln

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." -Abraham Lincoln

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can hardly believe that the South and North can ever live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Gen. Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward on the issue at once.]

---

NO I did not.

Look back at my post.

My exact words were ".... in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery."

That is not saying he wanted to, had a desire to or any other thing like that.

You misread it.

So yeah again I say no where did I say that.

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

She says the BYU student section targeted and heckled not only her but her African American teammates THROUGHOUT the match!

So the students were racially heckling multiple players for 2 hours and NOBODY did anything about it?

The black BYU basketball players next to the students didn't notice anything wrong?

The Duke volleyball coach just LET this happen the whole game?
Would you let your player take this? I would have given the other team 1 warning and then walked off the court if it happened a second time.

Have any of her black teammates backed up her claims?

The fishiest part of this story is that it originated from her Godmother, the most racist person in this story, who wasn't even at the game.

---

Of course these mentally ill level racist tweets were just added to her campain ad, but besides being incredibly racist this woman is nuts and has absolutely no business being an elected Judge.

---

Just remember there are young people who got kicked out of school or lost their job for tweets they made at 15...but this woman gets a hug from Beto.

And she wants to be a JUDGE???

---

She has her own Law Office and her twitter has about 10,000 followers, she spews this racist garbage and is still allowed to continue in business?

Do people not vet these folks. She is running for office as JUDGE, has major endorsements, and openly with bravado, is a hate filled racist.

---

Where is the Bar?

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

It's heavy spin with a propagandist outlook.

You even claim that the South would never have voluntarily given up slavery in the future. Something you could not possibly know and that seems unlikely given the history of other Western slave owning nations. I.E. Brazil

You also ignore the huge Constitutional questions about the legality of Secession in favor of simplistic "muh slavery" argument.

You also strongly imply that the Union and Lincoln wanted to free the slaves before the War (incorrect). And that the South was somehow more racist than the North. If anything Northern opposition to slavery was fundamentally built around opposition to having any black people around at all.

"Between 1832 & 1849, Philly mobs set off five major anti-Negro riots. In July, 1834, a white mob stormed through the Negro section, clubbed & stoned its victims, destroyed homes, churches, and meeting halls, forced hundreds to flee the city"
-Litwack

"for Abolitionist was synonymous with thief. Between a band of men who stole horses and a band of men who stole negroes, the popular mind made small distinctions in the degrees of guilt. They were regarded as robbers, disturbers of the peace, the instigators of arson, murder, poisoning, rape; and, in addition to all these crimes, traitors to the government under which they lived, and enemies to the Union which gave us as a people liberty and strength." -Abraham Lincoln (The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon)

"The negro question as we understand it, is a white
man's question, the question of the right of free white laborers to the soil of the territories...We object to Sambo. We don't want him about. We insist that he shall not be forced upon us."
-John Greiner (R-OH)

"For the North, motivations have always been clear, the Union was the motivating factor. What did ordinary shopkeepers in New York or small-hold farmers in Vermont truly care if their Southern counterparts owned slaves?"

"Rhode Island more than 30 years after slavery had been abolished, would not allow licenses to keep a tavern or any kind of public house to be granted to negroes or mulattoes, nor would she allow a negro to sell liquor. Nor act as the agent or employer of a white person."
-J.Z. George

[Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."]

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

It's heavy spin with a propagandist outlook.

You even claim that the South would never have voluntarily given up slavery in the future. Something you could not possibly know and that seems unlikely given the history of other Western slave owning nations. I.E. Brazil

You also ignore the huge Constitutional questions about the legality of Secession in favor of simplistic "muh slavery" argument.

You also strongly imply that the Union and Lincoln wanted to free the slaves before the War (incorrect). And that the South was somehow more racist than the North. If anything Northern opposition to slavery was fundamentally built around opposition to having any black people around at all.

"Between 1832 & 1849, Philly mobs set off five major anti-Negro riots. In July, 1834, a white mob stormed through the Negro section, clubbed & stoned its victims, destroyed homes, churches, and meeting halls, forced hundreds to flee the city"
-Litwack

"for Abolitionist was synonymous with thief. Between a band of men who stole horses and a band of men who stole negroes, the popular mind made small distinctions in the degrees of guilt. They were regarded as robbers, disturbers of the peace, the instigators of arson, murder, poisoning, rape; and, in addition to all these crimes, traitors to the government under which they lived, and enemies to the Union which gave us as a people liberty and strength." -Abraham Lincoln (The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon)

"The negro question as we understand it, is a white
man's question, the question of the right of free white laborers to the soil of the territories...We object to Sambo. We don't want him about. We insist that he shall not be forced upon us."
-John Greiner (R-OH)

"For the North, motivations have always been clear, the Union was the motivating factor. What did ordinary shopkeepers in New York or small-hold farmers in Vermont truly care if their Southern counterparts owned slaves?"

"Rhode Island more than 30 years after slavery had been abolished, would not allow licenses to keep a tavern or any kind of public house to be granted to negroes or mulattoes, nor would she allow a negro to sell liquor. Nor act as the agent or employer of a white person."
-J.Z. George

[Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."]

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

How the hell got going to try and pass off as fact what you think they thought? Just say I believe what I want to believe and ignore the rest?

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

I hope UNC has Subway sandwich night when it hosts Duke.

The South would have inevitably given up slavery as costs continued to go up, cotton prices dropped, and cheaper 'free' labor was arriving by the tens of thousands from Ireland and eastern Europe .

Again, if the North wanted to end slavery without economically destroying the South all they had to do was follow Great Britain's example........

Compensate the slave owners for their investment .

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"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." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

Nor do you have any proof that the north would not have eventually forced them to do so. The abolitionist movement was very real and a legitimate, growing threat to the right to own another human being. Southern politicians were not stupid. They saw the writing on the wall in foresight that you want to ignore in hindsight.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

Nor do you have any proof that the north would not have eventually forced them to do so. The abolitionist movement was very real and a legitimate, growing threat to the right to own another human being. Southern politicians were not stupid. They saw the writing on the wall in foresight that you want to ignore in hindsight.

---

Well, The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott already defended the Constitutionality of Slavery.

And with the Corwin amendment that would have massively strengthened protections in the future. Specifically saying, "The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed."

But in the end I am not making any future based arguments.

Cowboys says he knows what the future held....I don't make that claim.

I can simply say it is unlikely given the evidence.

And moral and economic arguments leading to a buyout of slavery such as in Brazil being the more likely end point. But of course we can't know that...given traditional Puritan greed its possible the New England Senators would have never agreed to part with a single dollar to free a black slave.

You for some strange reason wish to overstate the support for abolitionism in the North. As the histories shows us.....the average Northerner disliked abolitionists. And disliked them almost as much as he disliked black people in general.

[In Illinois, at the time, an abolitionist was rarely seen, and scarcely ever heard of. In many parts of the State such a person would have been treated as a criminal. It was only when it was proposed to introduce slavery into Illinois by an alteration of that "heathen" Constitution, that the Covenanters consented to take part in public affairs. Many of the antislavery leaders in this contest-conspicuous among whom was Gov. Coles- were gentleman from Slave States, who had emancipated their slaves, and were opposed to slavery, not upon religious or moral grounds, but because they believed it would be a material injury to the new country. Practically no other view of the question was discussed; and a person who should have undertaken to discuss it from the "man and brother" stand point of the more modern times would have been set down as a lunatic. A clear majority of the people were against the introduction of slavery in the State; but that majority were fully agreed with their brethren of the minority, that those who went about to interfere with slavery in the most distant manner in the places where it already existed were deserving of the severest punishment, as common enemies of society. It was a moral offense to call a man abolitionist, for abolitionist was synonymous with theft and crime.] The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon