Redbrickbear said:
D. C. Bear said:
Canada2017 said:
Redbrickbear said:
Canada2017 said:
Redbrickbear said:
Canada2017 said:
Johnny Bear said:
Canada2017 said:
No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .
A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .
Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.
Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .
Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.
Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994
"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"
"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .
They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.
True,
But let's never forget that Brazil (with more slaves per capita and more slaves numerically) ended slavery without war and mass bloodshed.
The war in 1861 is as much a civilizational tragedy for this nation as the World War I was for Europe.
The war was an act of northern political and economic aggression .
A. The southern states wanted to leave peacefully . Jefferson Davis ( then a member of the US Senate made that perfectly clear ). Lincoln and northern abolitionists were not about to let that occur .
B. If the north truly wished to set the slaves free without destroying the south economically all they had to do was follow Great Britain's example . Compensate the slave owners for the enormous amount of their capital invested.
C. By far the worst war in American history with KIA's and deaths from illness at levels today's Americans would never tolerate to 'free' anyone .
If the south wanted to leave peacefully, they had that option by Constitutional amendment. Without one, there is no mechanism for leaving the Union. The war that you characterize as an act of northern political and economic aggression was that in part, but only because many northern states did not recognize southern states' property rights. Specifically, the right of southern slave holders to maintain their property rights over other human beings independent of geography.
I guess the American colonies should waited for an amendment to leave the United Kingdom?
And Texas should have waited for an amendment to leave Mexico?
The USA was founded in an act of secession.
And of course the Federal government was never going to let its valuable tariff paying Southern States leave.
"At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North."
The South was paying for the North's industrialization.
They were not ever going to let the South peacefully walk away.
Unfair tariffs were a huge issue in the south that are largely over looked today .
But a healthy black male slave was worth 800 dollars .
In a time when a skilled white carpenter was lucky to make 4 dollars a day in wages .
In other words….slaves were exceptionally valuable and represented an enormous part of southern investment.
Great Britain solved their slavery problem by compensating the owners throughout the British Empire for their loss
A simple, bloodless solution that Lincoln, northern abolitionist, northern industrialists and radical Republicans wanted no part in .
They wanted the south economically and politically subjugated.