2024 Field

[57Brave]

After the war Stephens tried to qualify his remarks, claiming they were extemporaneous, metaphorical, and intended to refer to public sentiment rather than "the principles of the new Government on this subject".[42][43]


I think that is today what pundits refer to as " walking back"

[57Brave]

Four of the seceding states, the Deep South states of South Carolina,[44] Mississippi,[45] Georgia,[46] and Texas,[47] issued formal declarations of the causes of their decision; each identified the threat to slaveholders' rights as the cause of, or a major cause of, secession. Georgia also claimed a general Federal policy of favoring Northern over Southern economic interests. Texas mentioned slavery 21 times, but also listed the failure of the federal government to live up to its obligations, in the original annexation agreement, to protect settlers along the exposed western frontier. Texas resolutions further stated that governments of the states and the nation were established "exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity". They also stated that although equal civil and political rights applied to all white men, they did not apply to those of the "African race", further opining that the end of racial enslavement would "bring inevitable calamities upon both [races] and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states".[47]

[Jaw]

and they were fighting for ... ?
/////

probably what they were being paid to fight for --- correct?
paid for by whom ... ?


c'mon man these are not complicated dots

........

Please research the Tariffs of Abomination of 1828 and 1832, the Morrill Tariff of 1861, and the Corwin Amendment, for a start.

You may, after learning about these things, ponder if paying 75% of the taxes for the country might have provoked some non slave owners.

Consider how tariffs protecting Northern manufacturers from cheaper English goods would have impacted the impoverished, non slave owning Southerners.

Decide if those things may have been greater motivation than the legal right to own a slave that would cost more than these people would earn in a lifetime.

[Jaw]

Yes, you needn't run to Wikipedia to cram for this discussion, I'm aware of what our whitewashed history consensus has become to justify Sherman's war crimes. I'm asking you to actually look into some of this stuff for yourself and think for yourself. Why did people with no chance of ever affording a slave fight for that right to own one?

[57Brave]

I certainly do because it has been many years since I read the transparent arguments of "states rights not slavery"
justified by obscure laws and tariffs of the 1830's.
I unlike you don't keep a card in my back pocket

When you boil down all of the BS even Stephens had to walk back there is still one elephant in the room.
////////////////////////////////////////

Tell me again how there are microchips in the vaccine

Sometimes, no, most all of the time a rose is simply a rose

[57Brave]

why not just admit that was the central thread issue , deal with it and move on ?
We went through this over Central Race Theory. So what, people did asshole things and we as a society will and are evolving.

Unless you are one of those "Southern Heritage" ers

[Jaw]

I have no card in my pocket, I've just done research prior to forming an opinion. I realize that is uncommon in these times.

In 1828 South Carolina was arming itself to secede due to the Tariff of Abomination. Slavery was not in jeopardy at that time. Research the Nullification Crisis.

Lincoln did not campaign on ending slavery. He specifically did not campaign on it, and made a point of campaigning to enforce tariff collection in the South. That stance almost assuredly won him Pennsylvania and the election.

In 1861 seven states had seceded. Then the Morrill Tariff passed and Lincoln ordered the other Southern states to provide levies to suppress the seceding states. Both were correctly seen as the federal government overstepping it's bounds and crushing the Constitutional guarantee of state sovereignty. At that point, after those two actions, 6 more states seceded.

[nsacpi]

Lincoln did not campaign on ending slavery.

It is often forgotten that Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party on slavery and was radicalized by the events that took place after his election. We should also not forget that there was a strong and much more radical wing within the party that was much more overt and aggressive in its opposition to slavery. The party pretty much came into being over the issue of slavery. So slavery was not some minor issue. It caused one of the few realignments in the history of American politics. It was THE issue of the day.

[57Brave]

I am not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change 160 years of historical conclusion .

Like I said, I researched and decided this decades ago.
Before Wikipedia and long before Twitter.
Probably while Joy Reid was still in grade school

[Jaw]

It is often forgotten that Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party on slavery and was radicalized by the events that took place after his election. We should also not forget that there was a strong and much more radical wing within the party that was much more overt and aggressive in its opposition to slavery. The party pretty much came into being over the issue of slavery. So slavery was not some minor issue. It caused one of the few realignments in the history of American politics. It was THE issue of the day.

The bolded part is demonstrably false. He didn't try to make the Civil War a human rights issue until 1863, when the North was getting their clock cleaned and a reasonable chance of England jumping in on the South's side existed. He even said as much. Until then, he was absolutely still using tariffs as his main justification for fighting against secession.

[Jaw]

I am not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change 160 years of historical conclusion .

Like I said, I researched and decided this decades ago.
Before Wikipedia and long before Twitter.
Probably while Joy Reid was still in grade school

160 years?!? Hahaha. You seem to only be paying attention to the "conclusion" of the last 60 or so. Selling that lie got a lot easier once everyone who lived through it was dead. They didn't dare try it before then.

[Jaw]

The bolded part is demonstrably false. He didn't try to make the Civil War a human rights issue until 1863, when the North was getting their clock cleaned and a reasonable chance of England jumping in on the South's side existed. He even said as much. Until then, he was absolutely still using tariffs as his main justification for fighting against secession.

This Lincoln quite is from August of 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

Heck of a thing to say for someone leading a nation that's been at war "to end slavery" for a year.

[Jaw]

Another Lincoln quote, from 1863:

“Things had gone from bad to worse until I felt we had reached the end of our rope on the plan we were pursuing; that we had played our last card, and must change our tactics or lose the game. I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy.”

Realized he wasn't going to win with money as his justification. Making it about slavery kept England on the sidelines and convinced hundreds of thousands of blacks to join the Northern army.

[nsacpi]

This Lincoln quite is from August of 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

Heck of a thing to say for someone leading a nation that's been at war "to end slavery" for a year.

That's what I meant when I said he was a moderate on slavery. He wanted to contain it within the states in which it existed. And when I say he was radicalized by events after his election, I didn't put a date on that timeframe. Part of that radicalization process was based upon a very practical consideration. Which was that the slaves offered a pool of manpower that he could utilize to win the war.

[Jaw]

I mean, he supported the original ("Corwin")13th Amendment. I just can't see justifying him as a radical abolitionist. He didn't have the cash to pay for the meal he ordered and emancipation was his way of washing dishes.

[57Brave]

The only poster to invoke Lincoln was you.
As a radical abolitionist or just a shlub riding the waves of the day.

Please don't infer otherwise
A very thethe/sturg tactic

[Jaw]

[Krgrecw]

The bolded part is demonstrably false. He didn't try to make the Civil War a human rights issue until 1863, when the North was getting their clock cleaned and a reasonable chance of England jumping in on the South's side existed. He even said as much. Until then, he was absolutely still using tariffs as his main justification for fighting against secession.

Yeah. When Lincoln started talking about the war was about slavery, a lot of people folks in the north changed thier mind on the war. They didn’t want thier sons or husbands to die freeing the slaves.

[goldfly]

Yeah. When Lincoln started talking about the war was about slavery, a lot of people folks in the north changed thier mind on the war. They didn’t want thier sons or husbands to die freeing the slaves.

i love **** like this from southerners


"see, the north sucked just as much as we did" is what they are trying to say lol


"it wasn't about slavery, it was states rights!!!" lol

[thethe]

i love **** like this from southerners


"see, the north sucked just as much as we did" is what they are trying to say lol


"it wasn't about slavery, it was states rights!!!" lol

Well when you look at mid 19th century issues with an early 21st century paradigm then you clearly miss out on the realities of that time. It’s a common mistake leftists make.