The War Between The States Discussions

Discussion in 'Civil War' started by Zonie, Jul 19, 2019.

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Oct 19, 2019 #2301

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Au contraire. Southerners could not take slaves into NY, and that was a sore spot with southern slave owners who complained bitterly about that. They insisted it was a matter of (southern) states' rights, while ignoring northern states had their own rights.

    What you're confusing is the matter of escaped slaves, not slaves who were brought into a state where laws said slaves could not be legally brought into those states by people who intended to visit or live there.
     
  2. Oct 20, 2019 #2302

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Location:
    Republic mo
    All the north had to do was amend the constitution to do away with the 3/5 rule, to impower the south to have equal footing.
    You think that may have been the reason the founders distrusted democracy?
     
  3. Oct 20, 2019 #2303

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Did you never read the Dred Scott case. That was his argument that he was free because he was taken in to a free state.
     
  4. Oct 20, 2019 #2304

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    I find it impossible to understand why someone today is trying to defend slavery as morally acceptable in a country that was strongly divided over it. Even during the period, there were many people who did not agree with defending slavery as moral or people as "property". So, you can't pretend judging slavery as immoral is applying a modern view of thinking on the period, as there are numerous writings that argue against the concept and practice of slavery.
     
  5. Oct 20, 2019 #2305

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    I did. You're not getting the difference between escaped slaves versus slave owners trying to bring slaves into states were it was illegal to own them in that state. That distinction seems not to have registered with you.
     
  6. Oct 20, 2019 #2306

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Let's consider two ideas you've been claiming. One is that southerners viewed slaves as property. Two, now you're saying holding slaves in bondage made them useful members of society" while denying them human rights or any chance to participate in society outside the boundaries of a master/slave (property) situation. If you're not permitted to participate in society outside of "massa's" realm, then that doesn't exactly give you any status in society as defined in the sense of community, a larger set of people beyond the family (or owner if a slave). Do you see the inherent contradictions in what you are claiming?
     
  7. Oct 20, 2019 #2307

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    You claim the south fought for all sorts of patriotic reasons, when many felt social and political equality with blacks was a threat to their economic, social and political status they could not ignore. Poor southern white who owned nothing, always knew they were socially higher on the status pecking order than a slave. Without slavery, that meant they were no longer a rung or two above the bottom, but on the same tier as blacks and that was something that southerners wrote about.
     
    Carbon 6 likes this.
  8. Oct 20, 2019 #2308

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    We have. What part of the discussion that isn't registering with you is the concept of majority rule and the use of the ballot, not a minority of disgruntled people who are angry they are no longer in control, and instead of governments determined by a majority, resort to violence instead of complying with the concept of a society greater than their own self-interests.
     
    Carbon 6 and arcticap like this.
  9. Oct 20, 2019 #2309

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Stop right there. I am not saying that holding slaves made them useful members of society, I’m not saying blacks are in any way inferior to anyone else, nor am I saying blacks should have been slaves.
    My feelings toward racial equality has nothing to do with what was thought in the south.
    The fact I can understand the witch hunts of the fifteenth century doesn’t mean I believe in witchcraft. I can defend conversion by sword first by Islam in the seventh century or Spain in the sixteenth.
    What I think has nothing to do with how a people in the past saw things.
    Even the worlds most ‘progressive anthropologist’ would argue that Blacks were inferior to whites seventy years after the war.
    Societies often have contradictory ideas, and illogical ones. Jefferson himself was torn between his own personal wealth and his ideas about freedom as a Human Right.
     
  10. Oct 20, 2019 #2310

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Location:
    Republic mo
    The problem did not lay with the vote of the people, but the desire of the Lincoln Government to prevent the south from getting an equal say.
    Why did Lincoln simply not purpose an amendment ending slavery... because it couldn’t pass, not the senate not the states. only by stopping the south growing could anti slavery legislation pass.
    Lincoln was attempting to overrule democracy to slip one around the ballot box. To force a two thirds majority by preventing a chance for the south to grow.
     
    Eutycus likes this.
  11. Oct 20, 2019 #2311

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    People might think they understand the past, and that is assumption can be full of errors.

    If you want to start understanding why the south seceded, start with what they wrote in the press discussing secession before, during, and after it happened. Those reasons flatly state they seceded because of slavery, with the other ideological positions you've been claiming, hardly mentioned, if at all. Unless you've done, that, most of what you post is opinions, not necessarily theirs.

    The world's most progressive anthropologist argue with you? Charles Darwin technically wasn't an anthropologist, however, his thinking and writing was very influential in the the field at that time. If you've read Darwin, not what people say about him, but actually read what he wrote, you'd find out his thoughts on race and abolitionism undercuts what you're claiming. After Darwin, others thought the same, although there were more than a few racists who tried to use "science" by using "facts" they felt fit their theories, while ignoring what didn't, or not bothering to present information that completely altered their ideological constructs.
     
  12. Oct 20, 2019 #2312

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Location:
    Republic mo
    I have done that. And read Darwin, and also Huxley and Wallace. Let’s not forget Wilson and Spangler. To say some wanted to use science to fit their facts is mistaking modern thinking for past thinking.
    All peoples, including scientists fit their views to fit how they perceived the evidence.
    To argue that the south was willing to go to war to defend their property rights, their rights to own slaves in of it self is meaningless. People killed witches, doctors bleed the sick, societies withheld the vote from women. The fact that a society does X is just a fact, why did a society do X becomes the question.
    How did a society built on freedom hold slaves, why did that society think they could leave the union, where in did that society conceive the idea of rights and the relationship of a state to the federal government.
    If one just jumps up and down and yell ‘but they had slaves and they fought to protect slavery missis the whole of the historic events.
     
  13. Oct 20, 2019 #2313

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Please.... I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

    Until the Missouri Compromise, the southern states were more or less in control of the government, and after that date, the political situation began changing. Despite the shiny paint job you're trying to advance, the reality was and is, the south no longer wanted to be part of the Union because it felt majority rule was not to their liking. The southern states had no intention of being on the proverbial swing of the pendulum after having enjoyed the benefits of the system earlier. When the status quo changes, that does not give the new minority a claim it can take it's marbles, quit the game and run.

    I've asked this question several times, and you've never answered it. Secession is important to your defense of the south, the war, and related positions you've taken.

    Since you claim people have a right to seceede and/or rebel if they feel their government no longer represents THEM, then when does secession end? If a state can secede from a nation, then why not every smaller political or social unit all the way down to a street/road from a city/town/township, or even further? When does it logically stop? If there's no logical end-point, then you've proclaimed a recipe for complete and total anarchy.

    How about a coherent and logical answer that is workable? It underlies a major area of your thinking about the south's actions, and I know I'm not alone in wondering where you think it stops and still allows people to form their own government if they don't like the one you might propose.

    If you can't provide an answer that isn't pie in the sky thinking, should we take other things commented in the same vein?
     
  14. Oct 20, 2019 #2314

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Answer that’s workable, I’ll ask Solomon the next time I see him. For five thousand years that we know of that question has been asked.
    I’ve stated on earlier post I don’t think the south would have survived as an entity, that’s hardly the point.
    I would have to look it up to be sure, I’m thinking the constitutional requirements were 20000 citizens to form a State.
    The south was never in control. What they had was equality. All the slave states together had equal representation in the senate to all the free.
    Lincoln wanted to make sure the south couldn’t grow, wanted to make sure the south could gain no more new states. Yes the south was being silenced.
    At no time was the south ever in control but they had a fair say, Lincoln wanted to deprive them of that say.
     
  15. Oct 20, 2019 #2315

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Had to look it up, 60000 people were needed in a territory to become a state. So I would say a political entity of 60000 then constitutionally form a sovereign unit. However it was not making allowances for the state to grow. So at least 60000 to more as within that groups definition of their state.
     
  16. Oct 20, 2019 #2316

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Doing a little extra looking, the estimated population of the colonies was two point five million. By 1790 the census was just a little shy of four million. The sovereign state of Delaware had less then that sixty thousand number.
     
  17. Oct 20, 2019 #2317

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,081
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Yes, because they were willing to go to war for their greed, to destroy a nation for their greed, and to kill 620,000 people for their greed.

    Besides, It's not a contest, but if greed was, the south won.
     
    Straekat likes this.
  18. Oct 20, 2019 #2318

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,081
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    We did in '68. We would have sooner but those damn rebels had to be tamed first.
     
  19. Oct 20, 2019 #2319

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,081
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Why should they be?
    If they were the least populous states, why should they be in control?
    Why ?
    Your entire premise begins in error.
     
  20. Oct 20, 2019 #2320

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,081
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Hogwash!
    Lincoln won the war, defeated the south. How is the South doing today ?
    Have they grown?
    Texas and Florida are two of the four most populous states in the union.
    Was the south silenced?
    Hardly.
    That irrational fear was as baseless then as it is now.
     
    Straekat likes this.

Share This Page



arrow_white