Hence why the 2nd Amendment is so vitally important ... Not for shooting deer ... Joining the Union was voluntary so too should be secession if need be.
Andrew Jackson said it best about secession and treason...
- Thread starter whitepug6
- Start date
Joining the Union may have been voluntary, but basically all the states (certainly all after the original thirteen) did ask to join.
I'll be your Huckleberry.....
Jackson was dealing with the "Tariff of Abominations" issue at the time. It was a tariff, passed by the Congress on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. It also brutally harmed the southern economy.
The tariff protected industries in the northern United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by taxing them. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South. The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.
The statement you quoted from Jackson was more in direct confrontation with Henry Clay, whom he hated, more than truly seeing secession as illegal. The Nullification Act was enacted by a sitting President, not written in our Constitution. Our Constitution was written so that no one man, including a sitting President, could rule as a king, making laws that he enacted. Government could not Constitutionally be used to rule over or control its people....... until congress decided it could.
The south saw secession as a Constitutional right, as it was originally written. The Tariffs, designed to kill the southern economy, was the precursor to the civil war.
So we had northern control of congress, with a sitting president, setting tariffs designed to artificially increase the cost of living and destroy southern commerce. We also had a sitting President designing the tariffs outside of the Constitutional provision.
Of course, in his zest to maintain control and northern power, which benefited him, he threatened secession. Even with that, the north never invaded the south to stop secession. It only responded to the firing on and the submission of Fort Sumter.
You must take the political and economic environment in its entirety, and now look for single quotes from those in the day.
Glad you brought all of that up though. The tariffs and political maneuvering was the start of secession and the crux of the civil war.
Lets get serious. I love watermelon. Ate more watermelon this year than ever. My favorite type is Stone Mountain. You have a preference?
Last edited:
Robert E. Lee is one of my most admired people. If you read about him and words written by him, he was honorable and a man of honor.
"I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation" This is where the man was, and where many of the southern states politicians were at the time. They were attempting to ease out of the slavery era without collapsing the southern economy. No one wanted war, but the mistake southerners made was estimating the union response.
At the time of Fort Sumter, the north had no stomach for war. The union armies, mainly professional soldiers, were marched into it. The average citizen saw it not so much as a cause, but an inconvenience. It took the horror or war to move the north to a cause.
Robert E. Lee would obey his commander. While he did not invite war, but understood the horror of what would take place. As a general, it was his job and duty to try and end it as fast as possible.
A soldier of honor does that.
What evidence is there that Southern states were trying to "ease out of the slavery era?" If you look at the census numbers from 1860 below, the slave population in every Southern state increased over the previous decade, outpacing white population growth by a wide margin in most states.
What evidence is there that Southern states were trying to "ease out of the slavery era?" If you look at the census numbers from 1860 below, the slave population in every Southern state increased over the previous decade, outpacing white population growth by a wide margin in most states.
Reading from transcripts taken directly from the floor of the Congress along with transcripts directly from the leadership from both north and south.
Also, if you read up on Frederick Douglass, you will find an incredibly wise x-slave who understood the Constitution and fought for changes within the states, respecting their sovereignty.
Even some of the largest plantation owners were releasing slaves prior to the war. Much of the census was slave population moving south as northern slave owners sold them to southern concerns.
"Some" plantation owners doesn't sound like many. To whom were their slaves released?
According to Peter Kolchin in American Slavery, by 1840, virtually all African Americans in the North were free, so I doubt that Northern slave owners selling slaves to Southerners would have accounted for hardly any of the increase from 1850 to 1860. Can you cite an actual source or give a quote?
Last edited:
Here you go, Tom. This mentions about the slaves still in slavery up North.
Hopefully, others read it too.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/emancipation-150/10-facts.html
Hopefully, others read it too.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/emancipation-150/10-facts.html
A soldier of honor does not make war against the country that educated him (the United States Military Academy, not the Southern Military Academy), and the country he took a solemn oath to defend and protect. Robert E. Lee has no honor. He was a low-down traitor and turncoat who did far worse to this country than anything Benedict Arnold did.
That's true. I can only dream to be as educated,smart,have as big of an ego as you whitepug. You should run for President. Hell if it was between you and The Donald-I would probably vote for you.
Ok.Then I will change my opinion of you. You could be clueless and uglier than Arthur Hunnicutt. Without looking it up-what was Gene Autry's horses name. See how smart you are.
So I guess if you are English, the colonist were traitors and if you are American they were patriots. So most of us in the South who have Confederate ancestors are pretty proud they stood up to an overbearing gov't. Succession talk had been going on 20 years before the war so it sure wasn't over slavery. Soldiers on both sides would have thrown down their guns and walked away if they thought that's what the war was about.
I have finally figured you out. You throw around words like hate monger when it is really you who is eat up with bitterness. It just eats at your crawl that men like R.E Lee were not treated as traitors and charged with treason but in fact the opposite occurred, they have been honored with having universities named after them and having statues and monuments erected. I guess you are much smarter then men like Lincoln.
Much of this conversation is based on a desire of some sort to paint out history as all bad and evil. We seem to want so badly to paint it out as some grand crusade. It's not and it isn't. Life isn't so simple as to think slaves were here for the sole purpose of keeping a race at bay. That is not the case at all. There seems to be a great agenda on this board by a few to paint things all bad, if not agreed to, or all good if agreed to. With that, the argue seems to come from how they were raised or taught in school. We then get the single quote drama used normally in religious arguments. Of course, single quotes do not define the man. If so, Fredrick Douglass would have been considered a cold blooded killer and a heathen. But he was allowed the grace historically to change his mind and grow intellectually on the subjects at hand at the time.
Before I answer your question, I will say this again. The negro during our country's slave era was a machine used in business. Nothing more. It wasn't done to keep the black man down. Slave owners didn't pay the fees of purchase just to be able to rule over and keep a race down. They bought slaves as you would by a lawn mower. Nothing more, nothing less.
Does that make it right and good? No. But the black race was not looked upon then as it is now. Nothing can change that. It is done. Did I do it, no. Did you? no. Did any poster on this board live under slavery? no. It is done. We learned from it. It was an era thing. Societies learn from history and move on. You don't suppress it, nor do you move the pendulum to create the same bigotry and racial issues in the other direction as we are doing now. To claim that everything the south did prior to the civil war was bad is naive and best and very dangerous at worst.
But to answer your question, here is a stab at it. This facade of the great northern crusade against the suppression of the black race is a myth. Our country was involved as a whole and learned from it. All of this has allowed all races to benefit from the freedoms of this country and take advantage of an education provided by our government. If one does not partake now, it isn't because slavery existed in this country.
The north profited greatly from slave trade before, in a great way, during the abolishment of slavery in the north and right up to the civil war.
New England was by far the leading slave merchant of the American colonies.
Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.
Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.
In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way -- which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual -- except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.
Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.
1. Hugh Thomas, �The Slave Trade,� N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1997, p.519.
2. Lorenzo Johnston Greene, �The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,� N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1942, p.68-69.
3. ibid., p.26.
4. �Brown University committee examines historical ties to slavery,� Associated Press, The Boston Globe, March 5, 2004
That's all great but doesn't do much to support what you said about the South trying to ease out of the slavery era.
The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South.
I pointed out that slave population in Va increased at a lower rate than other Southern states. But Va was the outlier. Other states were increasing their slave populations much more rapidly and, in general, the Southern states were demanding that slavery be expanded into the territories.
The Southern states demanded the right to expand slavery as a sovereignty issue. If you read papers on the southern leadership, much like Robert E. Lee, who sold his slaves prior to the war, you would see that the abolishment of slavery was forthcoming. But it wasn't gonna happen in a way that would collapse the southern economy.
The north was not on a crusade for the slaves. They were on a crusade to control the south.
If you remove agenda and today's ethical barometer, one sees the pre-civil war south in a much different light. A couple here praise the North for the crusade to save the slave, yet, like the south, the north had slaves and held the race in contempt before and after the war. The south did not. The south incorporated the slave in their daily lives.
So why is the north held in such high esteem as crusaders for the slave? it was easy for them as they leveraged the south with it.
There were more slave owners in the north than the south. More slaves in the south, but more owners in the north.
This is an old argument. I will throw this out there and then let it go. My argument on the subject does not have reparations slant, nor do I hold ancestors of slave owners, which were fewer in the south than the north, in contempt. "Under laws enacted specifically to intimidate blacks, tens of thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily arrested, hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests. With no means to pay these ostensible “debts,” prisoners were sold as forced laborers to coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations. Thousands of other African Americans were simply seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations—including U.S. Steel Corp.—looking for cheap and abundant labor. Armies of "free" black men labored without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced through beatings and physical torture to do the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slavery".
- See more at: http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/....AhM92rwF.dpuf
No doubt, Lee is a central figure in the "Lost Cause" mythology.
You are doing nothing but claiming "papers on southern leadership" as a source. You still have yet to cite an actual source, and given the fact that you seem to have made up the claim of why Southern slave populations increased from 1850 to 1860, you'll have to forgive me if I don't find your uncited sources as proof of anything.
If the South demanded the expansion of slavery as a sovereign issue and the North was attempting to block expansion, then the division caused by that issue is slavery. It doesn't matter why the South wanted to expand slavery. THAT is the overriding issue which led to secession. No agenda is needed to see that, but one is certainly needed to deny that fact.
No, the issue was commerce, economy and rights of the states to control that, which was promised to them in the Constitution.
You see things in black or white. Having such a narrow belief in slavery being the reason of the civil war means you believe all southerners to be racists. They aren't now and weren't then.
Slaves were the machines the north wanted to stop, to control the southern economy.
OK, I will give it a go. I cut and pasted this. It paints quite a different picture than what most southern apologists portray. To assume that the north thought as one or that the south thought as one is naive. I cut and pasted to remove my opinion from the piece.
The great crusade myth is being taught to our children. It wasn't. Even when freed, the northern peoples apposed integration of races. Of course that doesn't fit the great crusade argument. I believe slavery to be bad. But it was part of our history and the ethical norms of that era are different than they are now. To condemn like you do now shows a hold to an agenda and little regard for actual truth.
Here is my cut and paste.
Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.
Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.
In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way -- which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual -- except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.
Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.
1. Hugh Thomas, �The Slave Trade,� N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1997, p.519.
2. Lorenzo Johnston Greene, �The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,� N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1942, p.68-69.
3. ibid., p.26.
4. �Brown University committee examines historical ties to slavery,� Associated Press, The Boston Globe, March 5, 2004
And we named a motel on Jekyll after the "Wanderer," which was on the north end aka white end of the beach.
To add to the conversation, I will pull a sentence from my last post on the subject. The last known shipment of slaves to the states was in 1858. So to add to the concept of Northern slave owners selling to southern slave owners, how did the increase in the south occur and the decrease in the north through 1860? It could be magic. Alien teleportation.
Again, don't go with agenda based history. Look at history for what it was. Much of what we see as great movements and good, weren't. And much of what we try to claim as evil wasn't. It was man being man.
The great crusade we sell our kids is political and agenda based revisionist history. Incredible how we think that the further we get from something happening, we know more about it than the witnesses to it. We discount history for opinion.
Very sad.
And if you say it was aliens, I will concede on the the subject.
You sound like a sociopath. With a internet tough-guy screen name like that, you probably are a sociopath.
You sould like a child predator that drives around skating ring parking lots in a windowless van painted up with a cartoon puppy theme...perv
Here are some quotes from the man you call worst than Benedict Arnold. Of course, that is your way, just insult to defend your point. You really have no idea except some protected agenda in which you choose to defend and raise up by defacing everything we have done before.
Your comments, over and over, prove you look no further for truth than searching for some apologist writer who agrees with you. You really don't understand how history evolved throughout the years. Quite sad there whitepug. Just keep on being the contrary guy. What a waste of $10 a month.
"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword"
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained".
"[W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers"
"[T]here is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man's face and another behind his back".
"You must study to be frank with the world: frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say just what you mean to do on every occasion, and take it for granted that you mean to do right".
"A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others"
"The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive; he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which imparts sufficient strength to let the past be put the past"
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies".
"We failed, but in the good providence of God apparent failure often proves a blessing".
- What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
- You can have anything you want - if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, have anything you desire, accomplish anything you set out to accomplish - if you will hold to that desire with singleness of purpose.
- Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret.
- Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one.
- They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins.
- You cannot be a true man until you learn to obey
- My trust is in the mercy and wisdom of a kind Providence, who ordereth all things for our good
Here are some quotes from the man you call worst than Benedict Arnold. Of course, that is your way, just insult to defend your point. You really have no idea except some protected agenda in which you choose to defend and raise up by defacing everything we have done before.
Your comments, over and over, prove you look no further for truth than searching for some apologist writer who agrees with you. You really don't understand how history evolved throughout the years. Quite sad there whitepug. Just keep on being the contrary guy. What a waste of $10 a month.
"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword"
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained".
"[W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers"
"[T]here is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man's face and another behind his back".
"You must study to be frank with the world: frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say just what you mean to do on every occasion, and take it for granted that you mean to do right".
"A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others"
"The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive; he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which imparts sufficient strength to let the past be put the past"
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies".
"We failed, but in the good providence of God apparent failure often proves a blessing".
- What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
- You can have anything you want - if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, have anything you desire, accomplish anything you set out to accomplish - if you will hold to that desire with singleness of purpose.
- Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret.
- Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one.
- They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins.
- You cannot be a true man until you learn to obey
- My trust is in the mercy and wisdom of a kind Providence, who ordereth all things for our good
And the war was still about slavery
Yeah, the American slave owners bought slaves because they hated black people and just wanted to torture them. The Boston Tea Party was about tea. The Japanese just wanted us to have less boats in Pearl Harbor, radical Muslims hate tall buildings in the U.S. and the Texans at the Alamo just hated Mexicans.
Gee, history and human nature is such a simple thing. And my how much smarter we are now. Witnesses and participants are so stupid.
Your opinion. But if you read the quotes from southern elected officials, the slavery issue was going to phase out without the abolishment movement. The only way for the south to survive financially was to mechanize. If you read transcripts from the floor of our congress during that time, you would understand that. That alone was going to shut down the plantation slaves.
The great crusade myth we sell our kids now was from the black perspective, not our country's. Our country, white government and money, used the slave issue as a political and financial threat. The north hated the black race and did not integrate before, during or right after the war. The black race was held in contempt. There was more integration of races in the south. Black women were literally raising white children on behalf of white families. These women were loved and taken care of, as would any employee close to a family today. So, not every slave was even involved in the great crusade to abolish slavery.
The civil war was fought for state sovereignty and rights. Financial issues fueled it towards war. Just read and learn. I respect your opinion, but it isn't factual, unless you read commentary opinion from history revisionists.
Of course, we are arguing over something that affects absolutely no one now, except those who wish to whitewash history and heritage and revise works of some great people in our past.
Revisionist history only serves those who wish to install agenda.
Not really an opinion...its truth ....the civil war was fought over the enslavement of human beings, which ended because of the war being lost by the enslavers...funny how you insert YOUR opinion and ignore those of the people that were there, fighting a war to end slavery
OK. I have posted quote after quote from those living in that era. All I get from you is your opinion.
The civil war ended slavery as we knew it, but it wasn't fought to end slavery.
It was fought to maintain the union from seceding states. The states seceding were fighting for political and economic independence from northern control (part of which was the right to maintain slaves to maintain the southern economy). And the only reason the union engaged was in response to Fort Sumter.
If you want to blame a race, country or leadership over slavery, you'd better start a petition to ban any dealings with Africa. They sold their own race to the Arab traders. Their own people put the African race in slavery and the U.S. had a very small percentage of the worlds slaves during that time. Funny how that is not taught in our history classes.
I will agree with you. Texans defended the Alamo because they hated Mexicans. That's how logic works nowadays.
I am now ready for your single sentence reply.
The civil war ended slavery as we knew it, but it wasn't fought to end slavery.
It was fought to maintain the union from seceding states. The states seceding were fighting for political and economic independence from northern control (part of which was the right to maintain slaves to maintain the southern economy). And the only reason the union engaged was in response to Fort Sumter.
If you want to blame a race, country or leadership over slavery, you'd better start a petition to ban any dealings with Africa. They sold their own race to the Arab traders. Their own people put the African race in slavery and the U.S. had a very small percentage of the worlds slaves during that time. Funny how that is not taught in our history classes.
I will agree with you. Texans defended the Alamo because they hated Mexicans. That's how logic works nowadays.
I am now ready for your single sentence reply.
Africa didn't fight in the U.S. Civil war, the CSA and USA did, and evil was overcome. I imagine most of the African suppliers ceased operations after that, or sharply curtailed them anyway
Did you just say that?
You really have no clue, do you? It is what you want to believe or it fits something you want to prove.
No, it didn't end and still goes on today in Africa. It is part of the African culture. It is vicious and cruel. The U.S., the CSA, didn't start slavery of Africans, it participated in it starting in the 1600's. The largest percentage of slave owners were in the north. The first slave bought on our soil was by a black Angolan man, not a white man. Per capita, more slaves were bought and owned by freed slaves than by white people. Less than 4% pf the white population in the south owned slaves.
Honestly man, do some research and stop seeking out just those that you want to believe. Agenda bends history. Just read history and listen to what those people were saying then. The people that lived then.
Slavery was an abomination. And slavery as we knew it then is over in this country.
So is abortion, but of course, killing a human being in that case is a choice.
If you throw me some facts, I will continue. Otherwise, I am threw discussing your opinion with you.
You really have no clue, do you? It is what you want to believe or it fits something you want to prove.
No, it didn't end and still goes on today in Africa. It is part of the African culture. It is vicious and cruel. The U.S., the CSA, didn't start slavery of Africans, it participated in it starting in the 1600's. The largest percentage of slave owners were in the north. The first slave bought on our soil was by a black Angolan man, not a white man. Per capita, more slaves were bought and owned by freed slaves than by white people. Less than 4% pf the white population in the south owned slaves.
Honestly man, do some research and stop seeking out just those that you want to believe. Agenda bends history. Just read history and listen to what those people were saying then. The people that lived then.
Slavery was an abomination. And slavery as we knew it then is over in this country.
So is abortion, but of course, killing a human being in that case is a choice.
If you throw me some facts, I will continue. Otherwise, I am threw discussing your opinion with you.
