Bull. If you did, you wouldn't have accused me of lying, cheating, stealing, and dealing drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John
I want to help people. I want to take care of myself and my family and my friends. I want to do what's right and I want to fight evil.
Bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John
Why do you think they call it the Empire State Cash?
Did they called it that before 1865?
Hell No. They created a empire for themselves right out of our blood, sweat and tears. Your's and Mine. Our ancestor's blood, sweat and tears. And it's THEIR empire Cash. Not Our's. From Sea to Shinning Sea.
Northern Interests. Brahamin Yankess. International Financiers. Banks, Factories, Mines, and Railroads. Thier's. Not Our's.
You don't know what you're babbling about.
New York is called "The Empire State," not the United States, and it was called that by George Washington in 1784. If you knew half the history you think you know you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims. The truth is that you have no clue and you are the one who believes lies and half-truths.
The North opposed slavery in the Territories for the 'political' purpose of gaining an 'unbeatable' majority in Congress, in order that the 'moral' objective of eradicating slavery from the USA Forever, could be accomplished.
There may have been a few with an eye on the 'unbeatable' majority, but the restriction had been around since the NW Ordinance--before anyone was aware that there might be a sectional conflict over the issue.
The reason for the restriction was, and remained intil the CW, complying with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Back to the subject of this thread. As in most unscientific and biased polls. The answer to this particualr poll can, in fact, be 'both' 'either' Or "neither' depending on the perception (or lack thereof) of the individual answering the poll.
In this case, the 'correct' answer is 'both' The North opposed slavery in the Territories for the 'political' purpose of gaining an 'unbeatable' majority in Congress, in order that the 'moral' objective of eradicating slavery from the USA Forever, could be accomplished.
I think you're on the right track, but I'd argue it was "Both and Neither." There were a number of reasons, including but not limited to gaining political power in Congress, the moral objective of eradicating slavery, keeping the territories free of blacks, keeping slavery from depressing wages, and eradicating slavery due to its other effects on whites. Like I said, this is not an all-inclusive list and there were other reasons, and all of the reasons were important. Trying to boil it down to a binary choice in this poll merely shows the questioner's historical incompetence.
The North's opposition to Slavery In the Territories was.....
True enough, but the choices was Moral or Northern Interests. The Morality of slavery was one of the Northern Interests, in opposing slavery in the territories and 'whatever' the reasons of any individual northerner's opposition to slavery in the territories, the means of political opposition remained the same, in this case, resisting its expansion by restricting it.
Who is to say, that morality, did not play a bigger part in this political process than in many another political process?
When you consider that the North *made money off of slavery (cotton mills, shipping, &etc), *voted for a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery (March 1861), *allowed "freed" slaves (that came under their charge during the war) to perish by tens of thousands due to neglect, *operated a legal slave trade ("coolies") during the war, and *did little to stop the illegal African slave trade operating out of their own ports...
...you come to the conclusion that their opposition...had little to do with morality.
One precludes the other. If the North is objecting to slavery in the Territories and they're making money off of slavery [which I consider to be a truism], then what exactly is the objection based on?
One precludes the other. If the North is objecting to slavery in the Territories and they're making money off of slavery [which I consider to be a truism], then what exactly is the objection based on?
Political Power
The North controlled the House of Representatives.
They won the Presidency in 1860.
All they needed to control the government was the Senate.
Territories become states.
Additional senators from these new states would eventually tip the balance of power.
~
Slavery
By and large the North had no intent to disturb slavery where it then existed. After consolidating control of the government they could enact any legislation they preferred- tariffs, railroads, etc., anything. The "slave power" (as they would say) would not be able to obstruct them anymore.
So it all comes down to-
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
While he claims we have been sold a bill of goods he in noway realizes how he tries to destroy history. His apologies cannot be taken seriously as he does not mean them. He will continue to insist that it is he and others like him that know the true history of the Civil War and what is "really" going on in this country and the world.
The sad fact of the matter he has repeated this fairy tale enough to convince himself he sees monsters everywhere, plots and cover-ups, that none of the rest of us can see. We are all involved in a 145 year plot that we are too stupid to see by ourselves, but have no fear, OIJ is here! He will lead us to his version of the truth because he wants to help us realize just how dumb we really are.
I generally have a lot of tolerance for folks views, but I admit, these days my temper is short and my patience with out-and-out stupidity is almost nonexistent. I wish to apologize to all who have read my most recent posts in which I address OzarkIronJohn and Battalion. They have not been up to what I consider my usual standards.
Battalion is here to preach to us. I can accept that. He has made it too obvious that he is not here to learn or exchange information about the Civil War. He is merely preserving the faith and will book no backsliding.
OIJ has placed himself in a deep, dark place and he won't be happy until the rest of us climb down the hole with him. He is not here to discuss the Civil War or to learn or to teach. He is here to warn and to save us (shudder!) from ourselves. From our questioning, thinking and learning for ourselves. He wants us down in that deep, dark, hole with him where the fear and the cover-ups roam and no one hears a discouraging word. (Not even unionblue "who work's for 'em.")
John, if you continue to look at history through the pitch-black glasses you insist on wearing, you will NEVER see the truth and it will NEVER set you FREE. You will continue to be alone in that deep, dark, hole you have dug for yourself and if you're not careful, you are going to pull the dirt from that hole on top of yourself and disappear.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I generally have a lot of tolerance for folks views, but I admit, these days my temper is short and my patience with out-and-out stupidity is almost nonexistent.
In the marketplace of ideas conspiracy theories will always lose. The problem with conspiracy theories is that it seemingly involves a large number of people who all somehow keep silent when, from practical experience, we know that if we tell ONE person a secret, we know that we no longer have a secret.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
) 
Linear Mode
