Newb here

[Tumbleweed]

Welcome from Wisconsin.

 

[wrangler94]

Well.....welcome. As my first statement, I will add "Duck! Incoming!"

Where are you from, wrangler94? I'm not sure you would have survived my history class. But welcome anyway. If you stick around, I think you'll learn a lot.

Thank you for the warning to duck and cover, I've learned that lesson long ago on other forums. not being afraid to stand on principle causes a lot of flak generally. Thanks everyone for the warm welcome and I look forward to lively debates, like the one I already kinda started from the looks of things.
To back up what I said about slavery, I will post part of a transcript of a philosophy show I listen to, and post the link to the page where you can listen yourselves if you'd like, and check all the cited sources.
"It was rare in America to own slaves. At the very peak of black slavery in America, only 6% of southern whites owned slaves—this, of course, would be the richest 6%; and we'll get into how they use the State to maintain slavery, in just a few minutes—so, if you include all the white people in the North at the very height of slavery, only 1.4% of white Americans owned black slaves. Monstrous, immoral… that was the truly evil 1% of the day."
http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38948-youtube-the-truth-about-slavery/
So, my thesis is, (and I will go further into Honest Abe another time) that if less than 6% of people in the southern states owned any slaves at all, and a lot of those who did only owned 1 or 2 and they lived in the house as a family member, there isn't a lot of incentive for going to fight over a cause you can't afford to participate in anyway. If my state seceded tomorrow because it became illegal to own a Ferrari, I'm not going to go out and die because I can't afford one anyway.
Kind of shoots a hole in the slave cause. We'll get back to the draft and habeus corpus and enslaving young northerners to go die in an unwanted war later.

How's that for poking a hornet's nest?

 

[wrangler94]

Welcome wrangler. No worries about our feathers, lets just see if you can back up your statements with some evidence. I think you will find that Lincoln did want to find ways to slowly phase out slavery, problem was the South didn't give him a chance, they kinda seceded.

"Winners write history books" I'll assume you mean these kind of winners. Cause you probably need adonis dna to have come up with the the lost cause myth.
Expired Image Removed

Coincidentally my name is Charlie, but I don't need tiger's blood to tell you Lincoln cared not about slaves.

"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; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

I can find more sources but those came up in a 30 second search. Also please tell me how many slaves were freed by the Emancipation proclamation. I'm curious. The way I read it i counted zero.
WINNING! can I write a history book now?

 

[suzenatale]

Coincidentally my name is Charlie, but I don't need tiger's blood to tell you Lincoln cared not about slaves.

"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; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

I can find more sources but those came up in a 30 second search. Also please tell me how many slaves were freed by the Emancipation proclamation. I'm curious. The way I read it i counted zero.
WINNING! can I write a history book now?

Write away. Though I'm starting to think a better strategy might be to invent a time machine and send you back in time to convince the South not to secede. You bring up some good points they might want to listen to.

 

[Patrick H]

I'll be watching, Charlie, although I might not be contributing much to this particular thread. That's nothing against you at all. I just don't like swarms of hornets and I can hear them buzzing already. You will find plenty of people here who are on either side of your thesis about slavery and its relationship (or lack thereof) to the war. But I'm glad you've joined us and I look forward to reading more from you.

 

[pamc153PA]

Hello and welcome from Pennsylvania!

 

[wrangler94]

To anyone who thinks I'm actually trying to stir hornets or rock the boat or anything else, I am not. I knew coming in with my introduction I would spark debate. I was asked to provide facts and cite sources, I have. I'm not trying to start anything or rub anyone the wrong way the first day, but it seems I've already done that since about half the greetings seem to say "welcome aboard, don't rock the boat".
I've tried to back up what I've stated with sources, the ones telling me I'm wrong and if I'm so smart I should go back in time and tell the south why they went to war aren't giving any sources as to why I'm wrong.
Point being, I'm excited to find a forum of people who want to talk about this stuff, and I don't want to come across as trying to tick people off day one. I'll watch this thread and see how the rest of the reactions to me seem to go, and sit quietly for a while.

 

[suzenatale]

To anyone who thinks I'm actually trying to stir hornets or rock the boat or anything else, I am not. I knew coming in with my introduction I would spark debate. I was asked to provide facts and cite sources, I have. I'm not trying to start anything or rub anyone the wrong way the first day, but it seems I've already done that since about half the greetings seem to say "welcome aboard, don't rock the boat".
I've tried to back up what I've stated with sources, the ones telling me I'm wrong and if I'm so smart I should go back in time and tell the south why they went to war aren't giving any sources as to why I'm wrong.
Point being, I'm excited to find a forum of people who want to talk about this stuff, and I don't want to come across as trying to tick people off day one. I'll watch this thread and see how the rest of the reactions to me seem to go, and sit quietly for a while.

I don't think you are wrong. I think those are great reasons not to secede, the problem with your argument is that they did secede, even though few had slaves and Lincoln was not trying to force immediate emancipation as you point out.

 

[wrangler94]

Between 35,000 and 50,000, primarily along the Mississippi River in Arkansas and Mississippi, southwestern Tennessee, in the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina, and the North Carolina Sounds. Foner, Fiery Trial, 241-43.

View attachment 36946

The Emancipation Proclamation, 1863

"When you are dead and in Heaven, in a thousand years that action of yours will make the Angels sing your praises."

Hannah Johnson, mother of a Northern Black soldier, writing to President Abraham Lincoln about the Emancipation Proclamation, July 31, 1863

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite that expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of African Americans, and fundamentally transformed the character of the war from a war for the Union into a war for freedom. Moreover, the proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union army and navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals_iv/sections/nonjavatext_emancipation.html

What I pasted on it's face agrees with what you posted, but as mentioned here, the "immediately free slaves" in the areas on your map were only freed based on Union victory. Otherwise it was a political move to hopefully start a slave uprising and give the south a two front war, tying up armies to control uprisings as well as the invading armies.

 

[Nathanb1]

I'd strongly suggest we save this thread for greeting and not a discussion of the war. This is not the proper forum.

Posted in Capacity as Moderator

 

[wrangler94]

Agreed. I apologize