Slavery; THE Cause?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aphillbilly

Guest
Neil,

Was it you who said the man who bought and provided the bullets for a murderer's gun was just as guilty?

tommy
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
A

aphillbilly

Guest
Neil,

For some reason I thought there was a discussion in recent months re gun-bullets-murder-responsibility.

The belief being that if you knew a man was going to commit murder and you provided the bullets to do so, then you were just as guilty as the man that pulled the trigger. My thought was, for some reason, that it was you that said it. I tried a ‘search’ of the forum but I must confess, while I dearly love the new forum, the search feature has me completely bumfuzzled. If it wasn’t you said it, I apologize for the question. I begin now to wonder if I even read it or imagined it. A not uncommon occurrence in my life. I did not miss the decadence but I do miss it :smile:

t
 
A

aphillbilly

Guest
Bows deeply to Dawna......Thank You. My sanity was in question and you saved me.


Neil, it is on 2nd, 9th & 10th Amendment Thread.


posted
03-13-2005, 07:19 PM
In my opinion, with as little legal background as 'Law & Order' series will provide, I view the supplier of the bullets as just as guilty as the man who pulls the trigger.


03-12-2005, 08:16 PM
The bullet theory is mine, not Cash's.

Ok. I was involved in other things at the time (Helper and being told I was....grrrrrrrr) and really wasn't following this. But regardless of legal opinion, is this your personal belief?


tommy
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,146
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Tommy,

Sorry, I took your question out of context and thought you were refering to the post I gave concerning Frederick Douglass.

I think what I said concerning the man providing the bullets for another man's gun who planned to commit a murder was something to this effect; the man who provided the bullets knew that the man with the gun was going to commit a murder but gave him the bullets anyway.

That help at all?

Unionblue
 
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
35
Location
Virginia
I don't believe that slavery was the direct cause of the war but it had its influences. There were several differences between the North & the South including political, economical and cultural. I believe that the war was caused by a summation of all the above.Mike
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MKotyk said:
I don't believe that slavery was the direct cause of the war but it had its influences. There were several differences between the North & the South including political, economical and cultural. I believe that the war was caused by a summation of all the above.Mike

Greetings, Mike.

What do you say about Mississippi's telling us, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery?" [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]

Or Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, telling us, "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." [Alexander Stephens, 21 Mar 1861, Savannah, Georgia]

Or Lawrence M. Keitt in the South Carolina Secession Convention saying, "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." [Lawrence M. Keitt, South Carolina Secession Convention, 22 Dec 1860]

Regards,
Cash
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
298
Mike, Dawna and Cash -

I agree with Cash on this one. It's a rare opportunity for me to say that. :smile:

Mike and Dawna - there are certainly other reasons why the south wanted independence; economic issues, tariffs, stubborn pride, etc. But I believe that all of the 'other reasons' would have resolved themselves in the normal course of the political process. Slavery is the one cause sufficient to result in secession. IMO, without it, secession never happens.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
Hear! Hear! Russ.

Dig deep enough in any of the other reasons and you will find slavery at the bottom of it.
 
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
35
Location
Virginia
I can understand the upper class wishing to preserve slavery, but not your typical farmer or tradesman who made up the soldiers of Lee's army. Why would they wish to defend an institution that takes jobs and money away from them? Why in the world would they even want to protect it? It baffles the mind.

I also cannot see the north 'all teary eyed' over the issue of blacks being enslaved. Particularly when you consider that blacks were looked down upon more in the north than in the south. Whatever the propaganda, blacks were not treated as equals in northern states and even while slavery was illegal they still had second class citizenry. The north was not the open minded society it pretended to be. They treated the Irish along with Poles, Russians, Germans et al with as much scorn as they did the blacks . Let us not forget the treatment of the Indians. In my opinion, their story should be classified along with the Jews as a Holocaust and our country should be ashamed of its policies towards them. Basically in the north, if you weren't a W.A.S.P. you could write off any attempt to belong in 'proper' society and in some ways, immigrants were no better off in the new world as they were in the old.

I can see patriotism as a greater influence on both sides to fight than the issue of slavery did. The north wanted to defend the Union; the south to defend their state from northern aggression.
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
307
Location
Blaine, Wa.
MK,
Right on, brother! There are an awful lot of folks that will argue that point with you!, I, of course, am not one of them. Many have put the 'want, or wish, to be a slave owner' label, on the average Southern fighting man. In spite of the ranting otherwise, your point of, patriotism, as a greater influence, to fight and defend their state from Northern aggression, is well made, and by far, the main reason for average 'Johnny Reb', going to War in the first place.

I just cannot fathom the average Confederate soldier giving up his life for the privilege of a well to do plantation owners' right to own slaves. True, he may not have cared much for the 'darkies', but he wasn't going to lay down his life to keep them, either, because they didn't mean that much to him, meaning, that he wasn't about to die to keep them as slaves. The hypocrocy of the North dealing with this matter slays me, but then, they won the war, didn't they? So I suppose they can tell the story the way they want to, and we're supposed to believe it, pretty much without question, even to the contrary of what anyone else may say.

With Respect,
SgtCSA
 

dawna

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,722
Location
canada
MKotyk said:
I can see patriotism as a greater influence on both sides to fight than the issue of slavery did. The north wanted to defend the Union; the south to defend their state from northern aggression.
Gentlemen:

I too find the hypocricy and the moral highground taken by the North as quite difficult to swallow. All Americans believed that blacks were morally and intellectually inferior, and that it would be preposterous for the two races to live together on equal footing. Without this exclusive mindset you can't possibly subjugate an entire race of people.

Slavery was certainly an issue, but not the only issue. If you combine the Republican party's attempts at hiding greed behind anti-slavery morality, and the arrogance of the Manifest Destiny, the audacity is quite startling. And the Northern capitalist's dream of profit making in the west did not include living with blacks; while the Northern war profiteers sat back and watched their riches pile up, the South was completely and utterly dismantled.

Dawna

As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular. ~Oscar Wilde~
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
I can understand the upper class wishing to preserve slavery, but not your typical farmer or tradesman who made up the soldiers of Lee's army. Why would they wish to defend an institution that takes jobs and money away from them? Why in the world would they even want to protect it? It baffles the mind.
-----------------------
Very simply, about 1/3 of the families in the south owned slaves. That's a sizeable portion. Then there were a number of folks who supported the institution. Many nonslaveholding farmers rented slaves. Some nonslaveholders were slave catchers.

But the institution of slavery was not just an economic institution providing labor. It was also a social institution guaranteeing white supremacy. As long as there was slavery, every white man was superior in status to every black man, and blacks would never be viewed as the equal of whites.



I also cannot see the north 'all teary eyed' over the issue of blacks being enslaved. Particularly when you consider that blacks were looked down upon more in the north than in the south.
------------------
That's simply not the case. Now, Northerners were quite racist as well. I'm not saying anything to the contrary. But claiming they were looked down upon MORE in the North than in the south is not true. Blacks in the North may have been subject to prejudice, but they could also keep everything they earned. They could move to other cities. They could own businesses. They could own property. Except for Delaware and 18 elderly slaves in New Jersey, 100% of the blacks in the North were free.

I'm afraid you've fallen for some propaganda. The actual history on this is far different from what you've been led to believe.

Regards,
Cash
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
dawna said:
If you combine the Republican party's attempts at hiding greed behind anti-slavery morality, and the arrogance of the Manifest Destiny, the audacity is quite startling.
-----------

But Dawna, it was southerners who made the Manifest Destiny cry, in order to build an empire for slavery.

Regards,
Cash
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
229
Location
Ohio near Cleveland
Cash;

First of all, please explain what states you believe are “north” if we go by the sides in the ACW you have to count the three slave states in the Union as North…

Secondly, racism was VERY strong in the North. A northerner would be highly insulted to be “dirtied” by a black man brushing against him, while down south they probably played together as children.

As to move where they want and own there own business, in “dark town” sure, but not “where they wanted” or they would have been burned to the ground.
 

dawna

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,722
Location
canada
...it was southerners who made the Manifest Destiny cry, in order to build an empire for slavery.

Sorry Cash, but any intellect I might have harboured seems to be rivalled only by garden tools this morning, and I'm not following your logic? :smile:

Dawna
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
First of all, please explain what states you believe are “north” if we go by the sides in the ACW you have to count the three slave states in the Union as North…
-----------------
Of the slave states that remained in the Union, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were all southern states. Delaware was a northern state.


Secondly, racism was VERY strong in the North. A northerner would be highly insulted to be “dirtied” by a black man brushing against him, while down south they probably played together as children.
-----------------
I've never said racism was not very strong in the North. I objected to the statement that blacks were looked down on MORE in the North than in the South.

Regards,
Cash
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
dawna said:
...it was southerners who made the Manifest Destiny cry, in order to build an empire for slavery.

Sorry Cash, but any intellect I might have harboured seems to be rivalled only by garden tools this morning, and I'm not following your logic? :smile:

Dawna
------------
Dawna,

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Your post appeared to me to put the blame of Manifest Destiny on Northerners, or the Republican Party: "If you combine the Republican party's attempts at hiding greed behind anti-slavery morality, and the arrogance of the Manifest Destiny, the audacity is quite startling."

I was merely pointing out that the "blame" for Manifest Destiny, if any should attach, should more rightly go to the southerners who wanted to expand the United States in order to expand slavery.

Regards,
Cash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top