- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Location
- Laurinburg NC
I give up what goes it mean?What does that even mean?
I give up what goes it mean?What does that even mean?
War wouldn't have happened had our colonial friends paid their taxes and the British had allowed them to steal Indian land in the Ohio Valley.War would not have happened if our southern friends didn’t choose to rebel after a free, legal election sent the country down a path of limiting slavery.
Not the subject of this thread, but there were very good reasons why Jefferson was not able to free his slaves. You might want to look into the laws of Virginia at the time, laws which were specifically written to stop manumission.And yet Jefferson did not free his slaves talk is cheap without positive action and for a man who owned over 500 slaves I find his ramblings to be both hypocritical and bizarre.
There is always Democrat Congressman Alexander Long's assertion on the floor of the House in April 1864 that when Lincoln heard the Confederates had opened fire on Sumter, his words were "I knew they would do it!"
Thanks for your response.But, they did insist on secession. Was war inevitable or not?
...Which basically means only that Confederacy leaders thought patterns were predictable.
e
War wouldn't have happened had our colonial friends paid their taxes and the British had allowed them to steal Indian land in the Ohio Valley.
Which, if true, would mean that Lincoln knew the resupply mission was hopeless. But he sent the ships anyway.
To be fair those ended before his death. I really like Jefferson and I think he made a lot of really good faith efforts at .. if not ending... slowing it down. One man can only do so much.... but by his time of death he could have freed his slaves in Virginia ... he was too debt ridden to do so... probably because of his taste for the finer things in life. He could have chosen otherwise. No one is perfect using the lens of today. I can only imagine what future generations would think of me if my life was a completely open book as his was. But I appreciate the efforts he did make in our nations slow movement towards true equality.Not the subject of this thread, but there were very good reasons why Jefferson was not able to free his slaves. You might want to look into the laws of Virginia at the time, laws which were specifically written to stop manumission.
The "free, legal election" that elected Lincoln President can hardly be reasonably said to have "sent the country down a path of limiting slavery." Presumably the writer's predicate for his use of the phrase "limiting slavery" is the idea that the Republican Party, once in control of the Congress, would repeal the Kansas-Nebraska Act. What, in fact, doing this actually means, is keeping the Africans locked up in the South; i.e., "limiting" the movement of Africans out of the South and into the Territories of the antebellum Union. The phrasing is typical of historians who claim a moral superiority for the white people of the North over the white people of the South, when both groups equally did not want to live with Africans as citizens in community.War would not have happened if our southern friends didn’t choose to rebel after a free, legal election sent the country down a path of limiting slavery.
...would repeal the Kansas-Nebraska Act. What, in fact, doing this actually means, is keeping the Africans locked up in the South; i.e., "limiting" the movement of Africans out of the South and into the Territories of the antebellum Union
I find both articles and many of the following posts unconvincing.
...In any case, the war was inevitable.
the War wouldn't have happened had our colonial friends paid their taxes and the British had allowed them to steal Indian land in the Ohio Valley.
...as long as the South was dedicated to slavery. Who doesn't know that?
... the equating tactic again. It's getting old. It goes like this: If it can be shown that "the secessionists were just as justified in their rebellion as the patriots were in their rebellion," it is hoped that will elevate the cause of the secessionists, and thereby the Confederacy in initiating the CW. (the "we just wanted to be left alone" thing only goes so far).
But, sigh, the cause of that second rebellion was quite different. The secessionist and Confederate cause was the right to own human beings like property. So the attempt to equate that with the American Revolution just doesn't work -- although it's transparent that distracting from the topic of Lincoln's instigating the CW or not is also a goal.
Some folks apparently don't know Lincoln had no objection to allowing slavery in the South in perpetuity as long as the Southern States stayed in his union.
Which CivilWarTalk site would that be? Maybe I'll have a peek at it, got a link?
Dänged little of that particular bit of ignorance about Lincoln's intentions at the beginning of the conflict to be found 'round these parts. When it is proposed it is usually quickly beaten back, I usually see it being put forth as a strawman of some sort.
And who is the privileged lot that gets to do the justifying?