100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why do Democrats deny their direct ties to slavery and take | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Missouri and KY did not secede until oct and Nov of 1861.
Their reasons did not mention slavery either. 7 did, and 6 didnt. The Civil war would never have happened had it not been for the trampling of states rights by the Fed gov. (Republican at the time) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there.
They didn't because that wasn't their intent. They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC seceded after the Fed gov threatened to attack across their land the State of SC. That's why there is no mention of slavery. Here, Ga is more specific. They were one of the first to secede. Make sure you read what the say about the Republicans interests in power. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. This part! The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. dude are you okay or are smoking something???? read your own post! It clearly made my point for me! The abolishment of slavery goes back to the founding but the clear depedency of slavery made it impossible politically! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there. They didn't because that wasn't their intent. They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind. the north could not survive without the south! The north also after the succesion was torn politically over slavery! Not all the north was abolishnists, nor all republican! you act as if one poitical ideology had the agreement of all its citizens! It took time to get the legislation thru because even though a republican idea it was not a popular one among the entire country north and south! The South just flatly refused so we said okay we will force you! It was always there intent, why else would they take such an unpopular idea and make it their political platform? your argument is not well thought out and quite biased, i have already proved you wrong on multiple occasions and when i do you wont comment on that you just ignore i said it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC seceded after the Fed gov threatened to attack across their land the State of SC. That's why there is no mention of slavery. Here, Ga is more specific. They were one of the first to secede. Make sure you read what the say about the Republicans interests in power. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. This part! The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. dude are you okay or are smoking something???? read your own post! It clearly made my point for me! The abolishment of slavery goes back to the founding but the clear depedency of slavery made it impossible politically! What they are saying there is that when the constitution was signed they only ratified it and joined in a union of the Unite States if their interests were maintained. When they were, then they agreed and ratified. Then all of a sudden, even though all parties agreed that the end of slavery was best. North and South alike, that they weren't economically ready and without a full amendment to the constitution they were being forced. Forced to do something that was guaranteed in the constitution. Therefore they were free as in the constitution to break from the union. Contract breached. States rights! Now mind you the only ones who took this stance were the first 7. There could not have been a Civil war without one side or the other having to impose on another states rights and invade upon their land. The North were the only ones threatening that. The 7 alone did not have the strength to challenge anyone militarily. The other 6 were reacting to a direct threat upon their sovereignty. Also as granted in the constitution (a contract of agreement) the Republican Party was attempting too breach. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there. They didn't because that wasn't their intent. They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind. the north could not survive without the south! The north also after the succesion was torn politically over slavery! Not all the north was abolishnists, nor all republican! you act as if one poitical ideology had the agreement of all its citizens! It took time to get the legislation thru because even though a republican idea it was not a popular one among the entire country north and south! The South just flatly refused so we said okay we will force you! It was always there intent, why else would they take such an unpopular idea and make it their political platform? your argument is not well thought out and quite biased, i have already proved you wrong on multiple occasions and when i do you wont comment on that you just ignore i said it! The South wanted to end slavery. Invention had not yet caught up to demand though. They were an agriculture economy which supplied 80% of England's cotton as well as most of the worlds. Including the North! To just end slavery would have been and was economically devastating. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC seceded after the Fed gov threatened to attack across their land the State of SC. That's why there is no mention of slavery. Here, Ga is more specific. They were one of the first to secede. Make sure you read what the say about the Republicans interests in power. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. This part! The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. dude are you okay or are smoking something???? read your own post! It clearly made my point for me! The abolishment of slavery goes back to the founding but the clear depedency of slavery made it impossible politically! What they are saying there is that when the constitution was signed they only ratified it and joined in a union of the Unite States if their interests were maintained. When they were, then they agreed and ratified. Then all of a sudden, even though all parties agreed that the end of slavery was best. North and South alike, that they weren't economically ready and without a full amendment to the constitution they were being forced. Forced to do something that was guaranteed in the constitution. Therefore they were free as in the constitution to break from the union. Contract breached. States rights! Now mind you the only ones who took this stance were the first 7. There could not have been a Civil war without one side or the other having to impose on another states rights and invade upon their land. The North were the only ones threatening that. The 7 alone did not have the strength to challenge anyone militarily. The other 6 were reacting to a direct threat upon their sovereignty. Also as granted in the constitution (a contract of agreement) the Republican Party was attempting too breach. why did they want to breach the contract? we survived economically so they where wrong and it was time! How does it not become about slavery when you stated yourself that they wanted to breach the contract and abolish slavery and the south said no so the north invaded. You make no sense! Your saying the south agreed we needed to abolish slavery just not yet right? dont you think maybe this was a political ploy rather than the opposite? I understand your point in standing up for the confederate army and all but your wrong! The South has tried to rewrite history as well they name their schools after old confederate generals and so forth! sorry man just cause you quote a confederate doesnt mean crap! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there. They didn't because that wasn't their intent. They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind. the north could not survive without the south! The north also after the succesion was torn politically over slavery! Not all the north was abolishnists, nor all republican! you act as if one poitical ideology had the agreement of all its citizens! It took time to get the legislation thru because even though a republican idea it was not a popular one among the entire country north and south! The South just flatly refused so we said okay we will force you! It was always there intent, why else would they take such an unpopular idea and make it their political platform? your argument is not well thought out and quite biased, i have already proved you wrong on multiple occasions and when i do you wont comment on that you just ignore i said it! The South wanted to end slavery. Invention had not yet caught up to demand though. They were an agriculture economy which supplied 80% of England's cotton as well as most of the worlds. Including the North! To just end slavery would have been and was economically devastating. yes i know your stating the obvious now! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the North didn't end slavery in their territory at the beginning of the war. One can only come to the evident conclussion that the true Republican interest was as mentioned in the first 7 declarations of secession.
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there. They didn't because that wasn't their intent. They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind. the north could not survive without the south! The north also after the succesion was torn politically over slavery! Not all the north was abolishnists, nor all republican! you act as if one poitical ideology had the agreement of all its citizens! It took time to get the legislation thru because even though a republican idea it was not a popular one among the entire country north and south! The South just flatly refused so we said okay we will force you! It was always there intent, why else would they take such an unpopular idea and make it their political platform? your argument is not well thought out and quite biased, i have already proved you wrong on multiple occasions and when i do you wont comment on that you just ignore i said it! The South wanted to end slavery. Invention had not yet caught up to demand though. They were an agriculture economy which supplied 80% of England's cotton as well as most of the worlds. Including the North! To just end slavery would have been and was economically devastating. oh i get it the south didnt want to end slavery because their poor white citizens could not handle an economic down turn right? yeah that makes sense! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of fighting to end slavery was a rouse. It was not a contributing factor in the motivation of the soldiers of the CSA to fight.
They didnt own slaves. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Mon 12/07/09 08:21 PM
|
|
If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there. They didn't because that wasn't their intent. They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind. the north could not survive without the south! The north also after the succesion was torn politically over slavery! Not all the north was abolishnists, nor all republican! you act as if one poitical ideology had the agreement of all its citizens! It took time to get the legislation thru because even though a republican idea it was not a popular one among the entire country north and south! The South just flatly refused so we said okay we will force you! It was always there intent, why else would they take such an unpopular idea and make it their political platform? your argument is not well thought out and quite biased, i have already proved you wrong on multiple occasions and when i do you wont comment on that you just ignore i said it! The South wanted to end slavery. Invention had not yet caught up to demand though. They were an agriculture economy which supplied 80% of England's cotton as well as most of the worlds. Including the North! To just end slavery would have been and was economically devastating. yes i know your stating the obvious now! To just end slavery would have been and was economically devastating. Demoncrats still believe that. That comment right there is why I equate employers using Illegals is the same as holding slaves. Democrats are fighting to keep their slaves and if amnesty were granted, that would just force companies to get more Illegals. Democrats, as long as they refuse to enforce Immigration Law, will never run out of slaves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the North didn't end slavery in their territory at the beginning of the war. One can only come to the evident conclussion that the true Republican interest was as mentioned in the first 7 declarations of secession. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. nope cant come to that conclusion at all cause they did do it and slaves where mostly in the south! not to mention thats a lot of speculation when they clearly stated they wanted to end slavery. Your obviously the type to beleive in UFO's, black helicopters, secret societies, we didnt land on the moon and so on! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of fighting to end slavery was a rouse. It was not a contributing factor in the motivation of the soldiers of the CSA to fight. They didnt own slaves. oh yes i completely know and they wanted their daughters dating the sub human race as well right? I MEAN IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM AND THE SOUTH IS A PILAR OF SOCIETY IN TERMS OF RACE RELATIONS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. THE POOR SOUTH THEY ARE JUST SO MISUNDERSTOOD! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Republicans had not been opportunists and really wanted to end slavery why didn't they offer ideas, incentives, or alternative to the South's need for manual labor?
Like today, solutions never entered their minds. They instead taxed every ship load of cotton that left a southern port to finance their own interests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AH Fanta your a southern man educated in the southern school system from 1965 thru 1978 roughly. I see so clearly now! Kinda lost your democrat party and your forefathers wont let you vote republican eh? I mean sir do you realize that your statements clearly are in line with racist rhetoric of the civil rights era? Are you aware of that? My grandmother was a racist from Arkansas and completely refused to aknowledge my wife and kids and i have heard this jargen from them as well! need to worsh yeer history a little i rekon! LMAO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Republicans had not been opportunists and really wanted to end slavery why didn't they offer ideas, incentives, or alternative to the South's need for manual labor? Like today, solutions never entered their minds. They instead taxed every ship load of cotton that left a southern port to finance their own interests. yes i see your motive now! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below is an actual interveiw with general Forest! He states the KKK give their support to the democrat party! Now you already admitted he was the founder as a matter of fact you pointed it out. I agree with you, but you can now change your opinion and say he is not the founder because he always claimed he was not even though there is clear evidence he was! But you didnt dispute he was the founder you disputed he was not a democrat and had nothing to do with politics. just read it! sorry your just wrong! He clearly states that the KKK as a political orginazation and it's intent! "Well, sir, there is such an organization, not only in Tennessee, but all over the South, and its numbers have not been exaggerated." "What are its numbers, general?" "In Tennessee there are over 40,000; in all the Southern states they number about 550,000 men." "What is the character of the organization; May I inquire?" "Yes, sir. It is a protective political military organization. I am willing to show any man the constitution of the society. The members are sworn to recognize the government of the United States. It does not say anything at all about the government of Tennessee. Its objects originally were protection against Loyal Leagues and the Grand Army of the Republic; but after it became general it was found that political matters and interests could best be promoted within it, and it was then made a political organization, giving it support, of course, to the democratic party." "But is the organization connected throughout the state?" "Yes, it is. In each voting precinct there is a captain, who, in addition to his other duties, is required to make out a list of names of men in his precinct, giving all the radicals and all the democrats who are positively known, and showing also the doubtful on both sides and of both colors. This list of names is forwarded to the grand commander of the State, who is thus enabled to know are our friends and who are not." "Can you, or are you at liberty to give me the name of the commanding officer of this State?" "No, it would be impolitic." He didn't say he was a democrat nor that the kkk was democrat. So you still have failed. Okay he founded the KKK, and i quote "and it was then made a political organization, giving it support, of course, to the democratic party." so as the founder and head of this orginazation that he founded they give their support to the democrat party, but he was not a democrat? As a confederate General he took his commands from the democrat party, lost the war and i quote again "and it was then made a political organization" The ku klux he states later in the interveiw. Come on i am not gonna call you any names, but are you honest? I mean really you can not conclude the democrat party founded the KKK? democrats lose the civil war...... One of the democrats most popular generals founds a new political orginazation called the ku klux right after losing the war. the ku Klux begin enforcing democratic ideology thoughout america when they lose in the ballot box. The other evidence is overwhelming and it is in the congessional records! Most politicians don't even deny it this point they just say they have changed! You see whether you admit you are wrong or not you have proved a point! As a democrat you refuse to admit the wrong of your party and are willing to lie for them! I wont i plainly state when my party is wrong! He was not a democrat and the kkk was created by him. So the dems did not create the KKK as previously stated. I am not a democrat so I must have another reason for not allowing a lie to happen, huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of fighting to end slavery was a rouse. It was not a contributing factor in the motivation of the soldiers of the CSA to fight. They didnt own slaves. oh yes i completely know and they wanted their daughters dating the sub human race as well right? I MEAN IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM AND THE SOUTH IS A PILAR OF SOCIETY IN TERMS OF RACE RELATIONS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. THE POOR SOUTH THEY ARE JUST SO MISUNDERSTOOD! Not even funny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Emancipation proclamation was onlt a tool of war.
Slavery in the United States ended in the mid-1860s. Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863 was a masterful propaganda tactic, but in truth, it proclaimed free only those slaves outside the control of the Federal government--that is, only those in areas still controlled by the Confederacy. The legal end to slavery in the nation came in December 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, it declared: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm |
|
|
|
|
