Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

States rights


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#31 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,960 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 01:15 PM

No one is claiming absolute moral superiority. And North Carolina was just waffling till the last minute for political purposes most likely, although they most likely had much less slavery going on then in the deeper Southern States. We all know that Lincoln was not some kind of rabid abolitionist.

#32 Darth Urious

Darth Urious

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,437 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 01:21 PM

No one is claiming absolute moral superiority. And North Carolina was just waffling till the last minute for political purposes most likely, although they most likely had much less slavery going on then in the deeper Southern States. We all know that Lincoln was not some kind of rabid abolitionist.


Then I agree... except for the waffling til the last minute... it was almost a 50/50 split on secession until Lincoln made that move...

Don't get me wrong either, I think Lincoln had the best of intentions and was one of the best Presidents we've ever had, but as with the way war usually goes, he made some pretty crappy decisions on that front that drew NC into something we didn't really have a concrete interest in...

That said, I think there were at least around 300,000 slaves in NC at the time, and that is still an atrocity that is a black mark (no pun intended) on my state's history... but I am glad that we have some evidence that my ancestors had no part in it (even though they had the means to do so)...

#33 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,341 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 03:40 PM

NC didn't even join the Confederacy until Lincoln ordered troops to march against the South... There was something like 700 votes difference out of like 100,000 total actually sending us into secession mode... NC had strong unionist ties as well as secessionists... That order from Lincoln was the final straw, and some on the unionist side now saw the .gov as invaders...

So, continue to only see it as only or primarily a slavery thing... when for NC it was clearly not... and painting my family as being along for that ride is a disservice to what they fought for, and a slap in the face of anyone who would be opposed to the same aggressive government should they come back one day...


NC was in a no win situation. Stay with the North and they were surrounded by Southern states. I do believe NC didnt want to suceed but had no choice.

It wasn't because the South loved slavery. It's because the South felt it needed slavery for its economy to have any chance. The North didn't need it. It had an influx of cheap labor coming through Ellis Island.



Bingo. Cheap labor is what it was about. The only way the south could compete with the North was through slave labor. Amazing after 150 year this is a moot point.

#34 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,341 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 03:46 PM

Also WV didnt suceed because they didnt believe in slavery. It was all political. The counties west of the Blue Ridge wanted more control over there areas and not from Richmond.

#35 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,824 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 13 April 2011 - 04:05 PM

Anyone that think the civil war was over slavery is silly. It was about the banks and money, as always.

#36 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,457 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 05:50 PM

The southern states laid it out pretty clearly in their declarations of succession. South Carolina mentioned slavery over 80 times in theirs.

#37 Darth Urious

Darth Urious

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,437 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 06:36 PM

The southern states laid it out pretty clearly in their declarations of succession. South Carolina mentioned slavery over 80 times in theirs.


NC didn't mention it once...

#38 Darth Urious

Darth Urious

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,437 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 06:38 PM

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled "The Constitution of the United States."

We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.

We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

Done in convention at the city of Raleigh, this the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of said State.


Want me to throw a "*****" in there somewhere to make you all feel better or something?

#39 Darth Urious

Darth Urious

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,437 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 06:40 PM

As I am typing this, I am watching Stevie Ray Vaughn and Albert King on my DVR... Man, that ***** can play the blues...

#40 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,810 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 13 April 2011 - 10:27 PM

seceed

#41 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 11:15 PM

Posted Image

#42 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,447 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 11:34 PM

I've said before that the documentation my family has about my own Civil War ancestors is that none of them owned slaves at all... One died at Gettysburg and one died after he got home... Others we aren't so sure of, yet.

Slavery was certainly an issue for southerners, but it wasn't the main one... To me, saying it was is basically like saying the whole Civil Rights movement was mainly because Rosa Parks couldn't sit at the front of a bus...

To me and apparently my family, at least, it was about being opposed to a federal government telling the states what to do with their land and their peoples...


uh, this doesn't really dispute that the primary cause of the war was slavery. yes, the majority of the people who fought were poor people who either
a) felt like their home was being invaded (it was, and rightfully so) or
B) wanted to protect the institution of slavery so that they would never have to worry about comprising the under class themselves or
c) longed to fight to the death for the richest of the rich in the hopes that they may too one day reach that point on the backs of slaves (replace "slaves" with "the poor" and you have the modern day republican party)

that being said, the south seceded over slavery. the comparison i posted between the two constitutions shows that little was done in the way of "states rights", other than the "right" to own people.

The issue of slavery directly led to secession. Secession led to the Civil War. So yes, slavery caused/led to the civil war.

No, individual soldiers weren't fighting to keep their slaves, but how does that change anything?


this

NC didn't mention it once...


the confederate constitution that they were all about sure did

#43 ChucktownK

ChucktownK

    Gitmo Nation Detainee

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,043 posts

Posted 14 April 2011 - 02:19 AM

to own people.

http://politicaltick...ericans/?hpt=C1

hmm

~vice president of the confederacy

http://civilwarwiki....erstone_Address

then there's this comparison of the constitution and the confederate constitution: http://www.filibuste...ons.com/CSA.htm

are you one of the 25% of americans, or 40% of white southerners, who sympathize with the confederacy? one of the 42% who believes that slavery was not the main reason for secession? what say you?


Well...

When people learn to do real research about history instead of believing every white-washed textbook the government pushes, then they'll learn that there was a major economic choke-hold (Morrill Tariff caused the south to lose 25% of it's exports) put on the South by the North to fund the almost bankrupt North and it's industrial revolution. People somehow have the notion that every household in the South had a gigantic plantation and a hoard of slaves.

If you think poor Southerners (the vast majority of the Southern Army) went to war and died for some rich @sshole's slaves...now who's being naive? Lincoln was surrounded by racists in his cabinet and his generals; the most well-known was Sherman and Grant. Any historian will tell you that.

#44 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 14 April 2011 - 02:45 AM

Well...

When people learn to do real research about history instead of believing every white-washed textbook the government pushes, then they'll learn that there was a major economic choke-hold (Morrill Tariff caused the south to lose 25% of it's exports) put on the South by the North to fund the almost bankrupt North and it's industrial revolution. People somehow have the notion that every household in the South had a gigantic plantation and a hoard of slaves.

If you think poor Southerners (the vast majority of the Southern Army) went to war and died for some rich @sshole's slaves...now who's being naive? Lincoln was surrounded by racists in his cabinet and his generals; the most well-known was Sherman and Grant. Any historian will tell you that.


A-fugging-men

#45 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,609 posts

Posted 14 April 2011 - 07:23 AM

So...

being racist = supporting slavery

Edited by Panthro, 14 April 2011 - 07:28 AM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.