Author Topic: reb or yank  (Read 17948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 1911crazy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4793
  • Gender: Male
reb or yank
« Reply #210 on: January 26, 2005, 12:45:44 AM »
In comming back to this post and reading it I guess it was a sad time in our history when we turned on each other.  Did anyone really win in that war?  Does anyone ever win in any war?  

I wonder if the south won how would we be different?  Would it have changed our history that much to this day?

I don't care if your from the north or south there's a little rebel and a little country way of life in all of us and thats what counts.      

Plus the old ways of living off the land shouldn't be forgotten too. I think a lot has been lost already of the old ways.        

Will the south rise again?  I hope so if need be to save our country from the invasion we just may see from within someday soon.  There just maybe a time comming to join forces.                            BigBill

Offline BeanMan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 137
reb or yank
« Reply #211 on: June 12, 2005, 05:24:20 PM »
I've never lived in either the North or the South.  First off I'd say I'm an American but I guess I'd call myself a Westerner.  I'm from Colorado and proud of that.

BeanMan

Offline HotGuns

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
reb or yank
« Reply #212 on: June 22, 2005, 04:34:27 PM »
Being a Navy brat, I have lived in Massachussetts,Rhode Island,Illinois,Virginia,Arkansas and California.

I have lots of kinfolk in Massachussetts,RI and NY on my moms side, and she was born in Boston.

On my dads side iare cousins from Arkansas,Louisiana,Texas and Oklahoma.

Lots of kin of both sides died in that war and our family heritage is heavy on both sides. Many on my wifes side served as officers in the South and as many on my Moms side for the North as well.

With that being said, knowing the differences in culture, attitude and perception of those on both sides...I can understand why there was a war between the north and the south...which in some ways are different enough to be two separate countires.

I guess that it took a war to galvanize this country into the greatest and most prosperous country the world has ever seen. I am proud to be an American and consider myself blessed to be born one.

With that being said...

I would have gone with the South and killed the first SOB that thought he was doing the right thing by invading my homeland here in Arkansas.

Offline IntrepidWizard

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
reb or yank
« Reply #213 on: June 22, 2005, 04:39:27 PM »
If the south was successfull we would be three nations,West,North and South but they were not so we ,who have been here all this time are neither Johnny Rebs or Billy Yankee,we are all Americans.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -- George Washington

Offline HotGuns

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
reb or yank
« Reply #214 on: June 24, 2005, 01:58:30 AM »
Hey Intrepid...


I think that most of us here realize that the war had been over for quite some time and that we are all Americans.

The original question of this thread was asking what side would you have been on. I dont think its a bad question, and I do think that it is one that most folks that know anything about the Civil War have asked themselves one time or another.

One thing is for danged sure...

If the South had won, the SCOTUS wouldn't be making asinine rulings about private property rights vs. "government" rights like the last one they did which basically says that any jerk that wants to put up a big building where you live can take your land through emminet domain proceedings for the "good of the government" by claiming that its would support a higher tax base.
 Those judges ought to be held accountable for their desicions, but as it has been for a while they seem to ignore the US Constitution on a daily basis and rule however they dang well please. Its that kind of abuse that started the First Civil War...or the War of Northern Aggresion" as folks that know history like to call it...

Offline IntrepidWizard

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
reb or yank
« Reply #215 on: June 24, 2005, 03:18:30 AM »
You are right Gun,but different times call for different actions,now we must get every Lib out of office.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -- George Washington

Offline IntrepidWizard

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
reb or yank
« Reply #216 on: June 28, 2005, 01:42:03 PM »
A very gentle Southern lady was driving across the Savannah River

 Bridge in Georgia one day. As she neared the top of the bridge, she

 noticed a young man fixing (ready) to jump.

 She stopped her car, rolled down the window and said, "Please don't

 jump, think of your dear mother and father."

 He replied, "Mom and Dad are both dead; I'm going to jump."

 She said, "Well, think of your wife and children."

 He replied, "I'm not married and I don't have any kids."

 She said, "Well, think of Robert E. Lee."

 He replied, ''Who's Robert E. Lee?''

 She replied, ''Well bless your heart, just go ahead and jump, you dumb

 ass Yankee."
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -- George Washington

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #217 on: July 27, 2005, 06:26:53 PM »
Quote from: HotGuns


"I would have gone with the South and killed the first SOB that thought he was doing the right thing by invading my homeland here in Arkansas."

What would youn have done if your family was black and in slavery?
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline HotGuns

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
reb or yank
« Reply #218 on: August 12, 2005, 05:25:43 AM »
Dont know. Since I not black, and never was a slave, I dont pretend to know the answers to that.

Do you ?

Being that slavery wasnt an issue until later in the war when the efforts on the northern side were less than stellar,I doubt that slaves had anymore of an idea than anyone else did about those issues.

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #219 on: August 19, 2005, 05:04:02 PM »
Quote from: HotGuns
Quote from: HotGuns
Dont know. Since I not black, and never was a slave, I dont pretend to know the answers to that.

Do you ?

Response:
I suppose I would have killed the SOB that held my family in slavery.
Wouldn't you?



Being that slavery wasnt an issue until later in the war when the efforts on the northern side were less than stellar,I doubt that slaves had anymore of an idea than anyone else did about those issues.


Response: Slavery was always the issue.

Here is a quote from Lincoln's second inaugural address:
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline Jim N Mo.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
reb or yank
« Reply #220 on: August 19, 2005, 07:21:27 PM »
Slavery may of always been an issue to some , but do not think it was the issue , especially early in the war . Lincoln was more interested in stopping British recognition of the South when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation than he was in freeing the slaves . How many slaves did it free on January !rst. 1863 ? Zero ! It also gave the South a loophole to possible end the war by returning to the Union before it went into effect and be able to keep their slaves , as it only applied to those areas that were in rebellion to the United States . Here is a part of his famous letter to Horace Greeley , does it sound like Slavery is the issue ?

   I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Here is the link to the complete letter .
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #221 on: August 20, 2005, 12:05:24 PM »
Lincoln was anti-slavery.
He made that obvious in his Coopers Union speech and in the Lincoln Douglas debates. (House divided cannot stand.)
When he was elected, the slave states started seceding to preserve slavery.
Lincoln believed he was elected President of the whole country, and had a first priority of preserving the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was "legal" in Lincoln's mind because you can deprive the enemy of its property in war time.
The Emancipation Proclamation was also another step toward ending slavery, which was also a goal of Lincoln.
Lincoln was willing to live with slavery in the south a little longer in order to avoid war and preserve the Union.
The south was not willing to live with an anti-slavery President.



The south seceded because Lincoln said slavery was wrong.

One of the times Lincoln said it was wrong, was in his Coopers Union Speech.
Here is a link to that speech:

http://www.thelincolnmuseum.org/new/research/cooper.html

Here is a quote from the speech:

"Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively."

Please read the speech.
Then read it again a couple more times.
Then you may understand cause of the Civil War.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline HotGuns

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
reb or yank
« Reply #222 on: August 20, 2005, 08:33:20 PM »
Then you may understand cause of the Civil War.

Wrong.

Try reading some of the older history books, the pre 80's era before "revisionist" history became the accepted norm by the liberal intelligenstia.

The end of slavery was nothing more than a by product of the Civil war.

Taxation and unfair tariffs by northern senators and congressmen was the reason for the war.

Slavery more than likely would have been become unprofitable as the mechanized age progressed. Farm machines began doing the work of many slaves and they didn't have to be fed or kept in housing. Lincon was smart enough to reconize this and knew that noone was willing to die for a bunch of slaves....more so on the northern side,since it was more prevalent in the south.

It you want to belive that the War of Northern aggresion was fought over slavery and that nothing else was a contributing factor, that is your purogative.

Offline Jim N Mo.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
reb or yank
« Reply #223 on: August 20, 2005, 10:07:35 PM »
Hotguns is correct that people may have any view that they want about the cause or causes of the war . What none of them have ever been able to explain to me is how the slave owners , which made up only 10 percent of the Southern population , were able to convince the other 90 percent to make the sacrifices that they did for 4 long years , if Slavery was the main or only cause of the war . Many Southern whites would of even  been much better off if Slavery was abolished as they did not benefit from it and their labor was less in demand because of it . Many soldiers came from this very group yet they joined up to fight the North .
    Also what about  the Northern troops who threatened to throw down their muskets and go home after the Emancipation Proclamation was announced as it was felt that their efforts were now more to free a people than to save a Union . This was not isolated by any means and included officers who resigned their commissions because of it  .
    Do I think Slavery was right ? No I do not . Did many people in 1860 believe it was wrong ? Yes they did and Lincoln was certainly one of these people ,  but I do not feel he would of endangered the Union to put an end to it .

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #224 on: August 21, 2005, 08:32:14 AM »
Lincoln's priorities included saving the Union and ending slavery. In that order. He said he was willing to abide slavery a little longer to save the Union. Saving the Union came first.

The cause of the war, and the motivations of particular individuals to fight, are two different things. Lincoln made his anti slavery views well known in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Coopers Union speech. The Coopers Union speech is what propelled Lincoln into receiving the Republican nomination. When Lincoln was elected President, the south began the secession. The legislatures of the seceding states were not composed of poor, non-slaveholders who wanted to see the end of slavery. The legislatures were controlled by wealthy slave owning planters.

The reason for secession was to preserve slavery. The legislatures said as much.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

Many poor southerners who did not own slaves were still in favor of the institution, as it helped keep them from being in the lowest of the social classes.

Lincoln knew the secession was over slavery, and said so in both of his two inaugural addresses.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline Augustus McCrae

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
reb or yank
« Reply #225 on: August 21, 2005, 01:21:32 PM »
Lincolns priorities were a large centralized government. He was the first of many POTUS to wipe his *** with the constitution. And last but not least he was a lawyer and a politician!
I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him.

                                                                       Mark Twain

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #226 on: August 23, 2005, 04:37:23 PM »
Quote from: HotGuns
Then you may understand cause of the Civil War.

Wrong.

Try reading some of the older history books, the pre 80's era before "revisionist" history became the accepted norm by the liberal intelligenstia.

The end of slavery was nothing more than a by product of the Civil war.

Taxation and unfair tariffs by northern senators and congressmen was the reason for the war.



Response:
The claims that the civil war was not about slavery is the "revisionist" version.
The historical documents at the time of secession say it was about slavery. Lincoln said it was about slavery. The Declarations of Causes for Secession issued by the seceding southern states say it was about slavery.
The "historical" documents you refer to were written by southern apologists after the war.
(I suppose you don't believe that the holocaust ever occurred either, due to the influence of revisionist historians.)
The taxes and tariffs you refer to were enacted before Lincoln became President.
While a southern pro-slavery President was in office, there was no secession.
When Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery Republican platform, then the south seceded.
There seems to be a profitable industry these days of southern apologists making claim that the war was not about slavery. They have fooled lots of people.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline Bush Master

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
reb or yank
« Reply #227 on: August 25, 2005, 07:31:23 AM »
Ironfoot, you keep picking and choosing only the parts of the documents you think make your point. You must look at all of them in their entirety to get the big picture. Lincoln was a tyrant who wanted to install a overbearing central government and, 140 years later, we can see that his goal was achieved. Lincoln cared not one whit about the slaves or their plight, he cared about power and usurping the Constitution. I don't understand why you continue to idolize him, he certainly doesn't deserve your admiration, he deserves your scorn. Quite possibly the worst man to ever hold the office of president.

Offline Bush Master

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
reb or yank
« Reply #228 on: August 25, 2005, 09:33:03 AM »
I also feel compelled to remind you that the institution of slavery was doomed. It was as good as gone, Lincoln or no Lincoln, war or no war, slavery would have been over and done with before the turn of the century. The industrial revolution and the rising cost of keeping and maintaining slaves would have seen to that.

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #229 on: August 29, 2005, 05:24:39 PM »
What act of tyranny did Lincoln commit that led to secession? Lincoln hadn't had a chance to do anything as president before the south seceded. The south seceded because of Lincoln's outspoken views against slavery. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, and to put slavery on the road to extinction. The south rebelled in an effort to preserve slavery. There is a profitable industry trying to convince people that the rebellion was about something other than slavery. It is interesting that many southerners claim "my geat, great grandfather did not own slaves and did not fight to preserve slavery". Do you really think he fought over tariffs?  I am not picking the parts of the historical documents that support my position. I am pointing out that the historical documents support my position. The civil war was a rebellion to preserve slavery. The tyrants were the people who would use force to try to overthrow a presidential election in an effort to preserve their interest in their slave property.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #230 on: August 29, 2005, 05:27:07 PM »
Quote from: Bush Master
I also feel compelled to remind you that the institution of slavery was doomed. It was as good as gone, Lincoln or no Lincoln, war or no war, slavery would have been over and done with before the turn of the century. The industrial revolution and the rising cost of keeping and maintaining slaves would have seen to that.


If the south had believed that at the time, they might not have rebelled.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline HotGuns

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
reb or yank
« Reply #231 on: August 30, 2005, 05:33:58 PM »
Ironfoot...

If you want to belive that the War of Northern Agression was fought over a bunch of slaves, more power to ya.

Theres an old saying here in the South that says "Dont piss down my back and tell me it raining".

Since the Emancipation Proclamation made slaves in the south "free"...

how do you account for the slaves that fought on the side of the Confederacy ?

or is that a "myth" too ?

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #232 on: August 30, 2005, 05:57:51 PM »
Hi Hotguns

One fourth of the Union soldiers were black by the end of the war.
What percentage of the South's soldiers were black?

How do I account for slaves fighting for the south?
1. They could be ordered to do so, upon pain of death.
2. Most could not read and probably got their false '"information" about the war from their southern owners.
If you were a slave, would you fight for your owner if you knew better?
Obviously they didn't know better, because their owners would not allow them full education privileges.

Oh, and here is a quote from Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession:
"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. 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."

Here is another quote from the same document:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

Not about slavery?
Who do you think you are kidding?


ironfoot
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline HotGuns

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
reb or yank
« Reply #233 on: September 03, 2005, 05:26:51 AM »
Ironfoot...you amaze me.

You pick only what you like out of historical documentts and tout your  reasons as being the ONLY reason for the civil war while ignoring all of the other factors.

While I agree that slavery was an issue, it wasnt the only issue and it wasnt the main issue.

Using a passage  from the link you provided makes me wonder if you even read the thing or you just stopped when you thought you had made you point. To argue the point of a document, you must read the whole document before you seek to establish the intent of it.
 
Read this...the last part of the document from the state of Georgia. I picked Georgia for the sole that reason that it is what you decided to quote to us ignorant fools that think there is more to the story than you present in your arguments...


The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

[Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]


The South felt that they were being abused by the Federal Government and historical documents clearly prove the feeling of the those in the South. Slavery was but one of many issues of disagreement, but it certaintly wasnt the main issue. Abuse, unfrair trade practices,and leagalized lawlessness by the Federal Government in it dealings with the South would have made even a whimp with no gumption agree that the situation was untolerable for any man of principle.

As far as they were concerned, sucession was the only recourse.

To quote that Slavery was the main issue of the Civil War while ignoring the main facts as shown by your own documents not only makes you wrong, but it establishes your intent to change history to your own liking therfore eliminating ANY iota of credibilty that you might have once enjoyed.

Offline Johnny Reb

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
reb or yank
« Reply #234 on: September 03, 2005, 04:01:56 PM »
"Johnny Reb, southern and DAMN proud of it."  I don't really care what the war was over (although Lincoln was a tyrant, who believed in colonization, and as a politician did or said whatever gained him favor) I just know why my non-slave owning family fought, because some outsider invaded their beloved Virginia.

Deo Vindice
Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy

Not fooled by the liberal media

Offline doc_kreipke

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Gender: Male
reb or yank
« Reply #235 on: September 04, 2005, 06:08:37 AM »
Well, I took the suggestion to read the entire Georgia secession document, and I must admit that it appears to me to have a preponderance of verbiage dedicated to slavery issues.

That sentence that Ironfoot quotes about complaints with regards to slavery is the second sentence in the document, immediately following the first sentence declaration that Georgia is no longer a member of the union. Now, I've heard it said that in law, you lead with your best argument. So, it seems odd that the document would open with "Hey! We're outta here!" and then immediately follow with a trivial consideration.

Now, the first paragraph continues with quite a few complaints over economic favoritism to the northern states, couched as "a brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed ... ."

In the second paragraph, the declaration implies that the "act of 1846" ameliorated much of this excessive favoritism. Legislatively defeated, the North looks about for a new ally against the South and finds it in antislavery, particularly in reference to what to do about slavery in the territories acquired in the war with Mexico. A couple of subsequent paragraphs point out the disadvantages of exclusion and mention how some of the founding fathers feared that exclusion of slavery in the territories could bring about dissolution of the union.

After mentioning the North-antislavery front's defeat in '52 & '56 and victory in '60, the document points to the main ("cardinal") plank in the victors' platform: prohibition of slavery in the Territories, followed by mention there's no legal provision for said exclusion.

Next couple paragraphs devote themselves to the North's non-enforcement of fugitive slave return as provided by the Constitution and other legislation of the 1850's and tacit support of both clandestine and overt efforts to disrupt slavery and incite revolts.

The last paragraph seems to be a summary of the foregoing, with a final concern about Northern designs on Southern society as a whole. So, it occurs to me that issues over slavery in many facets weighed quite heavily on Georgia citizens' minds when the elected to leave the Union.

Anyways, that's what I get out of the document when I take it as a whole. I'd be interested in what others' interpretations are.
-K

Offline HotGuns

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
reb or yank
« Reply #236 on: September 04, 2005, 06:57:50 AM »
Well, I took the suggestion to read the entire Georgia secession document, and I must admit that it appears to me to have a preponderance of verbiage dedicated to slavery issues.

Why wouldn't it ?

The economic well being of the South depended on their labor to harvest crops.

The Northerners were unfairly treating the South. exessive taxes, unfair trade practices and downright slander amongst other grievances that were being ingnored. Now all of a sudden folks that had NO concept of the things worked in the South were proposing things that would lead to the economic ruin of the South.

Millions of acres of cotton,grain would go unharvested or unplanted. Just how exaclty was the South supposed to deal with that ?

The issue of slavery was the straw that broke the camels back. While it was far from being the only issue, it did serve to prove that the powers of the North could care less how the South fared at that point.

When you back a man of principal into the corner with his back against the wall...the only way out is over the top of whoever is standing on front of him.

Proof of how little the South was respected is evident in the results of the first battle of Bull Run. The Northern troops were ill prepared and even their commanders thought that it woud be a cake walk. News reporters were invited to accompany troops and report on the victory. They was NO respect show or given to Southern Troops as being a viable fighting force.

When they got their asses handed to them on a silver platter, the Northerners were in a state of shock. They simply did not understand the forces that they were about to unleash.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery at all. To cite slavery as the principal issue of the war is to ignore written documents and the history that lead up to it.

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about lack of RESPECT.

Offline Johnny Reb

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
reb or yank
« Reply #237 on: September 04, 2005, 09:02:43 AM »
I've always viewed Southern secession much the same as the American Revolution.  England was taxing the hell out of the colonies, and trying to impose rules on them, even though they (England) had no clue about life in the colonies.  Folks in the north wanted to tell people in the south how to live, even though they had never seen the south, much less lived the southern way of life.  Finally the colonies/south got fed up and stood up for themselves.  There really isn't much difference.
Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy

Not fooled by the liberal media

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
reb or yank
« Reply #238 on: September 04, 2005, 09:31:15 PM »
Hotguns:

You said:
"The issue of slavery was the straw that broke the camels back."
Then later you said:
"The Civil War wasn't about slavery at all."
So which position are you taking?

Then you end with:
"It was about lack of RESPECT."
So it all boils down to pre-civil war southerners being a bunch of Rodney Dangerfields?

The taxes/tariffs southern apologists complain of were not imposed by Lincoln. They were imposed while southern, proslavery Presidents were in office. The south did not secede over them.

When Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform, the south seceded. Lincoln hadn't had the chance to do any acts of "tyranny"as President before the south seceded.

The institution of slavery was started with the use of force.
The institution of slavery was maintained with the use of force.
Lincoln wanted to end slavery peacefully through change in law, and ran for President on that basis. The south preferred secession to allowing the more populace north end slavery peacefully through legal change brought on by elected representatives. That secession, motivated by a desire in the south to preserve slavery were it existed and expand it into the territories, led to war.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline HotGuns

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
reb or yank
« Reply #239 on: September 05, 2005, 05:21:24 AM »
So which position are you taking?

Im taking the position that it was but one issue of many that lead to the civil war.

To say that "slavery" was the principal reason for the war is to ignore all other facts that lead to it.

Its not a hard thing to see Ironfoot...unless you simply arent capable of seeing it because you have been blinded by false teachings.

As for being a bunch of "Rodney Dangerfields", because of lack of respect,...

Wars are initiated by people that have no concept of respect and fought against those people that understand the concept. In the course of the war many people die because a few idiots that rule dont understand that simple concept.

The Civil War was no different. The North did not respect the ways of the South and forced their backs to the wall. Anybody with a clue knew that slavery would have been eliminated eventually due to the fact that the industrial age would have made it obsolete and too expensive.

Holding fast to the facts that suit you while discarding and ignoring  the others because you dont like them is pretty simple minded. Anyone that does that as well as you cannot  possibly see the big picture.