In the War of Northern Aggression, which side was the libs and which side was the cons?
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Frank Robertson
> I fergits
Interestingly, while everyone blames the South for the Civil War, it
was Abe Lincoln and the Abolitionists that wanted war, not the South.
After the Secession, Lincoln illegally occupied (a) foreign country
(ies): The southern nations/The Confederacy. This occupation caused
the war. Whereas Lincoln could have withdrawn from the South, the way
the U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam in a later war. If the North, via
its elected President and Congress, had not wanted war, then there
would have been PEACE.
And you know, as they say: "Peace!" and "War Is Not The Answer!"
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Yeah, that's all fine and dandy, but which side was the libs and which
side was the cons.
You ain't too bright, are ye?
Frank Robertson
Without researching it, I assume they did not use the terms "liberal"
and "conservative" in relation to abolitionist and pro-slavery, in
those days. In today's terms, the libs would be the Republicans
because they were for the rights of enslaved people.. That term STILL
applies, logically speaking, to Republicans, because they are for the
rights of people in their mothers' wombs. The Democrats are the
murderers.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
> On Jan 25, 10:38 pm, Nathan Bedford Forrest <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> Frank Robertson wrote:
>>> On Jan 25, 10:18 pm, Nathan Bedford Forrest <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>> I fergits
>>> Interestingly, while everyone blames the South for the Civil War, it
>>> was Abe Lincoln and the Abolitionists that wanted war, not the South.
>>> After the Secession, Lincoln illegally occupied (a) foreign country
>>> (ies): The southern nations/The Confederacy. This occupation caused
>>> the war. Whereas Lincoln could have withdrawn from the South, the way
>>> the U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam in a later war. If the North, via
>>> its elected President and Congress, had not wanted war, then there
>>> would have been PEACE.
>>> And you know, as they say: "Peace!" and "War Is Not The Answer!"
>> Yeah, that's all fine and dandy, but which side was the libs and which
>> side was the cons.
>>
>> You ain't too bright, are ye?
>
> Without researching it, I assume they did not use the terms "liberal"
> and "conservative" in relation to abolitionist and pro-slavery, in
> those days. In today's terms, the libs would be the Republicans
> because they were for the rights of enslaved people..
Do you actually believe that the Northern Republicans, outside of Abe
Lincoln and and couple of others, were more concerned about the rights
of enslaved people than the prospect of trying to compete with an
industrialized South that had the advantage of free labor?
Frank Robertson
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is not an angle I have yet researched. Obviously, I would look
"brighter" if I researched that claim but I also have significant time
constraints. So my internet access - both for blogging and researching
- is very limited. But, answering from my elemental memory of what
they taught me in history classes, the South was not yet
industrialized anywhere near to the extent that the North was. In my
learning and memory thereof, Lincoln simply wanted to preserve the
Union.
Interesting point though: what if the South heavily industrialzed and
with its slave labor, could have eventually been competing with the US
the way China does now? Can you imagine every Walmart in Michigan
filled with electronics and toys saying "Made in the CSA?" THAT would
tick them off!
Nathan Bedford Forrest
I agree that Lincoln *let it be known* that, above all else, he wanted
to preserve the union.
Northern industrialists would not have felt threatened by a Southern
slave economy if the South stuck to growing stuff. But it was the
*prospect*, and a real one, that the South would move into manufacturing
with cheap slave labor, with which the North could not compete, that
gave Lincoln the backing he needed to prosecute the war against the rebels.
edi...@netpath.net
> Interestingly, while everyone blames the South for the Civil War, it
> was Abe Lincoln and the Abolitionists that wanted war, not the South.
> After the Secession, Lincoln illegally occupied (a) foreign country
> (ies): The southern nations/The Confederacy. This occupation caused
> the war. Whereas Lincoln could have withdrawn from the South, the way
> the U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam in a later war. If the North, via
> its elected President and Congress, had not wanted war, then there
> would have been PEACE.
Confederate States of America - first "national liberation movement"
to stand up to Washington and its imperialism, first "self-
determination movement" to stand up to Washington's imperialism.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
SilentOtto
Heh heh...
You neo-confederate revisionists never quit, do you?
The Federal government "occupied" federal land.
The south tried to steal, at gunpoint, what it didn't own, and they
got bitch-slapped for their trouble.
Heh heh...
Neo-confederate revisionists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
SilentOtto
No...
The "conservatives" are doing what they've always done.
They're trying to claim that the rights of one person (if you can call
a mass of cells a person) count for more than the rights of another
person, and then enforcing it at gunpoint.
SilentOtto
What Lincoln actually ran on was "Free Soil", meaning that he didn't
want slavery to be implemented in the territories that were then being
opened, not protecting northern industry.
They wanted that land to go to yeoman farmers, not plantation barons.
Using slaves in industry at the time was problematic, because so many
industrial vocations required a highly skilled workforce that
necessatated a certain level of education.
Educating slaves was a big no-no, and one could be punished for doing
so.
Northern industrialists may have been concerned about the prospect of
an industrialized south running on slave labor, but it was hardly the
issue that was driving political debate at the time.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Jan 25, 10:18 pm, Nathan Bedford Forrest <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > I fergits
>
> Interestingly, while everyone blames the South for the Civil War, it
> was Abe Lincoln and the Abolitionists that wanted war, not the South.
> After the Secession, Lincoln illegally occupied (a) foreign country
> (ies): The southern nations/The Confederacy.
What occupation? There was no move against the Cofederate States until
well after they commenced hostilities.
>This occupation caused
> the war.
This occupation exists only in your head.
>Whereas Lincoln could have withdrawn from the South, the way
> the U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam in a later war.
Federal property (bases, navy yards etc.) was evacuated in the face of
potential threats from Confederate forces long before hostilities were
opened by them.
>If the North, via
> its elected President and Congress, had not wanted war, then there
> would have been PEACE.
Then the Confederates should not have opened fire on the 'Star of the
West' and Fort Sumter....
>
> And you know, as they say: "Peace!" and "War Is Not The Answer!"
Look, I'm not an American, but even I can see that you are talking
rubbish! Why are you doing this?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Chaos out of Order
Since the land of the south belonged to the United States, the
southern secessionists were illegally occupying those lands. If they
truly wanted to secede, they should have gotten on boats and left.
The land wasn't theirs to steal.
Dr. Barry Worthington
The problem is that you probably believe this....
Most decent people, whether in America or Britain, sided with Lincoln.
In Britain, it was not unusual for working people to have a picture of
Lincoln on their parlour wall.
I have seen his righteous sentence,
Graven in words of steel.
As ye deal with the transgressor,
So with you my grace shall deal.
Let the hero born of woman,
Crush the serpent with his heel,
While God is marching on.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!
liberal
>
> > I fergits
>
> Interestingly, while everyone blames the South for the Civil War, it
Curiously you seem too stupid to know that 1) the southerners fired
the first shots and 2) they were traitors. After all, they could have
simply moved to another place on the planet.
> was Abe Lincoln and the Abolitionists that wanted war, not the South.
> After the Secession, Lincoln illegally occupied (a) foreign country
and 3) People who gave up their US citizenship illegally occupied the
southern states that are part of the United States of America.
liberal
Actually, historically, slave-based societies did not "industrialize".
Rome had many chances to "industrialize" (yep, there were!) but could
not give up the social structure that slavery produces. China has been
giving up the modern equivalent of slavery (serfdom) because modern
factories are too complicated to be run by slaves who have no real
incentive to accept the norms of an industrial system. But even China
is beginning to slip back to their old ways (see: Warren Buffett and
the Chinese company that only hires "migrant labor" which they place
in "company dormitories").
liberal
wrote:
He's doing it because people like him depend on the fictions of their
beliefs. They often become violent when contradicted with the truth.
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington
mark
not so. in fact, for a slave to be emancipated in the south he had to
be able to support himself.
look at william ellison as an example of a man born into slavery,
emancipated as a young man, who then became an industrialist and
plantation (and slave) owner in south carolina.
he and his family supported the confederacy in spite of being
blacks.
SilentOtto
Yes, it is so.
Here's an excerpt from a Virginia law that covered educating slaves:
"... every assemblage of negroes for the purpose of instruction in
reading or writing, or in the night time for any purpose, shall be an
unlawful assembly. Any justice may issue his warrant to any office or
other person, requiring him to enter any place where such assemblage
may be, and seize any negro therein; and he, or any other justice, may
order such negro to be punished with stripes."
A similar law was enacted in S. Carolina, where Ellison, whom you
refer to below, resided.
>in fact, for a slave to be emancipated in the south he had to
> be able to support himself.
Sounds like a catch-22 to me.
Sort of like the "grandfather clause" when it came to voting.
> look at william ellison as an example of a man born into slavery,
> emancipated as a young man, who then became an industrialist and
> plantation (and slave) owner in south carolina.
> he and his family supported the confederacy in spite of being
> blacks.
People like Ellison, while they did exist, are a pretty narrow
exception rather than the rule.
Ellison was able to establish himself as a free property owner prior
to the big crackdown on freeing blacks that took place in the mid
1820s in response to Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner affairs.
After that, in S. Carolina where Ellison lived, it became illegal to
free a slave without the express permission of the S. Carolina state
legislature.
A law forbidding the education of slaves was part of the same
legislative movement.
You'll find very few propertied blacks who were emancipated after that
time period.
Heh heh...
Neo-confederates...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
> > Northern industrialists may have been concerned about the prospect of
mark
except that black slaveowners were more prevalent than whites, as a
percentage of population, and tended to own more slaves than their
white neighbors.
> Ellison was able to establish himself as a free property owner prior
> to the big crackdown on freeing blacks that took place in the mid
> 1820s in response to Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner affairs.
>
> After that, in S. Carolina where Ellison lived, it became illegal to
> free a slave without the express permission of the S. Carolina state
> legislature.
what the law said and what people did can be two different things...
as i'm sure you're aware.
> A law forbidding the education of slaves was part of the same
> legislative movement.
>
> You'll find very few propertied blacks who were emancipated after that
> time period.
perhaps. doesn't change the fact that they did exist, did own slaves
and did support the confederacy.
SilentOtto
Only if you don't count slaves as part of the population.
If you do count slaves as part of the population, black slaveholders
were a minuscule percentage.
> > Ellison was able to establish himself as a free property owner prior
> > to the big crackdown on freeing blacks that took place in the mid
> > 1820s in response to Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner affairs.
>
> > After that, in S. Carolina where Ellison lived, it became illegal to
> > free a slave without the express permission of the S. Carolina state
> > legislature.
>
> what the law said and what people did can be two different things...
> as i'm sure you're aware.
Tell me how a black man in S. Carolina would assert his freedom
without the proper documentation when the slave catchers make their
rounds.
> > A law forbidding the education of slaves was part of the same
> > legislative movement.
>
> > You'll find very few propertied blacks who were emancipated after that
> > time period.
>
> perhaps. doesn't change the fact that they did exist, did own slaves
> and did support the confederacy.
You're trying to claim some sort of moral high ground because some
blacks also owned slaves?