14

Seven Things You Didn't Know About The Civil War

Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago to History
56 comments | Share | Flag

I recall reading that there was a large number of black slave owners. But over 3,000? Yikes!
Lincoln turns out to be a worse tyrant than I previously thought, but what I really did not know was that Lincoln was one of those "Send 'em all back to Africa" kinda guys.
SOURCE URL: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-civil-war-there-were-over-3000-black-slave-owners-who-lived-in-the-south_062015


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    Fact Check Time...

    Republicans formed from three smaller parties all of whom held varying anti-slavery positions.

    1860 - Republicans nominate Lincoln. Party takes a free-soil stance on slavery by opposing expansion into the territories. However recognizes the institution's legality in the South.

    (Democrats split into three sectional factions over slavery Southern Democrats want Congress to enact a slave code to protect the institution in the territories. Copperheads were Northern Democrats who favored a negotiated settlement, supported slavery, and were against Lincoln’s violations of the constitution.

    Lincoln assumed strong executive powers in suppressing [anti-war sentiment], including arrests, suppression of the press, suspension of habeas corpus, and censorship.”

    These things are not points of dispute–they happened.

    Northern Democrats prefer territorial residents decide the slave question. Southern Democrats were pro slave in the territories. Republicans went for one slave state for one free state.

    Abraham Lincoln wins a plurality of popular vote, an electoral college majority.

    December 1861 - Lincoln urges the border states (slaves states still in the Union) to voluntarily emancipate their slaves.

    March 1862 - Lincoln proposes a formal plan of gradual, compensated emancipation. Congress passes a resolution in favor. None of the border states agree.

    April 1862 Congress abolishes slavery in the District of Columbia, with financial compensation to former slave owners.

    June 1862 - Congress bans slavery in the territories, no compensation citing cost.

    July 1862 -
    President Lincoln plans to issue an emancipation proclamation. Secretary of State Seward convinces him to wait until after a major Union victory.

    September 1862 - Union forces repel Confederate General Robert E. Lee's invasion of the North at Antietam, Maryland. Lee retreats to Virgina. Lincoln announces the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation - with an offer. If the Confederacy does not surrender by January 1, 1863, the president will free all the slaves in Confederate territory. If the Confederate states do surrender, their slaves will not be freed.

    January 1, 1863 - The Emancipation Proclamation goes into effect. All the slaves in Confederate territory are declared free. The policy does not apply to the border states or to Southern territory held by the Union before January 1 nor any of the Northern States.

    December 1863 - Lincoln announces his reconstruction plan. Offers general amnesty to white Southerners who take an oath of future loyalty and accept wartime measures abolishing slavery. Whenever 10% of the number of 1860 voters take the oath in any state, those loyal citizens can then establish a state government. In 1864 the governments of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee are reconstructed under the"Ten Percent Plan." Congress refuses to recognize the governments or seat the delegates.

    June 1864 - Congress repeals the Fugitive Slave Law

    July 1864 - Wade-Davis bill. Requires a majority of 1860 voters to take a loyalty oath, but only those who swear an "ironclad" oath of never having fought against the Union can participate in reconstructing their state's government. Requires the state constitutions to include bans on slavery, disfranchise of Confederate leaders, and repudiate Confederate state debts. After Congress adjourns, Lincoln uses "pocket-veto" The plan fails.

    November 1864 - Lincoln wins reelection against the Democratic presidential nominee.

    January 1865 - 13th Amendment banning slavery in the entire United States passes.

    April 1865 - Lincoln assassinated, Southern Democrat VP Andrew Johnson becomes President.(and proceeded to veto every attempt until his impeachment by the anti-slavery Republicans and refusal to renominate by the reunited Democrat Party.

    There after Democrats became the anti civil rights party and the Republicans pro civil rights up until. the turn of the century when they lost interest. At that point socialism entered the picture starting with Wilson who was anti civil rights and pro segregation. Democrats did not change to any extent until FDR saw blacks as votes and brought them in the party.

    Republicans began supporting civil rights providing a higher percentage of their party than did Democrats for the 1965 Civil rights Act. The remains of the Southern Democrat redeemeer philosophy blocked or voted against civil rights measures up through 1965 LBJ passed that one with the help of Republicans. although he was quoted as saying give them something to shut them up for a few decades (cleaned up version)

    Voila Democrat announce they are now the party of the people with Clinton) and change their spots. Inexplicably they are joined by Republicans.

    And both support the suspension of the Bill of Rights in the Patriot Act.

    The 1787 Democratic Republicans and Federalists become federalist Democratic Republican Government Party 213 years later. (short version)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      Blacks were largely Republican voters up until Teddy Roosevelt's time. Ignored by both parties until FDR then became Democrat supporters.

      Democrats were pro slavery, pro segregation and Jim Crow Laws, and anti civil rights up until LBJ voted 70-30 for 1965 Civil Rights as opposed to GOP 80-20 as a percentage of memberships The old southern style democrats Gore, Byrd, and Erwin opposed ERA. Of states voting to ratify 2 Independent, 27 Republican, 6 Democrat. It failed by 3 votes after two extensions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Flootus5 8 years, 9 months ago
    Wow. Actually much of this I did know being a history addict. But the post is well timed when certain considerations are entertained. The Civil War led to the 3 amendments in its aftermath "officializing" the emancipation and protecting rights of those emancipated. But then, gee, our illustrious Supreme Court decides to "interpret" in the soon to follow Slaughterhouse Cases the 14th Amendment as extending the federal Bill of Rights to the States as well. Effectively cementing federal hegemony by war and judicial proclamation. Which leads to our recent high level judicial activism of undefining marriage and ramming that across the 50 States.

    Another interesting read on this topic is Jeffrey Hummel's book "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
    I have always suspected the civil war was all about the north wanting the riches of the south, and using slavery as an excuse. The north was doing the same things Russia does today- taking over any and all peoples who cant defend themselves. It was OK for us to do it, but not Russia. We may have had a constitution, but we didnt (and dont) live by it
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 9 months ago
    Every time I mention Lincoln was not good, I get attacked. Even here in the Gulch. It is refreshing to have others point out at some of the terrible things Lincoln did. The victors write the history, which always paints the victor as the knight in shining armor who rescures the damsel. It makes no difference if the history is true or false, right or wrong. Those of us with more enthusiasm for truth must dig deeper.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 9 months ago
      I'm not going to attack you, though I may have been moved to argue three or four years ago.
      Americans are taught in elementary school that Lincoln is the Great Emancipator.
      I recall being a kid who looked up in awe at his giant statue on a virtual throne in Washington D.C. A gigantic ancient statue of the nonexistant Zeus obviously had the same effect.
      I also being taught early on (in an Alabama school) that the South would have been treated better if Lincoln had not been assassinated.
      For anyone to state that "Lincoln was not good" goes against a heck of a lot of serious preconditioning.
      Just stick to facts. Old Dino is here to learn. So are others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        The great compromiser maybe. - emancipator is a stretch but given the parties were at best loose coalitions....easy to see what the Southern Democrats killed him though. It brought Andrew Johnson to power and the war continued until well into the next century. He was also the first to violate the Constitution setting a trend for Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Clinton and now Obama. Not the legacy I expected from my school boy days.

        Great is a relative term. He qualifies as leader of the Emancipators although that is dicy . Deal Maker might work.

        If not here then where. Good idea I'll have a new discussion post ready later today .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 9 months ago
        This is not the place to discuss Lincoln, than in passing. For a couple of good books I suggest "The Real Lincoln" with an forward by Dr. Walter Williams and "The South Was Right" by two historians. I, too, never had reason to challenge the "Great Emancipator" myth until doing research on a book I am writing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago
    From the article:
    "President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune stating, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; ... "

    Lincoln was lying... AGAIN, as he did frequently.
    "Honest Abe" is federal propaganda.
    Lincoln could have prevented the war by doing one thing: not signing the bill that imposed an unfair tariff on the southern states for the benefit of northern manufacturers (who provided funds for Lincoln's campaign.) Lincoln could have ended the war by repealing it at any time. Southern representatives tried to see Lincoln to negotiate a peaceful way to avoid war up until the moment the war started, but Lincoln REFUSED TO EVEN SEE THEM. Lincoln WANTED the war to start. Lincoln CAUSED the war to start.
    Lincoln is the biggest TRAITOR to American liberty in history.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 9 months ago
      Since most of the secession bills passed before Lincoln was even sworn in, it seems a stretch to assert that he could have prevented the war in any way at all.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago
        And the fact that southern reps continued to try to negotiate with him until the last minute and he refused shows exactly the opposite.
        The southern leaders knew that the tarriff was a disaster and that war was a disaster. Secession bills were one of the few political tools they had to show how serious the situation was, and they believed war could be avoided. They misjudged Lincoln's complete utter disregard for human life and his sociopathic fascism. Lincoln created the situation and caused the war.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
    It's true that I always thought that there was more to Lincoln than we were taught in school. Doing a little of my own research, I found that he was a sorta 2nd class dictator. Not quite as far as this article goes. History is usually fact, myth reality and falsehood all tangled up in a Gordian knot which takes years of research to untangled -- if ever.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 8 years, 9 months ago
    The founding fathers knew it was a strong possibility that slavery, being contrary to the basis of liberty, would continue to be harmful to the country. They were reasonable men that believed that their successors would resolve the conflict without bloodshed. The period between 1776 and 1863 was wasted by not resolving slavery. Lincoln was totally wrong to pursue a war, killing 5-600,000 and those that followed were worse in the handling of slaves integration into American life. Slave owners kept their human property uneducated, living in poverty conditions and disrespected family bonds. These traits linger today and are a cancer to our society. It was unconscionable to dump this population with no guidance that so many gave so much to free.
    Almost as bad is the culture of guilt resulting from the mistakes of the past and the actions taken as a result that have the opposite of the desired effect. Of course politicians have found a way to prey on the weakness of both sides to their own advantage. We need to reach the point that skin color is a way to describe an individual not a people. Do we have ashen Americans? Ruddy Americans? Olive Americans? Tan Americans? Brown Americans? Black Americans? Tall people? Short people? Skinny people? Fat people? Old people? Young people? Yes. Why do we need to associate the physical characteristics with any race? As long as we do so, we will have a problem that will continue to worsen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 9 months ago
      Although there were isolated cases of abuse and families were torn apart, that was not generally the case at all. Many of the slaves lived in very decent conditions (for the time) and very treated with a fair amount of respect, depending on their position. Often, in better conditions than they lived after emancipation. The currently popular descriptions of torture and cruelty to slaves are modern propoganda. Read the actual accounts of the time for a completely different picture.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by coaldigger 8 years, 9 months ago
        From my perspective, they were denied the primary essence of life on earth: freedom. Until you have that, all else is dirt. We are getting dirtier by the day. My grandparent owned slaves in NC and they were supposedly civil to them but they weren't free. I would take a lot of lashes if you would set me free otherwise you are pure evil for being responsible for my bondage.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 9 months ago
          You are judging yesterday by today's standards. Slavery was an accepted institution at that time in over one half of the world - all of Africa, all of China, all of Russia, all of the Middle East and one fourth of America. And prior to slavery, that is until a single person could produce more food than he consumed himself, the future slaves were dinner. That is the evolutionary process of animals becoming Man.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by coaldigger 8 years, 9 months ago
            Today's standard is too low. Enslavement, mandatory obedience to a higher power, control of the life of others is the ultimate wrong, now, in the past and for the future. Man, as we know him, evolved thousands of years ago. The desire for freedom is not new and has had proponents as long as history has been recorded. I would prefer to be cooked and eaten than to be a slave.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 9 months ago
              As to the evolution of Man and a desire for freedom, it is not uncommon for many species to have slaves or exert control over other individuals, including over other species. This may be in our DNA, including submission to control. It may take thousands of years more to shed that gene.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 9 months ago
              I agree with you regarding the judgement of the world around us today. We are creatures of today and have the right to judge today. We can assess and learn from yesterday, but we can't judge (by yesterday, I mean a different era, of many generations ago. Does not apply to the recent follies). As to being cooked and eaten, the way humanity is "progressing," you may not have to wait too long...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo