Charleston shooting.

[diver]

On Dec. 20, 1860, South Carolina voted to secede from the Union. A few days later they wrote a document called the Declaration of Causes. The overriding theme of this was document was the Federal Government infringing upon their rights to hold slaves. Statements were used such as: "they (Federal Government) have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery", "elected a President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to Slavery", and condemned the Republican Party for taking a position that "a war must be waged against Slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

This is their words, not mine.

To argue that the war was not about slavery would be to argue that the powers in South Carolina did not believe what they wrote. The main reason they left the Union is clear. Slavery.

 

[Vader]

Let me rephrase. In some people's minds, you can never separate it out. They will look at it and always think slavery.

As to the cause of the war. There are no if ands or buts, the war was about slavery. To say otherwise is stupidity. In no way am I saying that the poor southern boy was fighting for slavery. The people who got him into the mess, the elite Southern planters, to them, the war was most assuredly about slavery. This isn't my opinion or something I read on the computer on About.com, or something. Read the South Carolina Declaration of Causes when they left the Union. It is mainly about slavery. Slavery is what drives everything else.

If it were about slavery then why didn't the north outlaw slavery in the north? It's stupidity to say it was about slavery when the north didn't even outlaw it BEFORE or DURING the war. It was about States rights. I don't have to read it on about.com I studies history in college and have read tons of books on the issue. I don't need to read South Carolina's Declaration of Causes. I've read all of them before and they use slavery as one reason for federal overreach into states autonomy. Only someone ignorant of history would think the entire war was about slavery and a few rich slave owners. It's myopic and simplistic.

 

[Vader]

On Dec. 20, 1860, South Carolina voted to secede from the Union. A few days later they wrote a document called the Declaration of Causes. The overriding theme of this was document was the Federal Government infringing upon their rights to hold slaves. Statements were used such as: "they (Federal Government) have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery", "elected a President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to Slavery", and condemned the Republican Party for taking a position that "a war must be waged against Slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

This is their words, not mine.

To argue that the war was not about slavery would be to argue that the powers in South Carolina did not believe what they wrote. The main reason they left the Union is clear. Slavery.

Have you ever even heard of the Corwin amendment? I seriously don't think people understand or even read history anymore. If it were all about slavery then why did 240,000 northern soldiers bring their own slaves? In July 1861 the US Congress passed a joint resolution that clearly stated that the War was about Preserving The Union and Not about slavery. Why did Grant hold slaves until well after the war? The south could have stayed in the Union and kept their slaves with the Corwin amendment but refused.

Again, only someone ignorant of history thinks that slavery was the main issue to the civil war.

 

[diver]

If it were about slavery then why didn't the north outlaw slavery in the north? It's stupidity to say it was about slavery when the north didn't even outlaw it BEFORE or DURING the war. It was about States rights. I don't have to read it on about.com I studies history in college and have read tons of books on the issue. I don't need to read South Carolina's Declaration of Causes. I've read all of them before and they use slavery as one reason for federal overreach into states autonomy. Only someone ignorant of history would think the entire war was about slavery and a few rich slave owners. It's myopic and simplistic.

Why did South Carolina leave the Union? What is the overriding theme of that document? Slavery. I am not saying, nor have I ever said it was the only reason. It was the main one, however. YOU seemed to state it wasn't at ll about slavery.

I am not ignorant of history at all. Ignorance is trying to rewrite it.

I stand by the fact that it was Southern elites, the planter class, that got the poor farm boys into the mess. This is not some rant of mine against the rich. Hell, I might be one of the more conservative people on here. But you have to be honest, too. We need rich people. They create jobs. But they also want special considerations. like an immigration system that provides low skill labor and allows them to pay low wages. I believe a lesson from the Civil War is how the elites were instrumental in causing it, to protect their way of life. Same **** that is going on today.

 

[diver]

Have you ever even heard of the Corwin amendment? I seriously don't think people understand or even read history anymore. If it were all about slavery then why did 240,000 northern soldiers bring their own slaves? In July 1861 the US Congress passed a joint resolution that clearly stated that the War was about Preserving The Union and Not about slavery. Why did Grant hold slaves until well after the war? The south could have stayed in the Union and kept their slaves with the Corwin amendment but refused.

Again, only someone ignorant of history thinks that slavery was the main issue to the civil war.

Nobody is denying these issues. However, does South Carolina leave the Union if the issue of slavery is not there? For anyone to advance the theory that they would have just doesn't read, or refuses to read the document. If the Southern states do not leave the Union, is there a war? If it was not about slavery, why did the writers of the Declaration of Causes mention so much? Obviously, they had no faith in the Corwin Amendment.

You went to school for history? Obama is supposed to be a Constitution expert as well.

 

[Vader]

Nobody is denying these issues. However, does South Carolina leave the Union if the issue of slavery is not there? For anyone to advance the theory that they would have just doesn't read, or refuses to read the document. If the Southern states do not leave the Union, is there a war? If it was not about slavery, why did the writers of the Declaration of Causes mention so much? Obviously, they had no faith in the Corwin Amendment.

You went to school for history? Obama is supposed to be a Constitution expert as well.

You haven't answer one single question I have asked. IF it were just about slavery then why did the confederates not go along with the Corwin amendment? Why did the north even offer such an amendment if it were about slavery?

Oh because they had no faith in the amendment? Seriously? You have any proof of that or is that just your belief? Do you think probably, maybe... perhaps it wasn't all about slavery and that it had to do with states rights? No, **** that. It's only about slavery because someone thinks so. Yea, let's go to war to fight for keeping slaves even though the north offered us a way to stop the war and keep the slaves... makes perfect sense.

Sorry that's total bullshit and you know it. I guess since you can't answer any of those questions you should go back to school or at least read something.

 

[diver]

You haven't answer one single question I have asked. IF it were just about slavery then why did the confederates not go along with the Corwin amendment? Why did the north even offer such an amendment if it were about slavery?

Oh because they had no faith in the amendment? Seriously? You have any proof of that or is that just your belief? Do you think probably, maybe... perhaps it wasn't all about slavery and that it had to do with states rights? No, **** that. It's only about slavery because someone thinks so. Yea, let's go to war to fight for keeping slaves even though the north offered us a way to stop the war and keep the slaves... makes perfect sense.

Sorry that's total bullshit and you know it. I guess since you can't answer any of those questions you should go back to school or at least read something.

I don't have to. The Declaration of Causes answers those questions, you arrogant jackass. Emotions were running high as you can see in that document. Those emotions are not going to be soothed a few months later by a hastily put together amendment. For you to advance the idea that there was not a lack of trust there, after all the years of wrangling over slavery, baffles me.

What was a major reason the South was so concerned with State's Rights? Could of it had something to do with slavery? Are you going to advance the idea that slavery was not an issue as it pertained to State's Rights? Makes perfect sense, huh?

Maybe you should get out of the books a little and use some common ******' sense.

 

[Rod Farva]

But, after succeeding Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman rose above his prejudices. In 1946, when he was told of assaults on black World War II veterans in the South, he exclaimed, "My God! I had no idea it was as terrible as that. We've got to do something!"[/url]

.

" We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen"!

When I see someone here in PA displaying the flag, I think he/she is a dumbass. We were on the winning side, display the American flag.

Used to mostly feel that way too 'til this **** storm.

As for the elites using the poor, always been that way, always will. Any war, anywhere, ever. But it seems to me there was an unusually large number of elites within both armies during the war of northern aggression....back when "honor" was still all the rage.

 

[Superman]

so the confederate flag, 100 years later, still means the exact same thing, despite there not being any slaves (with all due apologies to Adrian Peterson)?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

As to the cause of the war. There are no if ands or buts, the war was about slavery. To say otherwise is stupidity.

Good lord, here we go again...

 

[Vader]

I don't have to. The Declaration of Causes answers those questions, you arrogant jackass. Emotions were running high as you can see in that document. Those emotions are not going to be soothed a few months later by a hastily put together amendment. For you to advance the idea that there was not a lack of trust there, after all the years of wrangling over slavery, baffles me.

What was a major reason the South was so concerned with State's Rights? Could of it had something to do with slavery? Are you going to advance the idea that slavery was not an issue as it pertained to State's Rights? Makes perfect sense, huh? In July 1861 the US Congress passed a joint resolution that clearly stated that the War was about Preserving The Union and Not about slavery. But the hell with the congress they don't know why they are going to war.

Maybe you should get out of the books a little and use some common ******' sense.

The Declaration of causes doesn't answer those questions. IF slavery were the only reason then the AMENDEMNT would have been signed and everything would have been the status quo. Also if the war was about slavery then why did the north even offer it you jackass? The president of the U.S. said it was about continuing the union of states. Remember the north started the war NOT the south. The firing on Ft. Sumter was "gulf of Tonkin" before the gulf. It had been fired on several times before under Buchanan's administration when the armistice was violated by northern ships approaching. Hell the south even sent peace delegates to Lincoln and he refused to meet with them. He used Ft. Sumter to start his war. It was over succession not slavery. IF Lincoln wanted to go to war over slavery then why didn't he free the slaves in the north? Why did the EP only deal with southern slaves? None of this makes sense if it is just about slavery.

 

[diver]

The Declaration of causes doesn't answer those questions. IF slavery were the only reason then the AMENDEMNT would have been signed and everything would have been the status quo. Also if the war was about slavery then why did the north even offer it you jackass? The president of the U.S. said it was about continuing the union of states. Remember the north started the war NOT the south. The firing on Ft. Sumter was "gulf of Tonkin" before the gulf. It had been fired on several times before under Buchanan's administration when the armistice was violated by northern ships approaching. Hell the south even sent peace delegates to Lincoln and he refused to meet with them. He used Ft. Sumter to start his war. It was over succession not slavery. IF Lincoln wanted to go to war over slavery then why didn't he free the slaves in the north? Why did the EP only deal with southern slaves? None of this makes sense if it is just about slavery.

Ok. Again, if you could read, I never said the only reason. I said the main one.

As to the Corwin Amendment:

If, as you say, the war was not over slavery, the Southern States did not secede from the Union over slavery, why ever did Corwin feel the need to propose an Amendment which specifically allowed the states to keep their slaves? Why did he and others entertain the idea that it could work? Was Corwin retarded?

 

[Vader]

Ok. Again, if you could read, I never said the only reason. I said the main one.

As to the Corwin Amendment:

If, as you say, the war was not over slavery, the Southern States did not secede from the Union over slavery, why ever did Corwin feel the need to propose an Amendment which specifically allowed the states to keep their slaves? Why did he and others entertain the idea that it could work? Was Corwin retarded?

It was an olive branch to stop succession. Just like in the recent Iran negotiations there are clauses that deal with arms shipments. The entire reason for the talks is nuclear weapons but other issues are brought in to appease them or to give the U.S. something to brag about. The north knew the succession wasn't entirely about slavery. Lincoln said so, Grant said so, the entire congress said so. But they were willing to give the south slavery to appease them to stay in the union. Again if slavery was such a big issue then why did the south not say ok? Especially since slavery, according to you, is the heart and soul of the war.

 

[diver]

I think I see the disconnect here.

I understand that Lincoln was not going to war over slavery. He was going to was over secession. But why did the states secede? I feel the main reason is over slavery. So if they never secede over slavery, there is no war. This is why I go back to the Declaration of Causes.

IMO, the war was signed, sealed and delivered when the framers wouldn't or couldn't figure it out at the Constitutional Convention. These were great men, who I believe were guided by God to put together such a document. Great as they were, they couldn't do it alone. At the same time they punted on slavery, and many of them knew it, felt guilty about it. I think those guilty feelings are God in a way telling them they laid up on this issue. Since they laid up, there was going to be hell to pay, and there was.

I know this is pure conjecture, but do you believe that if slavery was done away with at the convention, there would ever have been a war?

 

[diver]

It was an olive branch to stop succession. Just like in the recent Iran negotiations there are clauses that deal with arms shipments. The entire reason for the talks is nuclear weapons but other issues are brought in to appease them or to give the U.S. something to brag about. The north knew the succession wasn't entirely about slavery. Lincoln said so, Grant said so, the entire congress said so. But they were willing to give the south slavery to appease them to stay in the union. Again if slavery was such a big issue then why did the south not say ok? Especially since slavery, according to you, is the heart and soul of the war.

But why did the olive branch focus on them keeping their slaves? Why not some other issue, the supposed main one?

Why did the South say not OK? Lots of possible reasons. It was a much different time. There was not a major war in over 80 years. I don't know if you would call the Mexican-American War major. And in the event, it wasn't fought among the people. People thought it would be fun, all kinds of honor to be gained and so on. A lot of folks wanted war. Think of the historical accounts of the celebrations when war was declared. There was absolutely no concept of war among people. Southern politicians/elites made their statement with secession, it would be dishonorable to go back on that. There was a lot of animosity built up over the years over the issue of slavery. Maybe it was as simple as what I said previously, they didn't trust the Federal Government not to eventually repeal the amendment. We have gotten far to used to our side today caving on everything. People didn't cave as much in those days.

 

[Superman]

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/



Q. What caused the Civil War?

While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."

 

[Vader]

I think I see the disconnect here.

I understand that Lincoln was not going to war over slavery. He was going to was over secession. But why did the states secede? I feel the main reason is over slavery. So if they never secede over slavery, there is no war. This is why I go back to the Declaration of Causes.

IMO, the war was signed, sealed and delivered when the framers wouldn't or couldn't figure it out at the Constitutional Convention. These were great men, who I believe were guided by God to put together such a document. Great as they were, they couldn't do it alone. At the same time they punted on slavery, and many of them knew it, felt guilty about it. I think those guilty feelings are God in a way telling them they laid up on this issue. Since they laid up, there was going to be hell to pay, and there was.

I know this is pure conjecture, but do you believe that if slavery was done away with at the convention, there would ever have been a war?

Yes, I think there still may have been a war. The reason is that they had issues with the north ever since the original ratification. The north was oppressive on many things other than slavery. Also again, the north started the war. The south was ready to leave and the north wasn't going to allow that for any reason. The south saw the northern aggression (not letting them leave) as being unconstitutional and going against the very fabric that the revolutionary war was fought over.

But why did the olive branch focus on them keeping their slaves? Why not some other issue, the supposed main one?

Why did the South say not OK? Lots of possible reasons. It was a much different time. There was not a major war in over 80 years. I don't know if you would call the Mexican-American War major. And in the event, it wasn't fought among the people. People thought it would be fun, all kinds of honor to be gained and so on. A lot of folks wanted war. Think of the historical accounts of the celebrations when war was declared. There was absolutely no concept of war among people. Southern politicians/elites made their statement with secession, it would be dishonorable to go back on that. There was a lot of animosity built up over the years over the issue of slavery. Maybe it was as simple as what I said previously, they didn't trust the Federal Government not to eventually repeal the amendment. We have gotten far to used to our side today caving on everything. People didn't cave as much in those days.

I don't buy the "they don't know what war is" rational. These are frontiers people that fought native Americans from the time of the move westward. They understood war. They weren't that far removed from the war of 1812, The Mexican-American war and the myriad of Native American wars. The typical southern wanted freedom from northern aggression. Not necessarily freedom to own slaves since most of them never owned anyone. I understand slavery was a part of the succession but it was only a part since most even in the south knew slavery wasn't going to last forever. But succession was going to last forever and the north couldn't allow that. There had already been key advancements in farming that was soon to render the slave obsolete. Slavery was a just one of several reason why the south wanted to leave the union. But leaving the union was the only thing the north cared about. They didn't care about slavery. They just wanted to keep the union together.

 

[diver]

Yes, I think there still may have been a war. The reason is that they had issues with the north ever since the original ratification. The north was oppressive on many things other than slavery. Also again, the north started the war. The south was ready to leave and the north wasn't going to allow that for any reason. The south saw the northern aggression (not letting them leave) as being unconstitutional and going against the very fabric that the revolutionary war was fought over.



I don't buy the "they don't know what war is" rational. These are frontiers people that fought native Americans from the time of the move westward. They understood war. They weren't that far removed from the war of 1812, The Mexican-American war and the myriad of Native American wars. The typical southern wanted freedom from northern aggression. Not necessarily freedom to own slaves since most of them never owned anyone. I understand slavery was a part of the succession but it was only a part since most even in the south knew slavery wasn't going to last forever. But succession was going to last forever and the north couldn't allow that. There had already been key advancements in farming that was soon to render the slave obsolete. Slavery was a just one of several reason why the south wanted to leave the union. But leaving the union was the only thing the north cared about. They didn't care about slavery. They just wanted to keep the union together.

Fair enough. I don't think there would have been. We'll never know for sure, which is the fun and frustration if you have an affinity for history.

Do you buy into the concept of "The Cause?" The idea that the Confederacy was the only country ever formed that never committed a sin? (Someone said something to that effect, can't remember who off the top of my head). The North seems to be to blame for everything. It was Lincoln's War, for example.

People forget. The War of 1812 was approximately the same number of years away from the Civil War as the Franco-Prussian War was from World War 1. They were cheering in the streets when war was declared in 1914. They just forgot, or decided to forget.

I have been saying that exact thing about the typical Southerner. I am Scots-Irish. Some extended lines of my family like a lot of Scots-Irish went South along the Appalachians. Mine lined stayed in PA. Guess they found something they liked. Anyway, they were all poor farmers. Slavery was one of the least of their concerns. They fought for other reasons, just like the line that stayed up here in PA fought for other reasons. However, I still maintain that to the planter class, it was very much about slavery, and they put the poor farmer kid out there to protect their way of life. If the South would've won the war, my ancestral relation down South would have been no better off. But the planter class would have been just fine.

 

[Vader]

IMHO the civil war was a war that should have never been fought. I blame both sides but the north should have had more patience. Slavery was going to be rendered obsolete anyway. They could have stayed true to the constitution and not over reached.

Also something of note. The south never thought they could actually win the war outright. They thought they could hold on until the north decided to say "hell with it, let them go". Then the south could work out their own tariffs and agreements with other countries and even with other states.

My family owned slaves. Even after the war the former slaves stayed on the farm with my family. They even took our name. My people have been here since 1620 when they came over from England (even though we were originally from Scandinavia) . My great+ grand father was a Captain in Washington's army. I had people on both sides during the war. It was a stupid war and it should have never been fought by either side. The south should have been more forward thinking and the north should have been more patient and forward thinking.

Which is why I see slavery as secondary in the war. The industrial revolution started around the turn of the 18th century. Things were already changing.

BTW the planter class was only going to be hurt one way... if they lost the war. If they had accepted the amendment they would have been protected. But the states right issue superseded the one issue of slavery.

 

[diver]

I think what this shows is that our perspectives are different. Being Scots-Irish, I had a lot of this from the old-timers growing up:

"We had to fight them all the time in Scotland (the English), then they get us to Ulster to fight the Catholics for 'em. We got tired of that, and went to America. We get there, they don't really want us in their towns, but they are happy to let us out on the frontier, so we can keep the Indians from running their ***** through."

Similar perspectives have been given on a lot of issues, including he Civil War. As it pertained to the Civil War, though, there was the same sort of non-understanding by my close relation old-timers as to how the Southern branches could have been fooled to fight for the rich slave owners. Couldn't they see that? I am sure the Southern branches couldn't figure out why the hell the people up North just didn't leave them the hell alone.

 

[Vader]

I think what this shows is that our perspectives are different. Being Scots-Irish, I had a lot of this from the old-timers growing up:

"We had to fight them all the time in Scotland (the English), then they get us to Ulster to fight the Catholics for 'em. We got tired of that, and went to America. We get there, they don't really want us in their towns, but they are happy to let us out on the frontier, so we can keep the Indians from running their ***** through."

Similar perspectives have been given on a lot of issues, including he Civil War. As it pertained to the Civil War, though, there was the same sort of non-understanding by my close relation old-timers as to how the Southern branches could have been fooled to fight for the rich slave owners. Couldn't they see that? I am sure the Southern branches couldn't figure out why the hell the people up North just didn't leave them the hell alone.

Very true. I got both sides of it growing up. My father is from NY, NY while my mother's side was southern. I've always been an American first and European second. Like I said, I had people on both sides of the war. It was a war that should never had been fought. I hate that damn war. It ruined the south and the scars of it are still here.

BTW the weird thing is that the most racist people I knew were from NY. They hated everybody. Everybody thinks NY is a melting pot but that's the biggest myth in the world. The don't melt. That's why you have parts of the city like Little Italy for the Italians. China town for the Chinese etc... They don't get along with anyone.

 

[Tibs]

Dylann Roof sentenced to death for 2015 Charleston church massacre

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/1...eath-for-2015-charleston-church-massacre.html

DEVELOPING: A federal jury sentenced Dylann Roof on Wednesday to death for killing nine black church members in Charleston, S.C. in a racially motivated attack in 2015.

Roof, who is white, faced either life in prison or execution for the slayings on June 17, 2015. The Justice Department said he is the first person to get the death penalty for federal hate crimes.

The jury reached the unanimous decision after about three hours of deliberations.

 

[Steeltime]

Dylann Roof sentenced to death for 2015 Charleston church massacre

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/1...eath-for-2015-charleston-church-massacre.html

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Dylann Roof sentenced to death for 2015 Charleston church massacre

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/1...eath-for-2015-charleston-church-massacre.html

One time when Libs would be in favor of the death penalty.

 

[Buster]

That was about the easiest decision those jurors will ever have to make.