Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/2016 3:42 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 3:37 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:23:17 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/19/16 2:53 PM, wrote:

It is ironic that the university culture is supposed to promote free
thinking and looking at alternate ideas but you folks are the most
conformist people in our society. I just tossed out an idea that there
may have been a better solution than a war that killed 2 % of the
population, destroyed the economy and caused a divisiveness that has
not really waned and your answer is " nope war is the only answer". I
guess Cheney went to the same college system as you.


Actually, universities promote "critical thinking." As a "freethinker,"
you should know it is dangerous to come to conclusions based upon
insufficient evidence. Critical thinking requires more discipline.

Nobody here has given me much more than "that is the way it happened"
for a reason why a more peaceful solution could not have been
achieved. That sounds a lot like our recent (last 50 years) failed
policies when it comes to wars.
If the union had lifted the blockade of Charleston, an act of war, and
tried for other economic sanctions, they could have made a big dent in
the economy of the south in a year. It may have had them seriously
thinking about growing "slave free" cotton before 1865.
At the end of the day, slavery was popular because it was economically
advantageous but, compared to prevailing wages, it wasn't that
advantageous. If you hurt the cotton farmers in the marketplace, they
would be more willing to change.
Maybe I am just looking for 20th century solutions to 19th century
problems but you are trying to put 21st century morality on them.


Gosh, you try so hard to make your points and in this case without
anything to back you up. "If, if, if..."

Slavery is immoral, regardless of the time period. That humanity has
engaged in it over thousands of years doesn't make it right.

Nobody said slavery is moral. Lincoln was morally against it but
recognized he might have to accept some of it in order to save the Union.

The question under discussion isn't the morality of slavery. It is (or
at least *was*) the causes of the Civil War.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:20:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Nobody said slavery is moral. Lincoln was morally against it but
recognized he might have to accept some of it in order to save the Union.


Which is why he exempted the states that had not left the union when
he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. He was willing to live with
their slavery if they stayed in the union. (very notably, Maryland
that bordered DC on 3 sides) In fact Maryland had not freed their
slaves until a month or two before the 13th amendment was ratified in
1864.
It is clear that if the south had stated in the union, they had enough
votes in the senate to stop the 13th amendment.
(another one of those "ifs")
It is debatable whether the emancipation proclamation would have
withstood the SCOTUS if the southern states were still a political
factor in the US. It is quite easy to argue that it was a "taking" and
that the government would have had to make "just compensation" to the
slave holders.
Bear in mind, until the 13th amendment, slavery was a constitutionally
accepted institution. George and Tom had slaves.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 4:47:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:20:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Nobody said slavery is moral. Lincoln was morally against it but
recognized he might have to accept some of it in order to save the Union.


Which is why he exempted the states that had not left the union when
he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. He was willing to live with
their slavery if they stayed in the union. (very notably, Maryland
that bordered DC on 3 sides) In fact Maryland had not freed their
slaves until a month or two before the 13th amendment was ratified in
1864.
It is clear that if the south had stated in the union, they had enough
votes in the senate to stop the 13th amendment.
(another one of those "ifs")
It is debatable whether the emancipation proclamation would have
withstood the SCOTUS if the southern states were still a political
factor in the US. It is quite easy to argue that it was a "taking" and
that the government would have had to make "just compensation" to the
slave holders.
Bear in mind, until the 13th amendment, slavery was a constitutionally
accepted institution. George and Tom had slaves.

I sure hope Harry or BAO attempt to rebut this with something other than insults. I'm learning a lot of history in this thread!

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/20/16 6:49 AM, Keine Krausescheiße wrote:
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 4:47:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:20:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Nobody said slavery is moral. Lincoln was morally against it but
recognized he might have to accept some of it in order to save the Union.


Which is why he exempted the states that had not left the union when
he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. He was willing to live with
their slavery if they stayed in the union. (very notably, Maryland
that bordered DC on 3 sides) In fact Maryland had not freed their
slaves until a month or two before the 13th amendment was ratified in
1864.
It is clear that if the south had stated in the union, they had enough
votes in the senate to stop the 13th amendment.
(another one of those "ifs")
It is debatable whether the emancipation proclamation would have
withstood the SCOTUS if the southern states were still a political
factor in the US. It is quite easy to argue that it was a "taking" and
that the government would have had to make "just compensation" to the
slave holders.
Bear in mind, until the 13th amendment, slavery was a constitutionally
accepted institution. George and Tom had slaves.

I sure hope Harry or BAO attempt to rebut this with something other than insults. I'm learning a lot of history in this thread!


It's nothing more than an apologetica for slavery based upon conjecture.
No need to rebut.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/20/2016 7:51 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/20/16 6:49 AM, Keine Krausescheiße wrote:
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 4:47:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:20:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Nobody said slavery is moral. Lincoln was morally against it but
recognized he might have to accept some of it in order to save the
Union.


Which is why he exempted the states that had not left the union when
he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. He was willing to live with
their slavery if they stayed in the union. (very notably, Maryland
that bordered DC on 3 sides) In fact Maryland had not freed their
slaves until a month or two before the 13th amendment was ratified in
1864.
It is clear that if the south had stated in the union, they had enough
votes in the senate to stop the 13th amendment.
(another one of those "ifs")
It is debatable whether the emancipation proclamation would have
withstood the SCOTUS if the southern states were still a political
factor in the US. It is quite easy to argue that it was a "taking" and
that the government would have had to make "just compensation" to the
slave holders.
Bear in mind, until the 13th amendment, slavery was a constitutionally
accepted institution. George and Tom had slaves.

I sure hope Harry or BAO attempt to rebut this with something other
than insults. I'm learning a lot of history in this thread!



It's nothing more than an apologetica for slavery based upon conjecture.
No need to rebut.

Nothing apologetic about it. Just historical facts that some don't want
to acknowledge in this day of political correctness. Also not an excuse
or anything close to a support of slavery. The issue of slavery
was and is real with regard to the Civil War but it was not the only
reason. It was more of the straw that broke the camel's back in the
eyes of the confederate states who feared federal government overreach.
Again, in those days people's loyalty to state government exceeded any
loyalty to the federal government, especially in the south.

Ironic that it was the newly formed Republican
Party who advocated and pushed for the end of slavery with Lincoln as
it's leader.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:23:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Nothing apologetic about it. Just historical facts that some don't want
to acknowledge in this day of political correctness. Also not an excuse
or anything close to a support of slavery. The issue of slavery
was and is real with regard to the Civil War but it was not the only
reason. It was more of the straw that broke the camel's back in the
eyes of the confederate states who feared federal government overreach.
Again, in those days people's loyalty to state government exceeded any
loyalty to the federal government, especially in the south.

Ironic that it was the newly formed Republican
Party who advocated and pushed for the end of slavery with Lincoln as
it's leader.


Leaving the union is what sealed the fate of slavery. If they had
stayed in the system and fought this politically, slavery may have
survived in some form for 20-30 more years.
They had 22 senators locked up and 8-10 more that would lean their way
most of the time and in a 72 member senate that is enough to hinder
just about anything. With the deal making that goes on in congress,
who knows how long it would have taken to bring this down
legislatively.
The swing vote in a tie (Andrew Johnson D-NC) was going to go with the
south. He had a long history of supporting slavery. The offer of the
VP seat was the main thing that kept him in Washington and not
Richmond.
That was why the abolitionists were so adamant about making sure no
new states would be slave states. That would water down the power of
the slave states assuming the new congressmen would be of a like mind.