Will the real oppressors please stand up

[Optrader]

@PurpnGold

@Optrader

Starting with the Civil War. The primary reason Lincoln declared war WAS NOT TO END SLAVERY. I’m NOT saying the sentiment wasn’t there. The North hated slavery and wanted it abolished, but Lincoln’s main concern was preserving the Union. Here’s his own words: " 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…"

Finally a Con who understands that the North didn’t fight to end slavery.

Hopefully the narrative that “reparations were paid by the blood of the union” can go away.

Thank you!

True, but in another thread, the repeated question was " why did it take a war to end slavery in the US when other nations did it without war? It was also stated directly by someone on your side of the aisle that it WAS the war that ended slavery. But it wasn’t actually lawfully ended until the 13th amendment was passed. And the black codes and Jim Crow laws that were passed still kept blacks in a defacto state of slavery.

[Ben_Natuf]

@JayJay

It was mentioned prominently in all of them…I corrected your erroneous declaration it was not.

so easily refuted… try harder.

Virginia

THE SECESSION ORDINANCE.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND TO RESUME ALL THE RIGHTS AND POWERS GRANTED UNDER SAID CONSTITUTION.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States .

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the Union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.

This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State, cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule to be hereafter enacted.

Done in Convention, in the city of Richmond, on the 17th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

JNO. L. EUBANK, Secretary of Convention

Then you should have no problem finding where VA listed it as a reason to secede.

The only reference is to “oppression of the southern slave holding states.” You are free to read into it what you wish, but slavery is not a listed reason for secession.

[JayJay]

Already been answered.

Of course it was a reference to slavery as a reason.

Why mention slaveholding as an adjective for the seceding states otherwise?

Not surprised you choose to double down on wrong, though.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

Northeastern elites cared about black just a bit more than southerners. But it wasn’t exactly where it should have been.

In theory.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

In theory.

No, In practice

Chattel Slavery vs Freedmen

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

In theory.

No, In practice

Chattel Slavery vs Freedmen

You assume that was their motivation.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Optrader

So, the narrative put forth by Democrats is that white men, and more specifically white Republicans have been responsible for the plight of the black community in America today.

Racism is systemic among white Republicans. THEY are responsible for slavery. THEY are responsible for the Jim Crow laws that were enforced for 100 years after the Civil War. THEY are responsible for inner city ghettos, thItse poverty, crime and drugs that plague the inner cities. THEY are responsible for the inferior schools. THEY are responsible for blacks being denied opportunities, jobs and equality in general right?

WRONG!!

It is only the fact that the Democrats and their militant offspring the Libs, the Socialists and the Communists have managed to gain control of the public schools, Universities and the media ( and thus the message), that otherwise intelligent people don’t see the real culprits behind the deaths of thousands of African Americans, their continued subjugation by segregation and the poverty and hopelessness that DEMOCRAT leaders have deliberately cultivated by their policies.

I, for one, am sick of the ignorance and lies put out by Democrats, so let’s take a factual look at history, shall we?

Starting with the Civil War. The primary reason Lincoln declared war WAS NOT TO END SLAVERY. I’m NOT saying the sentiment wasn’t there. The North hated slavery and wanted it abolished, but Lincoln’s main concern was preserving the Union. Here’s his own words: " 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…"

To prevent an unreadable wall of text, I’m going to stop here. I have a direction I want to go, and will be doing so. In the meantime, feel free to add or detract from my OP…

The war not being fought to end slavery doesn’t mean slavery was not its main cause.

[Ben_Natuf]

@JayJay

Already been answered.

Of course it was a reference to slavery as a reason.

Why mention slaveholding as an adjective for the seceding states otherwise?

Not surprised you choose to double down on wrong, though.

They didn’t mention slaveholding as a reason, they used it as a adjective to describe the southern states. The reason they gave was “oppression”. Further, while more prominent in TX secession, the biggest gripe they had seemed to be that the feds would not assist in defending TX border against bandits. At least they went on much longer about that. Also the fact they they were closer to the other southern states, geography seems to have also affected their decision. Slavery was also a reason, but just one of a few. Now good luck finding the secession statements from the rest of the southern states, because they didn’t publish any.

[Ben_Natuf]

@PurpnGold

No, In practice

Chattel Slavery vs Freedmen

Not in practice. Northerners were “mostly” against slavery, but not all (about 2/3 according to what I’ve read). And of those who were it was the institution they abhorred not the people they loved. They hated the institution of slavery, they mostly didn’t give a tinkers damn about the actual slaves.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

You assume that was their motivation.

What am I assuming?

[PurpnGold]

@Ben_Natuf

Not in practice. Northerners were “mostly” against slavery, but not all (about 2/3 according to what I’ve read). And of those who were it was the institution they abhorred not the people they loved. They hated the institution of slavery, they mostly didn’t give a tinkers damn about the actual slaves.

If I was a slave in 1860 and I escaped to the North, would I be subject to Chattel Slavery? Or would I be free?

[Ben_Natuf]

@PurpnGold

If I was a slave in 1860 and I escaped to the North, would I be subject to Chattel Slavery? Or would I be free?

Before the war? depends on which state you escaped to. In Delaware you’d still be a slave, because as Biden likes to remind us (when he wants southern redneck votes), Delaware, was a slave state. In point of fact, since the slaves in thye south were freed by the emancipation proclamation, Delaware was likely the last Slave state.

[JayJay]

@Optrader

Andrew Johnson, though a Southern Democrat, became President after Lincoln’s assassination. He wanted to unify the country quickly and had to send in union troops to maintain the peace as reconstruction began. During the period, right after the war, Republicans began gaining political offices in the Southern states. This created resentment and so the South began creating “black codes” as a result.

“Southern states returned many of their old leaders and passed Black codes” to deprive the freedmen of many civil liberties, but Congressional Republicans refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions.

However, Democrats had regained power in most Southern states by the late 1870s. Later, this period came to be referred to as Redemption. From 1890–1908 states of the former Confederacy passed statutes and amendments to their state constitutions that effectively disenfranchised most African Americans and tens of thousands of poor whites. They did this through devices such as poll taxes and literacy tests.

Yes Southern Democrats were conservative.

Which may explain why it’s mostly conservatives that are the ones getting upset at the “erasure” of “Southern Heritage”?

[Ben_Natuf]

@JayJay

Yes Southern Democrats were conservative.

LOL, yeah, LBJ, Algore and Sheets Byrd were soooooooo conservative.

[sikofit]

@Ben_Natuf

@JayJay

Had the South not seceded, would there have been war?

And why did the SouthEven states secede?

Had they not seceded, likely not. However, it would be difficult to imagine a situation where they did not feel like they had to. Because of trade laws passed in large part with no southern support and the absolute eventuality in the near future of abolition, the south was in a particular predicament. They could not afford to go on without slavery, and they would not be able to go on with it. Without the ability to sell raw materials outside of the US, once slavery was abolished, the entire system of production in the south would collapse. If the powers that be in the south wished to maintain their status, I don’t see where they had much choice but to secede.

Boo hoo. Poor Southerners being prevented from owning human beings and expanding their trade westward. How would they ever get by? Maybe like the rest of the civilized world?

[Ben_Natuf]

@sikofit

Boo hoo. Poor Southerners being prevented from owning human beings and expanding their trade westward. How would they ever get by? Maybe like the rest of the civilized world?

rather childish response.

Had the northern industrial states not limited trade, it is possible that the southern states may have been able to survive the abolition of slavery. In that context, they may not have felt they had to secede and could adjust. Southern producers were land rich and cash poor, and the trade restrictions kept them that way. How different would the world be today had this happened? The question was asked, I answered it. If the best you can do in response is a childishly delivered example of arrogance, bile, hatred, and bias, maybe you should not reply at all?

[PurpnGold]

@Ben_Natuf

LOL, yeah, LBJ, Algore and Sheets Byrd were soooooooo conservative.

They were liberal?

[JayJay]

Robert Byrd was around a long time but I don’t think he was around in the late 1800s…the time period of which I speak.

For sure the others weren’t.

But nice attempted dodge.

[sikofit]

@Ben_Natuf

rather childish response.

Almost as childish as the traitorous South who couldn’t own and breed human beings anymore.

[sikofit]

@Ben_Natuf

The question was asked, I answered it. If the best you can do in response is a childishly delivered example of arrogance, bile, hatred, and bias, maybe you should not reply at all?

The question received the response it deserved. The Confederacy is nothing but a pathetic stain on our country’s history without any redeeming qualities. Anyone who thinks they have the right to own and breed another human being is nothing but a piece of trash.