TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Aren't the confederate sites state owned?

So if the banning happens on state owned grounds, it's gong to mean all those beautiful historic places are included.

And when are the things issued by the government going to remove all thing southern or slavery related?

It's well known Ben Franklin kept slaves. Jackson on the $20.

Of course the DoI will have to be removed. Can't have those slave owner's signatures displayed on such an important document.

Yep. Gonna have to completely scrub the whole thing.

---

 You apparently haven't heard that there is a grassroots movement to get Jackson replaced on the $20 by a woman.  Harriett Tubman won the vote. 

 

---

 Yes. I have heard but didn't know about the vote.

Changing the money doesn't really bother me. But do it for the right reasons.

---

I don't want the money changed, either.  The FACT is that love him or hate him--Andrew Jackson did FAR more for this nation than Harriet Tubman or any other woman that was in the "running". 

Did he do some "bad" things in the rear view mirror of history.  Sure, as have pretty much ALL presidents--but he did a lot of good things, also.   

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Can't wait until they start on the Revolutionary War monuments. They will have to nuke Massachusetts to get rid of them all.

---

WHY in the world would THAT happen?

Get a grip.

flan

 

---

 Next target.  Most everything else State's hold valuable has been trampled upon.  And it is because of the Revolutionary War why we have the right to bear arms due to Gov't tyranny.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

 

---

 You do not know that.  And you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

 

---

 You do not know that.  And you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

---

I do know that.  The South seceded because the Lincoln election meant the end of the "balance of power" between the slave and free states in Congress.  The end of slavery was only a matter of time after the 1860 election.  Those are established FACTS.  

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

 

---

 You do not know that.  And you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

---

I do know that.  The South seceded because the Lincoln election meant the end of the "balance of power" between the slave and free states in Congress.  The end of slavery was only a matter of time after the 1860 election.  Those are established FACTS.  

---

 And....you have still ignored the rest of my post.  That balance of power you speak of was going to interfere with the state's rights to make it's own laws.  Please remember, this occured BEFORE the amendments to the Constitution abolishing slavery, and therefore the federal government did NOT, under the Constitution, have the right to tell the States what they could and could not do regarding slavery. 

And let's not forget, the only reason the north got all anti-slavery is becuase they no longer needed slaves.  While they did, they were just fine with it.

I have been to the battle fields. I have attended lectures, demonstrations, given tours...

You read a book. Good for you...

Ohfour wrote:

---

I have been to the battle fields. I have attended lectures, demonstrations, given tours...

You read a book. Good for you...

---

Um, so have I.

Again, you have cited NOTHING from anyone to contradict a word I've said.  NOT.  ONE.  THING.

Plus, the battlefields don't give the political motivations.   

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Quakers have always been opposed to slavery.

flan

---

 And you bring this up because.....

---

Are you seriously that dense? I have been attending a Quaker Meeting for over a year, and when Quakers came to America, the first colonies they settled in were Pennsylvania and Rhode Island...you know...THE NORTH. 

flan

---

 Still not relevant.  The Quakers have never been a driving force in this country politically. 

---

I never said that they were.

flan 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

 

---

 You do not know that.  And you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

---

I do know that.  The South seceded because the Lincoln election meant the end of the "balance of power" between the slave and free states in Congress.  The end of slavery was only a matter of time after the 1860 election.  Those are established FACTS.  

---

 And....you have still ignored the rest of my post.  That balance of power you speak of was going to interfere with the state's rights to make it's own laws.  Please remember, this occured BEFORE the amendments to the Constitution abolishing slavery, and therefore the federal government did NOT, under the Constitution, have the right to tell the States what they could and could not do regarding slavery. 

And let's not forget, the only reason the north got all anti-slavery is becuase they no longer needed slaves.  While they did, they were just fine with it.

---

LOL!!!!   So you now recognize it was about slavery.  Glad we now agree.  That is EXACTLY the position you just posted above. 

You recognize that the ONLY law they were concerned with states being able to make--was the one to own slaves. 

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Quakers have always been opposed to slavery.

flan

---

 And you bring this up because.....

---

Are you seriously that dense? I have been attending a Quaker Meeting for over a year, and when Quakers came to America, the first colonies they settled in were Pennsylvania and Rhode Island...you know...THE NORTH. 

flan

---

 Still not relevant.  The Quakers have never been a driving force in this country politically. 

---

I never said that they were.

flan 

---

 They are also staunchly against war.  So WHAT does your comment have to do with anything?

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

 

---

 You do not know that.  And you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

---

I do know that.  The South seceded because the Lincoln election meant the end of the "balance of power" between the slave and free states in Congress.  The end of slavery was only a matter of time after the 1860 election.  Those are established FACTS.  

---

 Actually, 7 had already seceded before Lincoln was elected.

Ohfour wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I have been to the battle fields. I have attended lectures, demonstrations, given tours...

You read a book. Good for you...

---

Um, so have I.

 

Again, you have cited NOTHING from anyone to contradict a word I've said.  NOT.  ONE.  THING.

 

Plus, the battlefields don't give the political motivations.   

---

I don't have to.  I believe what I've been told and what I have studied.  And seeing that you are wrong most of the time, I don't really subscribe to anything you say. 

---

You must not have studied if you don't even know any of the pre-eminent historians on the subject.

flan327 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Quakers have always been opposed to slavery.

flan

---

 And you bring this up because.....

---

Are you seriously that dense? I have been attending a Quaker Meeting for over a year, and when Quakers came to America, the first colonies they settled in were Pennsylvania and Rhode Island...you know...THE NORTH. 

flan

---

 And you bring this up because.....

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

 

---

 You do not know that.  And you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

---

I do know that.  The South seceded because the Lincoln election meant the end of the "balance of power" between the slave and free states in Congress.  The end of slavery was only a matter of time after the 1860 election.  Those are established FACTS.  

---

 Actually, 7 had already seceded before Lincoln was elected.

---

No, you are DEAD WRONG.  Lincoln was elected on Nov. 7, 1860.  South Carolina, the first state to secede, did not do so until Dec. 20th, 1860.  

I find it baffling that you act so sure of your facts, but are wrong on the simplest of dates in the timeline. 

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I have been to the battle fields. I have attended lectures, demonstrations, given tours...

You read a book. Good for you...

---

Um, so have I.

 

Again, you have cited NOTHING from anyone to contradict a word I've said.  NOT.  ONE.  THING.

 

Plus, the battlefields don't give the political motivations.   

---

I don't have to.  I believe what I've been told and what I have studied.  And seeing that you are wrong most of the time, I don't really subscribe to anything you say. 

---

You must not have studied if you don't even know any of the pre-eminent historians on the subject.

 

 

---

I do know them.  I just don't agree with them.  There are just as many that say the opposite... 

huskerbb wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

 

---

 You do not know that.  And you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

---

I do know that.  The South seceded because the Lincoln election meant the end of the "balance of power" between the slave and free states in Congress.  The end of slavery was only a matter of time after the 1860 election.  Those are established FACTS.  

---

 Actually, 7 had already seceded before Lincoln was elected.

---

No, you are DEAD WRONG.  Lincoln was elected on Nov. 7, 1860.  South Carolina, the first state to secede, did not do so until Dec. 20th, 1860.  

 

I find it baffling that you act so sure of your facts, but are wrong on the simplest of dates in the timeline. 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 03:04:19 PM

---

 Not before he was elected, Lily - before he took office.  Presidents are inaugurated in January.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Honestly, I've been around a few KKK members. They are ALL democrat.

---

Of course they are.  The KKK was born in the South.  The South after the Civil War was dominated by Democratic politics.

 

Anti-slavery and equal rights are Northern, Republican positions.   

---

 Anti-slavery perhaps, but not equal rights.  The North was not nice to blacks, either. 

---

The 14th and 15th amendments were also Republican, Northern positions.

 

One might do well to remember the HUNDREDS of thousands of Northerners--including a president--who gave their lives to free blacks from the bondage of slavery. 

 

 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 02:26:43 PM

---

 I am aware that the Republicans are the ones that fought to end slavery, and the Republicans were the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act.  However, to pretend that the horrible treatment of the blacks in the North did not occur is ignoring a key part of history.  Indiana actually BANNED black people.  Ohio required them to post a bond of $500 to live there (impossible).  Northern states that allowed blacks to vote at one time took that right away. 

This civil war was about preserving the union - it was not all about slavery.  The emanicipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states to help the Union war effort.  Slave states loyal to the union got to keep their slaves until the amendment was passed, which was quite some time.  The civil war was about so much more than slavery.

---

No, it really wasn't.  Slavery was the issue.  Everything else is revisionist history and window dressing.  The FACT is that no slavery=no Civil War. 

State's rights?  The only issue contentious enough to be a causus bellum was slavery.  All other things under contention such as tariffs never would have resulted in war. 

 

---

 You do not know that.  And you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

---

I do know that.  The South seceded because the Lincoln election meant the end of the "balance of power" between the slave and free states in Congress.  The end of slavery was only a matter of time after the 1860 election.  Those are established FACTS.  

---

 Actually, 7 had already seceded before Lincoln was elected.

---

No, you are DEAD WRONG.  Lincoln was elected on Nov. 7, 1860.  South Carolina, the first state to secede, did not do so until Dec. 20th, 1860.  

 

I find it baffling that you act so sure of your facts, but are wrong on the simplest of dates in the timeline. 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 03:04:19 PM

---

 Not before he was elected, Lily - before he took office.  Presidents are inaugurated in January.

---

Yeah.  Holy cow.   

huskerbb wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Like I said, it wasn't to free slaves. It was to protect states rights. Slavery was just an emotional tool.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton.

However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes.

The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

2. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under theArticles of Confederation.

The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchaseand later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence, Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe'sUncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

---

LOL!!!

 

 

1.  The difference was that slaves were owned in the South and not the North.

2.   The South wanted the right to continue slavery--the North was going to make a move at some point to ban slavery.  The Kansas/Nebraska act showed that clearly.

3.  Slavery, like I said.

4.  Slavery, like I said.

5.  Because they knew with Lincoln's election, the end of slavery was only a matter of time.

 

There, we must agree, but EVERY POINT you made was about--slavery. 

---

 So not a single slave was owned in the north? Ok. 

And if you had the ability to read, you would see that in each one of those, slavery was the emotional leverage. Not the real reason.

You have a very narrow view of history. Tunnel vision. Basically,  you drank the kool-aid. 

Enjoy your ignorance.  I hear it's blissful. 

FNW wrote:

---

Actually, Lincoln was not inaugurated, i.e., take office, until March 1861, after SC seceded....

---

 REally?  I did not know that.  Why the delay?