quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Load sixteen tons,
And what do you get,
Another day older and deeper in debt,
St. Peter don't call me cause I can't go,
I owe my soul to the company store

Think slavery is abolished ? Well, a long time ago people paid cash for new cars, even houses. Now they do not even pay cash for the gasoline for the cars. If you have to make a payment every month, you canot quit your job.

Now let's get that one statement across here - YOU CANNOT QUIT YOUR JOB.

How does that differ from slavery ?

Far too much reason and applied logic for most.

So I will answer it, NO DIFFERENCE!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR

Start of the civil war 1861
Abolition of slavery 1863

So the cause came two years after the effect ? T^T

A major cause of the war was over slave-holding in new territories and/or states, not existing states. Lincoln finally abolished slavery in all existing states halfway through he war, but that was not the original intent.

quote:


Having studied it a bit, I am sure they saw it coming. In fact even in the southern states there were abolitionists. But there was a hell of a lot more going on they didn't like. Otherwise, why would the commoner fight for rich people to hold slaves rather than to hire them ?

Patriotism for your own state/land...concerns over what else the federal government might try to change in your state later if they feel they have the power to do so (which they would if Southerners didn't fight against this)...there were reasons other than just slavery, but the abo;litionist movement had been building for decades and it was the primary.

As far as commoners fighting for the rich:
Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war

The South was agragarian. It was their livelihood. They didn't have the immigrants pouring in to hire as laborers at cheap wages the way that the North did. Lack of slaves meant crops would sit in the fields and rot, plantations would fail, taking the economy and their way of life with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

A major cause of the war was over slave-holding in new territories and/or states, not existing states. Lincoln finally abolished slavery in all existing states halfway through he war, but that was not the original intent.

The Emancipation applied only to states that were still in rebellion when it was issued. In some states, like Kentucky i think, which were never in secession, slaves were not freed until later. Check me on this.

vML

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
You make it sound like a managed conspiracy. It just doesn't work that way. There are too many independent school districts, too many text book publishers, too much internet, too many colleges and universities, and too many independent teachers to maintain a conspiracy of such magnitude.

quote:

For the most part there is not enough time in the 180 day school year to teach a thorough and comprehensive course on American History.

quote:

In his First Inaugural Address (4 March 1861), Lincoln threatened to invade any state that failed to collect federal “duties and imposts.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
You make it sound like a managed conspiracy. It just doesn't work that way. There are too many independent school districts, too many text book publishers, too much internet, too many colleges and universities, and too many independent teachers to maintain a conspiracy of such magnitude.

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory, but I do have an observation regarding schools, textbooks, teachers, etc.

All the major textbook companies cater to Texas and California. All around the nation, when a school district adopts a textbook for instruction, they are adopting ones that were written with the standards and expectations of Texas and/or California, because those are textbook companies biggest clients and where they will sell the most books, in sheer volume.

Those books are then adopted by the Departments of Education in each state, and put on an official adoption list that all public schools have to use when making their textbook selection. If they choose something that is not on the list, then they will not receive any state or federal funds to make the textbook purchases. And textbook purchases are the largest curriculum expense that districts face, so going with something off the list is unheard of.

So across the nation, from Maine to Oregon to Alabama, the content taught in the schools is steered by the people making curriculum decisions in Texas and California. So whatever their endgame is, that is what you will see presented in the classrooms in the rest of the nation.

quote:

For the most part there is not enough time in the 180 day school year to teach a thorough and comprehensive course on American History.

Exactly. So content in the textbook is rarely explored beyond what is presented in print. I taught history for several years. I still do, as part of a larger curriculum. The errors and biases that are presented in textbooks is mind-boggling. And the teachers who stick to the book because they do not have the time to delve further with their students are the norm rather than the exception.t

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Remember the textbook scandals ? The ridiculous errors ?

I wonder if they fixed the problem or merely hushed it up.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

I think a lot of it is a lie by omission. And good if some blackies owned some crackers, good for them! Whatever. Was everyone happy? Good God I hope so.
When I was a little girl I wanted a Mamie!!! That's right I wanted a Mamie. Is that prejudice? I don't care. Why did a little white girl want a Mamie? Cause they were always cooking, and singing, and being all lovable, and making stuff all sweet. Now if that's prejudice then shoot me. It's just awful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In his First Inaugural Address (4 March 1861), Lincoln threatened to invade any state that failed to collect federal “duties and imposts.”

Really? Here is a link. Can you point out that threat to me?

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

vML

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You are quite correct in your description of the textbook adoption process. I think it is notable however that Texas and California represent quite opposite ideologies. Of particular interest to me was the movement to erase evolution from biology textbooks with some considerable success. I never needed a textbook to fulfill my obligation but you are right that some teachers sought to avoid controversy. Fortunately as time progresses we find that more students are moving on to higher education where censorship is not so much an issue. I hope I'm wrong.

vML

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Remember the textbook scandals ? The ridiculous errors ?

I wonder if they fixed the problem or merely hushed it up.

T^T

Whether they were fixed or not matters little. The internet is a great research source. Look forward to the day when students will be issued electronic tablets instead of books. Oh wait! That day has come . . . at least it has begun. Textbooks will disappear as quickly as VCR movie rental stores.

vML

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well, no he did not, the amendment did that the emancipation proclamation was slaves in confederate holdings only, trying to get them to join the fight, for the FED we were in desperate times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

I think a lot of it is a lie by omission. And good if some blackies owned some crackers, good for them! Whatever. Was everyone happy? Good God I hope so.
When I was a little girl I wanted a Mamie!!! That's right I wanted a Mamie. Is that prejudice? I don't care. Why did a little white girl want a Mamie? Cause they were always cooking, and singing, and being all lovable, and making stuff all sweet. Now if that's prejudice then shoot me. It's just awful.

I don't know why you are addressing your secret childhood fantasies to me, darlin, but if you still want a Mammy i will happily paint me some blackface, stuff some pillows under my shirt for fake, cushy titties. Then, I'll sing and dance and cook and make everthin so sweet n we all be happy darkies. Y's mam.

Aunt Jemima "I'se in town, Honey!"

vML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well, no he did not, the amendment did that the emancipation proclamation was slaves in confederate holdings only, trying to get them to join the fight, for the FED we were in desperate times.

no

The Emancipation Proclamation

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.


Now I wasnt aware a president had the authority to make proclamations contrary to the constitution.



Following General Fremont's martial law proclamation of August 1861, where he declared all slaves of disloyal owners to be free, we know that Lincoln rescinded the order based on constitutional concerns and out of fear that it would push the Border states into the Confederacy. Lincoln's revocation was subjected to severe criticism by some including long time friend Orville Browning.

On Sept. 22, 1861 Lincoln responded in a confidential letter to Browning's criticism where the president stated "[t]hat you should object to my adhering to a law, which you had assisted in making, and presenting to me, less than a month before, is odd enough. But this is a very small part. Genl. Fremont's proclamation, as to confiscation of property, and the liberation of slaves, is purely political, and not within the range of military law, or necessity. If a commanding General finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever; and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the General needs them, he can seize them, and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question, is simply 'dictatorship.' It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases---confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. http://civilwartalk.com/threads/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-legal.46780/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In his First Inaugural Address (4 March 1861), Lincoln threatened to invade any state that failed to collect federal “duties and imposts.”

Really? Here is a link. Can you point out that threat to me?

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

vML

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts;

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

FR

The symbol above is used to avoid such confusion, or maybe you could quote whoever you were responding to.

Enjoy the syrup whenever life gives it to you [:)]

vML

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In his First Inaugural Address (4 March 1861), Lincoln threatened to invade any state that failed to collect federal “duties and imposts.”

Really? Here is a link. Can you point out that threat to me?

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

vML

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts;

No where does that say he will invade any state that fails to collect duties, etc. He said he would use his constitutional powers to hold government property and to collect duties. Reading 101. Go back to school.

vML

quote:

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,"