american history part deux

[melking]

Remember history is written by the victors in any situation. And justified by the non victors.

Well said Jalopy!

 

[TexasBred]

Hayes lost to Tilden, but got elected by one electoral vote. Hayes then ended reconstruction.

And the dems made a new attempt to re-institute slavery.

 

[TexasBred]

What my ancestors endured happened on Lincoln's watch. There were no fair trials. Read the diaries

Emancipation Proclamation happened Nearly three years after the Civil War started. Not the other way around. History books don't touch that either.

Did you sleep through history class?? We all know that.....and it didn't free any slaves either.

 

[TexasBred]

The war was over power and money.
As far as picking your own cotton the majority of the Southerns didn't own any
less than one in four were slave owners. The Northern's had there share as well
just like D'Wolf getting rich off the trade and owning plantations in the Caribbean operated on slave labor that went on for
years after the war. Follow the dollar.
Many Americans were no different than the Germans under Hitler following the Pied Piper.
Federal troops shoot down citizens in the street of Baltimore opposed to the war.

Indeed, as the militia regiment transferred between stations, a mob of anti-War supporters and Southern sympathizers attacked the train cars and blocked the route. When it became apparent that they could travel by horse no further, the troops got out of the cars and marched in formation through the city. However, the mob followed the soldiers, breaking store windows and causing damage until they finally blocked the soldiers. The mob attacked the rear companies of the regiment with "bricks, paving stones, and pistols."[13] In response, several soldiers fired into the mob, beginning a giant brawl between the soldiers, the mob, and the Baltimore police. In the end, the soldiers got to the Camden Station, and the police were able to block the crowd from them. The regiment had left behind much of their equipment, including their marching band's instruments.

Four soldiers (Corporal Sumner Needham of Co I and Privates Luther C. Ladd, Charles Taylor, and Addison Whitney of Company D)[14][15] and twelve civilians were killed in the riot. About 36 of the regiment were also wounded and left behind. It is unknown how many additional civilians were injured.[16] Sumner Henry Needham is sometimes considered to be the first Union casualty of the war, though he was killed by civilians in a Union state. Needham is buried in Lawrence, Massachusetts.[17] Ladd and Whitney are buried in Lowell, Massachusetts.[18] Taylor was buried in Baltimore; though his grave was lost, his name appears on the Lowell Monument.[15]

The same day, after the attack on the soldiers, the office of the Baltimore Wecker, a German-language newspaper, was completely wrecked and the building seriously damaged by the same mob. The publisher, William Schnauffer, and the editor, Wilhelm Rapp, whose lives were threatened, were compelled to leave town. The publisher later returned and resumed publication of the Wecker which continued throughout the war a firm supporter of the Union cause.[19] The editor moved to another paper in Illinois.[20]

As a result of the riot in Baltimore and pro-Southern sympathies of much of the city's populace, the Baltimore Steam Packet Company also declined the same day a Federal gover

CB we all acknowledge that not everyone was a slave owner.....but we also realize that a huge majority of the slaves in the US resided in the south and were absolutely necessary for the agrarian economy of the south. Without them it could not survive which was pretty well proven after the war.

 

[TexasBred]

And Andersonville was all roses.
So what were the southerns fighting for? You just told me it wasn't states rights.
So did they just feel like killing?

The South chose to secede the North chose to fight.
Had they not there would be two countries today.
The South didn't want the north it was the other way around.
Without the South there could be no filling of the Manifest Destiny that is another issue.
That was used more than once to go to war the first time with Mexico.
Kinda of hypocritical when we say every nation in the world has the right to split but us.

This little issue right here lies the crux of the matter and it is not taught in history as well.
Southern power derived from a combination of factors. The "three-fifths clause" (counting 100 slaves as 60 people for seats in the House and thus for electoral votes) gave the South additional representation at the national level. Parity in the Senate was critical, whereby a new slave state was admitted in tandem with a new free state. Regional unity across party lines was essential on key votes. In the Democratic party, a presidential candidate had to carry the national convention by a two-thirds vote to get nominated. The Northern Democrats were losing power and the ability to be nominated.

Again it was about power.

Ahhhhh so it was about slaves. We need these darkies (these 3/5 humans) for electoral votes and with that Power. :lol: :lol: :lol: There my friend is the better example of hypocrisy.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Exactly. Their rules. If it was in their favor they didn't count as only 3/5ths.

 

[TexasBred]

Exactly. Their rules. If it was in their favor they didn't count as only 3/5ths.

During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison noted an important observation he had made. He claimed that of all the difficulties that separated Northern and Southern states, slavery was by far the biggest. As we all know, the founders of the American Republic sanctioned a 3/5 compromise to the Constitution. This compromise guaranteed the Southern states greater representation in Congress by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person. Essentially, this meant that the South would have a larger say in government at the expense of its slave population (which of course was not allowed to vote).

Northerners saw this as misrepresentation. Their feelings were that since slaves could not vote, they should not be counted amongst the general population of the South. In essence, the North felt cheated by the hypocrisy of the South's demand for greater representation, especially since the representation came at the expense of slaves.

The effects of the 3/5 Compromise became evident at election time. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams by only 7 electoral votes. The election was clearly divided by the slavery issue. The north had predominantly gone with Adams, while the South sided with Jefferson. As the votes were counted, Northern politicians quickly realized that without the 3/5 Compromise, Jefferson would have defeated. The fact that slaves had been counted as part of the South's representation had given Jefferson the victory. Later elections would have the same results. The election of James Madison and Martin Van Buren would all be influenced by the 3/5 Compromise.

It is worth noting that the South owed a tremendous political debt to a large chunk of the population they chose to keep in bondage.

 

[melking]

Emancipation Proclamation

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.


I often wonder how the war could have been about slavery if not all of the slaves were freed?

 

[Dave]

Nothing like a good North verses he South argument. And being from about as far west as a person can get in the lower 48, I get to sit back and watch...... Please carry on.

 

[TexasBred]

Emancipation Proclamation

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.


I often wonder how the war could have been about slavery if not all of the slaves were freed?

There was no way to enforce it ... plain and simple. Had it worked there would have been no need for the 13th amendment which Mississippi finally ratified in 2013. :shock:

 

[TexasBred]

Nothing like a good North verses he South argument. And being from about as far west as a person can get in the lower 48, I get to sit back and watch...... Please carry on.

:lol: :clap: :clap: :lol: :lol: ;-)

 

[TexasBred]

Should of picked your own cotton if you didn't like what happen...

Spoken like a true Blue Il. Lincoln lover. And that right there is the perfect example of why I hate that craphole st. Their narrow view of what a Great man he was and all the wonderful things he did :dunce: Look at the view's of the idiot in the white house now, and what state was he a senator from ?? OH ya IL. Slavery was not the real reason for the civil war, just a artificial reason to rally the north in support of a war. JMO but the Texan's are the ones that got screwed the worst from that deal .

The ones cast out of Texas took it the worst. The Republic paid veterans with land. They sold land for schools and colleges. Some of that land was in the panhandle that went up thru Colorado into Wyoming. New Mexico too. That part was chopped off. Veterans were now in a territory. Why oh why did we ever agree to this?

Texas gave up all of that land in the Compromise of 1850. WE gave up almost one-third of our territory under this plan, the settlement also included compensation of $10,000,000, which provided funding for Texas to pay its pre-statehood debts. The plan defined the boundaries known that we all recognize today as being "Texas".

 

[backhoeboogie]

Texas gave up all of that land in the Compromise of 1850. WE gave up almost one-third of our territory under this plan, the settlement also included compensation of $10,000,000, which provided funding for Texas to pay its pre-statehood debts. The plan defined the boundaries known that we all recognize today as being "Texas".

Exactly. And my posts pertains to Texans who were living outside of the boundaries as we know them today.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Exactly. Their rules. If it was in their favor they didn't count as only 3/5ths.

During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison noted an important observation he had made. He claimed that of all the difficulties that separated Northern and Southern states, slavery was by far the biggest. As we all know, the founders of the American Republic sanctioned a 3/5 compromise to the Constitution. This compromise guaranteed the Southern states greater representation in Congress by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person. Essentially, this meant that the South would have a larger say in government at the expense of its slave population (which of course was not allowed to vote).

Northerners saw this as misrepresentation. Their feelings were that since slaves could not vote, they should not be counted amongst the general population of the South. In essence, the North felt cheated by the hypocrisy of the South's demand for greater representation, especially since the representation came at the expense of slaves.

The effects of the 3/5 Compromise became evident at election time. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams by only 7 electoral votes. The election was clearly divided by the slavery issue. The north had predominantly gone with Adams, while the South sided with Jefferson. As the votes were counted, Northern politicians quickly realized that without the 3/5 Compromise, Jefferson would have defeated. The fact that slaves had been counted as part of the South's representation had given Jefferson the victory. Later elections would have the same results. The election of James Madison and Martin Van Buren would all be influenced by the 3/5 Compromise.

It is worth noting that the South owed a tremendous political debt to a large chunk of the population they chose to keep in bondage.

Was the 3/5th vote reduced after the Civil War? No. That's the point you are missing. It was favorable to count them as a whole for the yankees and carpet baggers. They were no longer 3/5ths. They did not count them in the population as a whole person until after the Civil War.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

Should of picked your own cotton if you didn't like what happen...

Spoken like a true Blue Il. Lincoln lover. And that right there is the perfect example of why I hate that craphole st. Their narrow view of what a Great man he was and all the wonderful things he did :dunce: Look at the view's of the idiot in the white house now, and what state was he a senator from ?? OH ya IL. Slavery was not the real reason for the civil war, just a artificial reason to rally the north in support of a war. JMO but the Texan's are the ones that got screwed the worst from that deal .

First off let me correct your stupidity about where i'm from, I live in Southern Illinois, an unofficial state held captive by Chicago, and the Federal government. Lincoln was from Springfield, not Southern Illinois.
The war started because of disagreement over state rights, which at the top of that issue of states rights was slavery, and if Kansas should have the right to decide which way they would go, or if the Federal government should tell a state which way they would go. Guess your teacher skipped over the part about bloody Kansas lighting the fuse to start the Civil War? (P.S. they were fighting over slavery case they skipped that... ;-) )
One more thing, grand ol' Texas might be still flying the Spanish flag, if this "Yankee's" family hadn't lend a hand. Now you wise Texans can naw on that, i've got pigs to sort.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Should of picked your own cotton if you didn't like what happen...

Spoken like a true Blue Il. Lincoln lover. And that right there is the perfect example of why I hate that craphole st. Their narrow view of what a Great man he was and all the wonderful things he did :dunce: Look at the view's of the idiot in the white house now, and what state was he a senator from ?? OH ya IL. Slavery was not the real reason for the civil war, just a artificial reason to rally the north in support of a war. JMO but the Texan's are the ones that got screwed the worst from that deal .

First off let me correct your stupidity about where i'm from, I live in Southern Illinois, an unofficial state held captive by Chicago, and the Federal government. Lincoln was from Springfield, not Southern Illinois.
The war started because of disagreement over state rights, which at the top of that issue of states rights was slavery, and if Kansas should have the right to decide which way they would go, or if the Federal government should tell a state which way they would go. Guess your teacher skipped over the part about bloody Kansas lighting the fuse to start the Civil War? (P.S. they were fighting over slavery case they skipped that... ;-) )
One more thing, grand ol' Texas might be still flying the Spanish flag, if this "Yankee's" family hadn't lend a hand. Now you wise Texans can naw on that, i've got pigs to sort.

You're exactly right. Except most of my ancestors that lent a hand were Cajuns. There were some who had migrated from North Carolina, to Georgia, to Mobile, Alabama and then on to Texas. Most were Cajun. They were not born here.

 

[Caustic Burno]

TB you are not that ignorant on Southern history.
A lot of the former slaves migrated north.
The ones left became totally disenfranchised until the Federal Civil Rights act.
It was the Democratic party doing the damage by founding the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Poll Taxes and the
list goes on. Can't remember the year the Supreme Court backed the separation of races shortly after
reconstruction and the race was on to put them back in their place with state constitutional amendments.

There has been a lot wrote on this subject.
"African-Americans living in the South reacted to these negative conditions, and hopeful prospects, by leaving for destinations such as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Harlem, and St. Louis – increasing the black populations in these cities drastically. Many spoke of this mass movement in biblical terms, equating it with the Israelites leaving Egypt, headed for "The Promised Land."

 

[retro]

Should of picked your own cotton if you didn't like what happen...

Say what you want but you claim your held captive by the septic tank called Chicago , and Lincoln, was from Springfield which is true . But you still list Il. as the state you live in and your truck plates say "Land of Lincoln" and you post a comment about picking your own cotton.....That pretty much indicates to me you Carry the Il. views. You can't pick and choose your playing field. Man Up and choose a side :tiphat:

 

[Dave]

Up here, Oregon not wanting part of the whole slave/free issue did neither. They simply made in illegal for black people to come into their state. Thus they weren't in the slave debate. And that had the unintended consequence that led to Americans taking over the area that is now Washington State. Hudson Bay had been holding the line at Fort Vancouver and not allowing Americans to go north. They all went South into Oregon. Along came the George Bush party (no relation to the George Bush we all know), this George Bush was black. He wasn't allowed into Oregon because he was black so McLaughlin the Hudson's Bay factor allowed that party to go North. They settled by what is now Tumwater, Washington and that opened the gate for other Americans.

Interesting bit of history. In the 1850's the border between USA and Canada was still in dispute here in Washington. On San Juan Island there were both US and English troops stationed there. Well one troop had a pig which got out and ate the others garden (I forget who owned the pig). Well the pig got shot. Which led to the pig owners shooting at the pig shooters, which led to a very short skirmish. Cooler heads took over and out right war was avoided. The two American officers in charge were named Pickett and Roberts. One who became famous for a charge at Gettysburg that his name is associated with and the other for later writing Robert's Rules Of Order.

 

[TexasBred]

Was the 3/5th vote reduced after the Civil War? No. That's the point you are missing. It was favorable to count them as a whole for the yankees and carpet baggers. They were no longer 3/5ths. They did not count them in the population as a whole person until after the Civil War.

Slaves did not count at all in the North. The 3/5 gave the south an advantage.