Trump: 'Why was there the Civil War?'

[CPUd]

Trump: 'Why was there the Civil War?'
BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 05/01/17 09:03 AM EDT 8,779


President Trump during an interview that airs Monday questioned why the country had a Civil War and suggested former President Andrew Jackson could have prevented it had he served later.

"I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump said during an interview with the Washington Examiner's Salena Zito.

"He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this.'"

Jackson, the nation's seventh president, died in 1845. The Civil War began in 1861.

The president further questioned why the country could not have solved the Civil War.

"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?" Trump said during the edition of "Main Street Meets the Beltway" scheduled to air on SiriusXM.

"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

During the interview, the president also compared his win to that of Jackson.
"My campaign and win was most like Andrew Jackson, with his campaign. And I said, when was Andrew Jackson? It was 1828. That's a long time ago," Trump said.

"That's Andrew Jackson. And he had a very, very mean and nasty campaign. Because they said this was the meanest and the nastiest. And unfortunately, it continues."

Trump has in the past drawn comparisons between his campaign and that of Jackson.

Ahead of a March rally, the president compared his presidency to Jackson's while marking the birthday of the seventh president.

Speaking outside The Hermitage, Jackson's estate in Nashville, Tenn., Trump referred to Jackson as the people's president.
"It was during the revolution that Jackson first confronted and defied an arrogant elite. Does that sound familiar?" Trump said ahead of his rally earlier this year.

Trump said his visit to The Hermitage was "inspirational" and that he is "a fan."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331349-trump-why-was-there-the-civil-war

[UWDude]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis


The Nullification Crisis was a United States sectional political crisis in 1832–1837, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, which involved a confrontation between South Carolina and the federal government. It ensued after South Carolina declared that the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the state.


The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and on November 24, 1832, a state convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state.[6] On March 1, 1833, Congress passed both the Force Bill—authorizing the President to use military forces against South Carolina—and a new negotiated tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which was satisfactory to South Carolina.

[UWDude]

Hey CPUd, since you are such a history expert (so much more than trump, especially when you got your shill masters telling you how smrt, I mean smart you are...)

In what state were the first shots of the Civil War fired?

[oyarde]

I say the war would have lasted longer as there would have been less participation against the south from states west of Ohio if Jackson had been at the helm. Most legislative seats in Southern In & Ill were held by copperheads .

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/ZZk9znJ.jpg

[r3volution 3.0]

What - an idiot commenting on things of which he has no knowledge

Why - because someone spoke to said idiot, and told him that some vague comments about the civil war would please alt-right nitwits

...who also have no knowledge of anything.

[UWDude]

What - an idiot commenting on things of which he has no knowledge

Why - because someone spoke to said idiot, and told him that some vague comments about the civil war would please alt-right nitwits

...who also have no knowledge of anything.

Do you have enough knowledge on Andrew Jackson and the Civil War to make the judgment on whether Trump has enough knowledge on the topic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

Or do you mean idiot like Ron Paul, who said the federal government should have bought the slaves and freed them to avoid the civil war? (which in my honest opinion, was a stupid comment).

[CPUd]

859258685318672385
https://twitter.com/NoirPoetograpy/status/859258685318672385

[specsaregood]

Or do you mean idiot like Ron Paul, who said the federal government should have bought the slaves and freed them to avoid the civil war? (which in my honest opinion, was a stupid comment).

Ron Paul did NOT say that the federal government should have done that, he merely pointed out that it was an option available other than war.

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you have enough knowledge on Andrew Jackson and the Civil War to make the judgment on whether Trump has enough knowledge on the topic?

Yup


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

I discovered wikipedia some years ago.


Or do you mean idiot like Ron Paul, who said the federal government should have bought the slaves and freed them to avoid the civil war? (which in my honest opinion, was a stupid comment).

That's not at all a stupid comment. That's how slavery was ended in most other civilized societies and ought to have been ended in ours; it would have been vastly cheaper (in blood and gold) than the War of Northern Aggression, which killed half a million human beings (at least) and cost countless millions $. In other words, Ron was correct (if one is not inclined to think for oneself, one would do well to assume that whatever Ron says is correct, because it almost always is).

[UWDude]

Yup

Bullshit.


I discovered wikipedia some years ago.

But just discovered the nullification crisis today.




That's not at all a stupid comment. That's how slavery was ended in most other civilized societies and ought to have been ended in ours; it would have been vastly cheaper (in blood and gold) than the War of Northern Aggression, which killed half a million human beings (at least) and cost countless millions $. In other words, Ron was correct (if one is not inclined to think for oneself, one would do well to assume that whatever Ron says is correct, because it almost always is).

Now who is signalling to the alt-right?
Your breath still stinks of all that haterade you've been drowning yourself in, hobo.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bullshit.

But just discovered the nullification crisis today.

Now who is signalling to the alt-right?
Your breath still stinks of all that haterade you've been drowning yourself in, hobo.

Did you have a point?

[UWDude]

Did you have a point?

Yeah, you are just an idiot commenting on things of which he has no knowledge

Why - because someone spoke to said idiot, and told him that some vague comments about the civil war would please alt-right nitwits

...who also have no knowledge of anything.

[r3volution 3.0]

Does it bother you that the person for whom you voted and propagandized (and to whom you donated?) is a pinko cartoon character?

...this is a rhetorical question.

[UWDude]

Does it bother you that the person for whom you voted and propagandized (and to whom you donated?) is a pinko cartoon character?

...this is a rhetorical question.
LOLUMAD.

[r3volution 3.0]

LOLUMAD.

Glad to see you can laugh about it.

That's the first step in acceptance.

...one day at a time Trumpcuck

http://wizardvarnish.com/wv/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/9a9bYfFj1s0ia04o1_1280.jpg

[UWDude]

LOLUSTILLMAD

[Brian4Liberty]

Awkward moment at the Hall of Fame ceremony...

Q: Can an old folk singer and other southern women sing a song about the south?
A: If they are far left enough, they can sing it, but it will be as awkward as pulling out a Confederate Flag...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8egl25U_bHQ

[r3volution 3.0]

LOLUSTILLMAD

Within literate society, we try to use words.

Words are groups of sounds with particular meanings, distinct from the sounds of the letters.

Not that there's anything wrong with acronyms, but they're usually employed by literate people: not as an alternative to literacy.

Did you have something to say?

[dean.engelhardt]

Why does it hurt to ask the question? Sure it has nothing to do with the current presidency, but academically it is a sound question. It has been discussed on this forum before. Why is the US the only country that needed a civil war to make slavery illegal?

The Andrew Jackson thing does have me scratch my head.

[Jan2017]

What Trump Gets Right—and Progressives Get Wrong—About Andrew Jackson
In the 19th century, Jackson broadened the electorate, but the self-righteousness of some Democrats impedes their efforts to do the same.

In an interview excerpt that ricocheted around the internet Monday morning,
Trump implied that the Civil War didn’t have to happen, and had Andrew Jackson been the president, it might not have happened
because he would have talked some sense into the parties. Or something.

In this same interview, the president also sang the praises of the people of Tennessee who, he assured us, love Andrew Jackson.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/what-trump-gets-rightand-progressives-get-wrongabout-andrew-jackson/525015/

[anaconda]

Trump should have simply reminded everyone that Ron Paul was right: The federal government should have bought freedom for each slave and saved the entire cost of the civil war and all of the amputated limbs. The art of the deal.

[wizardwatson]

I think I figured out who Trump is. He's uncle Rico.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/69024900.jpg

All he needs is a time machine, and he can stop the Civil War, and Hitler. :rolleyes:

Anyway, Trumps a lying bankster boot-licker. He wouldn't do anything the banksters didn't tell him too and he'd delegate all war powers to the military. And while banksters are eating babies, and psycho generals and their rapist soldiers are pillaging his country, he tell us what a great job he's doing.

Even him commenting on this is just a way to paint himself in the virtuous light of other people's thoughts (like Ron Paul) when he himself wouldn't follow through.

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL-VX3WbA9U

[CPUd]

Andrew Jackson biographer says Trump bragged last year he could have done deal to avoid Civil War

Travis Gettys TRAVIS GETTYS
02 MAY 2017 AT 08:33 ET


President Donald Trump baffled historians and former history students alike by suggesting Andrew Jackson could have stopped the Civil War from happening had he been president a few decades later.

The president has recently expressed admiration for the seventh president, but Jackson’s biographer said respect came at the urging of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

“I spent an hour, hour and a half with him in May of ’16 talking with him about presidents he admired and Jackson never came up,” historian Jon Meacham told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Steve Bannon put this in the conversation after the victory saying this was a Jacksonian moment.”

Meacham, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his 2008 biography “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House,” said Trump’s esteem for his populist predecessor was superficial and self-aggrandizing.

“It’s a projection of the president’s fundamental and enveloping narcissism,” said Meacham, the executive editor and executive vice president at Random House. “He told me a year and a half ago or so, a year ago, that, you know, he thought he could have done a deal to have averted the war.”

Meacham, who has also written a biography of Thomas Jefferson, said the presidency had enhanced the “fundamental characteristics” of the men who had served in the White House.

“It’s very hard, once you’re there, to change,” he said. “Some people do, and that’s why we talk about them as great presidents. But most people, once they’re in the Oval Office, actually just become more like themselves — and I think in this case that’s on a particularly tragic trajectory.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/andrew-jackson-biographer-says-trump-bragged-last-year-he-could-have-done-deal-to-avoid-civil-war/

[UWDude]

Within literate society, we try to use words.

Words are groups of sounds with particular meanings, distinct from the sounds of the letters.

Not that there's anything wrong with acronyms, but they're usually employed by literate people: not as an alternative to literacy.

Did you have something to say?

Yeah

USTILLMAD!! XD

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Why does it hurt to ask the question? .

It's funny how the snowflake media libs are ridiculing this, but then feel the need to answer. I even heard one (the girl with the fat arms) throw in the well misplaced comment after her story, "The core reason was slavery."

I also saw the self-righteous CNN libs commenting about Donny not knowing when Jackson lived.. As if they actually knew. I'm sure they all learned about it in their requirements for their rigorous communications major classes.

[pcosmar]

Trump should have simply reminded everyone that Ron Paul was right: The federal government should have bought freedom for each slave and saved the entire cost of the civil war and all of the amputated limbs. The art of the deal.

That had nothing to do with the "Civil War".

The importation of slaves was already illegal,, even in the south.
Industrialization (Machines) were making slavery unprofitable.

It would have ended on it's own in short time.

The war was induced to create DEBT..
It was instigated by Banking interests who wanted control of the treasury.
.They Won.

[wizardwatson]

Same reason there is a Syrian war.

Because of war-mongering bankster boot-lickers like you.

[The Gold Standard]

The war was induced to create DEBT..
It was instigated by Banking interests who wanted control of the treasury.
.They Won.

That and it was to brutally dispel any notion of states resisting the will of the federal government. It was a consolidation of absolute power in Washington, and I think we all know Trump would have fully supported such a thing.

[Dr.No.]

Trump should have simply reminded everyone that Ron Paul was right: The federal government should have bought freedom for each slave and saved the entire cost of the civil war and all of the amputated limbs. The art of the deal.

Right. Because the South would have willingly just gone along with their slaves forcefully being purchased from them.

The reason such a plan could work in other countries was because they had a more authoritarian government. When the English elites decided slavery was bad, they had the power and precedent to force people to give up their slaves (plus, of course, slavery was not so integral to the culture of those countries).

[dannno]

Same reason there is a Syrian war.

Because of war-mongering bankster boot-lickers like you.

Who is this comment directed at?

Trump just praised one of the most anti-bankster dudes of all time and said we shouldn't have gone to war. Now the deep state boot lickers are attacking Trump for saying we shouldn't have gone to war and for praising an anti-bankster dude.

Are you even paying attention to what is happening here? You are the deep state bankster bootlicker.

[dannno]

Right. Because the South would have willingly just gone along with their slaves forcefully being purchased from them.

Actually not very many people in the south had slaves or cared if there was slavery. They just wanted to have the option to secede from the north.

[Wooden Indian]

Actually not very many people in the south had slaves or cared if there was slavery. They just wanted to have the option to secede from the north.

^^^This.

[oyarde]

That and it was to brutally dispel any notion of states resisting the will of the federal government. It was a consolidation of absolute power in Washington, and I think we all know Trump would have fully supported such a thing.

And Jackson , Lincoln , Truman etc etc

[wizardwatson]

Who is this comment directed at?

Trump just praised one of the most anti-bankster dudes of all time and said we shouldn't have gone to war. Now the deep state boot lickers are attacking Trump for saying we shouldn't have gone to war and for praising an anti-bankster dude.

Are you even paying attention to what is happening here? You are the deep state bankster bootlicker.

Oh, so Trump probably lied again and you're giving him the benefit of the doubt?

And, oh my, the "deep state" is saying they don't like him, the evil media is attacking him! This is getting awefully predictable.

This civil war meme is a great example. Trump is co-opting it just like he seems to do to everything else.

HE IS A LIAR. YOU ARE WORSHIPPING LIES.

And now you're turning on me, calling me a bankster? Based on what evidence? Your transparency and credibility about who YOU ARE?

I have deployed banking software that can easily allow regular people to bank for themselves.

www.metricreserve.com

I'm actually attacking the enemy with tools I designed to thwart the banking establishment, in a forum aligned against Trump and supportive of Ron Paul who disapproves of Trump.

And you are calling me a boot-licker based on what? Your emotional state?

You have NO FACTS and no credibility defending Trump. You are just becoming a liar like him because you believe his lies.

[Dr.No.]

Actually not very many people in the south had slaves or cared if there was slavery. They just wanted to have the option to secede from the north.

Not accurate. About 1/3rd of Southern families owned slaves, with the number reaching 50% in some states:

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

It is true that in areas with fewer slaves, Southerners didn't support secession. West Virgina, northern Alabama, and eastern Tennessee for example. But you also had non-slaveholders who stood to inherit slaves, or, of course, poor Southern whites who dreamed of joining the upper class and owning slaves one day (that kind of American optimism which exists even today. Of course, you also had white supremacy, where many white Southerners and Northerners could envision life without blacks being in chains, especially in black-majority states like South Carolina.

[wizardwatson]

Anyway, the point that I think should be made about Trump, is his technique seems to be to appease his base by talking one thing and doing another. This should be obvious.

"Oh, yeah, civil war, horrible! Unnecessary, big mistake, big mistake. I would have made a deal!"

He's trying to squirt liberty memes on himself like cheap cologne to make the pavlovian liar lovers in our ranks delude themselves into thinking bankster loving war criminal Trump has jack in common with Ron Paul.

"Trumps right you know!"

No. Trumps a liar. Some adviser said "tweet about this, your base is unhappy." Actions matter. All anyone seems to be focusing on is his words.

[PierzStyx]

Do you have enough knowledge on Andrew Jackson and the Civil War to make the judgment on whether Trump has enough knowledge on the topic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

Or do you mean idiot like Ron Paul, who said the federal government should have bought the slaves and freed them to avoid the civil war? (which in my honest opinion, was a stupid comment).


"He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this.'"

Jackson, the nation's seventh president, died in 1845. The Civil War began in 1861.

Are you seriously defending the guy who said the Andrew Jackson lived until the Civil War broke out and disapproved of it? Or do you not know that the Nullification Crisis was decades before the Civil War?

Yeah, r3v ain't the stupid one here.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not accurate. About 1/3rd of Southern families owned slaves, with the number reaching 50% in some states:

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

It is true that in areas with fewer slaves, Southerners didn't support secession. West Virgina, northern Alabama, and eastern Tennessee for example. But you also had non-slaveholders who stood to inherit slaves, or, of course, poor Southern whites who dreamed of joining the upper class and owning slaves one day (that kind of American optimism which exists even today. Of course, you also had white supremacy, where many white Southerners and Northerners could envision life without blacks being in chains, especially in black-majority states like South Carolina.

And white supremacy existed in the North too. Lincoln himself wasn't a particular fan of negros and didn't believe they would ever be "equal" to caucasians.

[Madison320]

Not accurate. About 1/3rd of Southern families owned slaves, with the number reaching 50% in some states:

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

It is true that in areas with fewer slaves, Southerners didn't support secession. West Virgina, northern Alabama, and eastern Tennessee for example. But you also had non-slaveholders who stood to inherit slaves, or, of course, poor Southern whites who dreamed of joining the upper class and owning slaves one day (that kind of American optimism which exists even today. Of course, you also had white supremacy, where many white Southerners and Northerners could envision life without blacks being in chains, especially in black-majority states like South Carolina.

It's totally irrelevant what the reason for secession was. The Union doesn't get to decide whether the reason for secession is valid. That negates the whole idea of secession. Duh. I'm surprised at how few people understand this simple concept. Imagine if the EU told the UK that they their request to Brexit was denied because they didn't have a good enough reason.

That being said it seemed to me that the south attacked too early. I'm not an expert on the civil war but it seemed like the south could've let the request for legal secession play out for awhile longer than they did.

[Zippyjuan]

Andrew Jackson was a Southern slave owner himself. He was also a big military man (warmonger?)- playing a major role in the War of 1812. He legalized ethnic cleansing by signing a bill to remove native Americans from their lands by force if necessary. https://www.thenation.com/article/7-things-donald-trump-gets-absolutely-wrong-about-andrew-jackson/


“In all reality, slavery was the source of Andrew Jackson’s wealth,” explains the website of the Hermitage, Jackson’s Tennessee home. “The Hermitage was a 1,000 acre, self-sustaining plantation that relied completely on the labor of enslaved African American men, women, and children…. When Andrew Jackson bought The Hermitage in 1804, he owned nine enslaved African Americans. Just 25 years later that number had swelled to over 100 through purchase and reproduction. At the time of his death in 1845, Jackson owned approximately 150 people who lived and worked on the property.”


 “In 1830, a year after he became president, Jackson signed a law that he had proposed—the Indian Removal Act—which legalized ethnic cleansing. Within seven years 46,000 indigenous people were removed from their homelands east of the Mississippi. Their removal gave 25 million acres of land ‘to white settlement and to slavery,’ according to PBS. The area was home to the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole nations. In the Trail of Tears alone, 4,000 Cherokee people died of cold, hunger, and disease on their way to the western lands.”

This must be that "big heart" Trump was talking about.

Trump said he has been reading up on the subject: https://www.thenation.com/article/7-things-donald-trump-gets-absolutely-wrong-about-andrew-jackson/


 “Well, you know, I love to read. Actually, I’m looking at a book, I’m reading a book, I’m trying to get started. Every time I do about a half a page, I get a phone call that there’s some emergency, this or that. But we’re going to see the home of Andrew Jackson today in Tennessee and I’m reading a book on Andrew Jackson. I love to read. I don’t get to read very much, Tucker, because I’m working very hard on lots of different things, including getting costs down. The costs of our country are out of control. But we have a lot of great things happening, we have a lot of tremendous things happening.” So much for Jacksonian scholarship.

[Dr.No.]

And white supremacy existed in the North too. Lincoln himself wasn't a particular fan of negros and didn't believe they would ever be "equal" to caucasians.

Your point being?

White supremacy does equate being pro-slavery.

It is hard to measure levels of white supremacy and anti-abolitionist belief in the pre-war North. But, we can probably safely assume that due to the prevailing notions at the time, a strong majority of the North was white supremacist as we understand it. At the same time, Northerners abolished slavery in their own states, and there was a lot of abolitionist literature coming out of the North. It is probably safe to say that the North was quite abolitionist as well.

Though to be fair, the Confederates charged that the rabid anti-abolitionists were the ones who were conspiring to end slavery in the US; they contended that the majority of the North really didn't care and would have left the South to have its slaves.


It's totally irrelevant what the reason for secession was. The Union doesn't get to decide whether the reason for secession is valid. That negates the whole idea of secession. Duh. I'm surprised at how few people understand this simple concept. Imagine if the EU told the UK that they their request to Brexit was denied because they didn't have a good enough reason.

Imagine if the UK told the EU they were seceding and that EU had to completely agree to all of UK's terms, which included all property confiscation of EU residents in the UK and the execution of all non-Anglicans. Should the EU just agree to it? After all, the UK has the "right" to secede.

In broader terms, the South had the right to secede and the North had the right to stop its secession. That's why the colonies fought a war against England.

[heavenlyboy34]

Your point being?


Point being it's more complicated than your posts tend to make it out to be. (most historical events are more nuanced and complicated than we're taught to think they are)

[Madison320]

Imagine if the UK told the EU they were seceding and that EU had to completely agree to all of UK's terms, which included all property confiscation of EU residents in the UK and the execution of all non-Anglicans. Should the EU just agree to it? After all, the UK has the "right" to secede.


Secession assumes you want to peacefully terminate the union, not initiate force on the union. If the south wanted to secede peacefully, it has that right.

If you want to make the argument that the north had the right to prevent secession, based on slavery, then you'd also have to argue that the US has the right to annex any territory where we decide that human rights are being violated. Countries in Africa still have slaves. Does the US have the right to invade those countries and annex them?

[CPUd]

Wait until he comes back to Nashville and learns about James K Polk.

[paleocon1]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331349-trump-why-was-there-the-civil-war

We had a civil war because proto-marxist Abe Lincoln wanted one to grow the State.

[wizardwatson]

https://s.faketrumptweet.com/j286a78b_mhmnlx_iz8vzw.png

[anaconda]

That had nothing to do with the "Civil War".

The importation of slaves was already illegal,, even in the south.
Industrialization (Machines) were making slavery unprofitable.

It would have ended on it's own in short time.

The war was induced to create DEBT..
It was instigated by Banking interests who wanted control of the treasury.
.They Won.

Yes, but the grand lie told to get people to fight was that war was essential to eradicate slavery. If The Donald went back and time and bought all the deeds to all slaves it would be hard to make the grand lie viable.

[UWDude]

Right. Because the South would have willingly just gone along with their slaves forcefully being purchased from them.

The reason such a plan could work in other countries was because they had a more authoritarian government. When the English elites decided slavery was bad, they had the power and precedent to force people to give up their slaves (plus, of course, slavery was not so integral to the culture of those countries).

OMG eminent domain!

[UWDude]

Are you seriously defending the guy who said the Andrew Jackson lived until the Civil War broke out and disapproved of it?

What guy said that?

[Dr.No.]

We had a civil war because proto-marxist Abe Lincoln wanted one to grow the State.

If that were the case, none of his successors seem to have known what they were.

[oyarde]

There is a town just slightly northeast of me that seceded in 1861 and have never repealed it . Boggstown , Indiana . There was little support for the war here and zero support for slavery . The thought of invading the states south of here where your parents may have been from and you had cousins living there would not be appealing . There would have been even less support for the war in this area with a different , brasher , militant , more arrogant type president . Despite a serious anti war presence in the state Indiana contributed 210,000 troops and was the fifth most populace state in the union . Volunteers were called for by the Governor three days after the attack on Ft Sumter which was a great surprise to Hoosiers . The states initial asked for quota was 6 Regiments ( 4700 men) . Within a week there were 12k . Indiana ranked second among Northern states in the percentage of men of military age who served . The South could have lasted years longer without Indiana in the war.

[Dr.No.]

Secession assumes you want to peacefully terminate the union, not initiate force on the union. If the south wanted to secede peacefully, it has that right.

If you want to make the argument that the north had the right to prevent secession, based on slavery, then you'd also have to argue that the US has the right to annex any territory where we decide that human rights are being violated. Countries in Africa still have slaves. Does the US have the right to invade those countries and annex them?

If Africa had made slaves of US citizens, had US money/property/ etc. then yes.

Moreover, the US was pretty much made from conquered land; the initiation of force. Did the colonial powers have a right to conquer the land from the natives? Did the US have the right to whatever land grabs it made?

[anaconda]

Not accurate. About 1/3rd of Southern families owned slaves, with the number reaching 50% in some states:

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

It is true that in areas with fewer slaves, Southerners didn't support secession. West Virgina, northern Alabama, and eastern Tennessee for example. But you also had non-slaveholders who stood to inherit slaves, or, of course, poor Southern whites who dreamed of joining the upper class and owning slaves one day (that kind of American optimism which exists even today. Of course, you also had white supremacy, where many white Southerners and Northerners could envision life without blacks being in chains, especially in black-majority states like South Carolina.

Molyneux claims that at the peak of black slavery, only 6 % of southern whites owned black slaves, or 1.4% of white Americans. See 4:06 in the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA

[Dr.No.]

Molyneux claims that at the peak of black slavery, only 6 % of southern whites owned black slaves, or 1.4% of white Americans. See 4:06 in the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA

Yes, he claims it, but where is his evidence? There is a lot of fake evidence out there; Ron Paul, Tom Woods, etc. quote these guys and it becomes mainstream knowledge. For example, Tom DiLorenzo spread the myth of 1% of whites owning slaves and the myth that the South paid the majority of taxes. They know they won't get called on it since the people reading their books and coming to their talks are inclined to agree with them. Eventually, it came out and DiLorenzo lost a lot of credibility as it was shown that he just made his numbers up.

The webpage that I linked to has many sources. There are many books, academic studies, and census reports that corroborate the claim.

Edit: I went to the link of sources on the youtube vid. I really wish he'd use inline citations. Anyway, the majority of his citations are blogs, opinion articles, and other junk, including a lesson plan from a teacher. Sounds to me like he was using reverse ratiocination to find the facts to fit his argument.

I looked through the one study he cited, from Mises (so already a questionable source), and could not find any detail about the percentage of slave-holding Whites. Although it is an intriguing paper...it argues both that freeing the slaves through purchase would have been impossible given the political machinations and economic viability of slavery, and that slavery was caused by the government since in the absence of government, slave rebellions and revolts would have succeeded.

I went ahead and looked at all the junk sources Molyneux provided that were relevant to American slavery, and could find no reference to the percentage of slave-holding Whites. Fake news, as it were...

Really, this is a garbage, junk video. Very disingenuous.

[Brian4Liberty]

Follow the money. While slavery was obviously wrong and deplorable, at it's root, it was about cheap labor. The slave owners wanted to keep their cheap labor. Sounds kind of familiar.

[pcosmar]

Yes, but the grand lie told to get people to fight was that war was essential to eradicate slavery. If The Donald went back and time and bought all the deeds to all slaves it would be hard to make the grand lie viable.

That (slavery) was the selling point in the North,, But soon that fell through..

and the North Embraced Slavery To Draft Solders to fight a war they were NOT volunteering for.

[Philmanoman]

Funny how trump fools believe anything told to them by trump...
Everything else is fake news though.

You realize how dumb you guys look right?

You know why they post here so much?
Because in real life they get tired of people laughing in their face.
Talk about real snowflakes...
Tell me why you come here to defend trump with 300 posts a day...
Because you're afraid of what people say to your face in real life

Pussy snow flakes lmao

[enhanced_deficit]

I don't want to ask any stupid questions on this until I learn more about history of that war.

But does anyone know if that historic war and recent Iraq war were funded by same or different entities?

[PierzStyx]

We had a civil war because proto-marxist Abe Lincoln wanted one to grow the State.

So did the Southern state. They cried "state's rights" until it came to runaway slaves. Then they were all for laws that forced Northerners to hunt down escaped slaves or be imprisoned. The Fugitive Slave Laws were the very opposite of "state's rights."

[PierzStyx]

What guy said that?

You are. Or rather you're trying to twist it and make it sound like Trump is talking about the Nullification Crisis when clearly he isn't as he straight up says "Civil War" and then implying other people are stupid for not believing such a terrible, twisted, idiotic argument.

Also, you sure like to talk a lot of trash over the rep system but don't do it where everyone else can't see it. But wher eyou might have to back it up in front of everyone else? Crickets. Big man, you are. /s

[r3volution 3.0]

So did the Southern state. They cried "state's rights" until it came to runaway slaves. Then they were all for laws that forced Northerners to hunt down escaped slaves or be imprisoned. The Fugitive Slave Laws were the very opposite of "state's rights."

In a world in which slavery was constitutionally protected, the fugitive slave laws were no more an imposition on the states than laws requiring return of any kind of fugitive. This issue aside, the South was quite serious about federalism; it wasn't just an excuse for defending slavery as the modern view insists. Compare and contrast the Confederate and the US Constitutions. One example:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Congress shall gave power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

A noteworthy difference, arising from the Southern experience with Federalist/Whig/Republican protectionism.

[oyarde]

I see no reason anyone would tolerate any fugitive slave laws . Any slavers caught on any of my properties would have been executed on the spot and buried . If people want to pretend people should be property at their own place oh well . Does not extend to me .

[UWDude]

You are. Or rather you're trying to twist it and make it sound like Trump is talking about the Nullification Crisis when clearly he isn't as he straight up says "Civil War" and then implying other people are stupid for not believing such a terrible, twisted, idiotic argument.

Also, you sure like to talk a lot of trash over the rep system but don't do it where everyone else can't see it. But wher eyou might have to back it up in front of everyone else? Crickets. Big man, you are. /s

Ah, sumbudy fee fees hurt over neg-wep?

Good, then you got the message, didn't you?

I meant what I said about you, and your strawmen.


"Had Andrew Jackson been a little later" implies future, as in before civil war. As in if he were president during the civil war.

not what you say he said:


Trump sez "Andrew Jackson lived until the Civil War broke out and disapproved of it" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510243-Trump-Why-was-there-the-Civil-War&p=6461626&viewfull=1#post6461626)

Do you understand your neg-rep for the strawman yet?

Do you need me to explain it to you some more. Do you need your face rubbed in it, little puppy?

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/dkIwbtj.jpg

[r3volution 3.0]

LOL

[UWDude]

LOL

I know, right? It was slavery. When you get down to it, it was about slavery.

[r3volution 3.0]

I know, right? It was slavery. When you get down to it, it was about slavery.

I was laughing at the orange gorilla which suddenly acquired an interest in the Civil War.

Not at the view of history which you are much too generously attributing to said gorilla.

[UWDude]

I was laughing at the orange gorilla which suddenly acquired an interest in the Civil War.

Not at the view of history which you are much too generously attributing to said gorilla.

No, obviously the orange gorilla thinks it was more than slavery, just like you.
Why do you agree with the next Hitler? Are you racist?

[LibertyEagle]

If Africa had made slaves of US citizens, had US money/property/ etc. then yes.

Moreover, the US was pretty much made from conquered land; the initiation of force. Did the colonial powers have a right to conquer the land from the natives? Did the US have the right to whatever land grabs it made?

Aren't you forgetting that a number of the slaves in the U.S. were sold by African tribes who had taken their own countrymen as slaves?

[LibertyEagle]

Funny how trump fools believe anything told to them by trump...
Everything else is fake news though.

You realize how dumb you guys look right?

You know why they post here so much?
Because in real life they get tired of people laughing in their face.
Talk about real snowflakes...
Tell me why you come here to defend trump with 300 posts a day...
Because you're afraid of what people say to your face in real life

Pussy snow flakes lmao

Reminds me exactly of what I thought of those here who vociferously supported Gary Johnson and his world government loving VP candidate. lol

[Dr.No.]

Aren't you forgetting that a number of the slaves in the U.S. were sold by African tribes who had taken their own countrymen as slaves?

I suspect you may not have followed our entire conversation. Or, I'm not sure what your point is...

[openfire]

No, obviously the orange gorilla thinks it was more than slavery, just like you.
Why do you agree with the next Hitler? Are you racist?

Clearly r3volution 3.0 is not a racist. Anyone who espouses forced vaccinations, carbon taxes, open borders, globalist agenda XYZ, etc is not a racist - It's a Marxist globalist idealist, most likely a shill account... paid to subvert pro-liberty, pro-sovereignty, anti-big-government movements.

[Madison320]

So did the Southern state. They cried "state's rights" until it came to runaway slaves. Then they were all for laws that forced Northerners to hunt down escaped slaves or be imprisoned. The Fugitive Slave Laws were the very opposite of "state's rights."

Were you in favor of Lincoln waging a war to deny southern secession?

[Madison320]

If Africa had made slaves of US citizens, had US money/property/ etc. then yes.


If some guy in Kenya kidnaps a US citizen and enslaves him, that doesn't give the US the right to annex Kenya.

If the south committed acts of aggression on the north, the north would be in it's right to retaliate in relation to the aggressive act. But they wouldn't be right to conquer and annex the south.

Do you think Bush should've conquered Afghanistan and made it a US territory? What about Mexicans that are kidnapping US citizens? Should Trump annex Mexico? You sound like someone who is easily persuaded into waging war.

[Dr.No.]

If some guy in Kenya kidnaps a US citizen and enslaves him, that doesn't give the US the right to annex Kenya.

If the south committed acts of aggression on the north, the north would be in it's right to retaliate in relation to the aggressive act. But they wouldn't be right to conquer and annex the south.

Do you think Bush should've conquered Afghanistan and made it a US territory? What about Mexicans that are kidnapping US citizens? Should Trump annex Mexico? You sound like someone who is easily persuaded into waging war.

1) What if Kenya had enslaved a few million US citizens, had a ton of US property, had a ton of people who wanted to be part of the US, etc.

2) The talk of "right" of succession and annexation leads to a very slippery slope. Does the US have "right" to any of its current land, which was conquered and stolen from the natives? How do those natives have the right to the land in the first place? You have rights up to the point that you can defend them. The Southern traitors tried to rebel and failed. The American colonialists tried to rebel and succeeded.

Bush annexing Afghanistan would be a terrible idea. Probably less than 1% of their population would welcome that. There are no geographical or cultural ties. Their economy is leagues behind America's. The international community would rage. It would be a logistical nightmare and cost trillions to maintain a state that would eventually slip back into anarchy. Much of the same goes for an annexation of Mexico.

But that is beyond any talk of "right" to conquer or "right" to be independent. All of us are living on land conquered from someone. To change the standard now would be hypocritical.

[Jamesiv1]

Anybody who doesn't believe that white Europeans were ordained by God to inherit this great land can get the hell out.

Anybody who thinks its wrong to imprison fugitive slaves can get the hell out.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, obviously the orange gorilla thinks it was more than slavery, just like you.

The orange gorilla doesn't know what decade the war occurred.

He certainly doesn't recognize the role of protectionism in bringing about the war.

...nor is there any reason to imagine that he, advocate of a 35% tariff and business subsidies, would be remotely sympathetic.

https://img.memesuper.com/ec2ada60d92b052cf3a708970fc01bcb_-so-could-this-monkey-monkey-with-cymbals-meme_432-317.gif

There's Trump theory on the origins of the Civil War.

[PierzStyx]

Were you in favor of Lincoln waging a war to deny southern secession?

No. But lets not pretend either side are the "good guys" here. The Southern States were a slaveocracy that held 4 million men, women, and children in one of of the most oppressive forms of existence you can have, slavery. And the North were warmongering nationalists who also held a million men, women, and children in slavery. There is no one to root for here. Perhaps some of the individual people involved can be admired, but over all each side were proponents of evil, anti-liberty systems and were absolutely fine using concentrated, centralized violence to enforce that system on others.

And the idea that the South were for "state's rights" is propaganda put out by Southern sympathizers. The South would yell and yell about violation of federal power if the North tried to touch the topic of slavery. But Southern politicians had no problem using the same centralized unconstitutional power to violate the laws of Northern states that opposed slavery within state boundaries while law-enforcement officials everywhere were required to arrest people suspected of being a runaway slave on as little as a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. No evidence was required, no proof needed to be given a judge. Just a claim made. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work. Since slave owners needed only to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave and suspected slaves were not eligible for a trial, the law resulted in the kidnapping and conscription of free blacks into slavery, as suspected fugitive slaves had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations. That is not "state's rights." It is the very opposite of it in fact.

There are no good teams in the Civil War.

[oyarde]

Basically , by the time of the 1860's for the most part america looked the part of what it was . A country of ignorant bullies , the grown children of common riff raff and thieves . By the nineteen teens they pretty well put the lock on it that it would end one day as a failed experiment .

[UWDude]

The orange gorilla doesn't know what decade the war occurred.



No wonder you got banned.

[Madison320]

There are no good teams in the Civil War.

I agree, although I think we'd be in a better position today if the south were allowed to secede. It would've taken the south a little longer to end slavery but the US government probably wouldn't have grown so enormous if they had to compete with the south.

[Ender]

I agree, although I think we'd be in a better position today if the south were allowed to secede. It would've taken the south a little longer to end slavery but the US government probably wouldn't have grown so enormous if they had to compete with the south.

The North also had slaves & seemed to hate blacks much more than the South. Remember, only the Southern slaves were freed under Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

[Dr.No.]

I agree, although I think we'd be in a better position today if the south were allowed to secede. It would've taken the south a little longer to end slavery but the US government probably wouldn't have grown so enormous if they had to compete with the south.

I could easily see it going the other way. With a strong rival on its borders, the US government builds up its military. The Confederacy does the same.


The North also had slaves & seemed to hate blacks much more than the South. Remember, only the Southern slaves were freed under Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

Shortly thereafter, the 13th amendment freed them all.

[PierzStyx]

I could easily see it going the other way. With a strong rival on its borders, the US government builds up its military. The Confederacy does the same.



Shortly thereafter, the 13th amendment freed them all.

Your first point is well made. Harry Turtledove did a series base don that exact premise. The first half is pretty good.

"Freed." They went form being slaves to serfs, which is not a much better situation to find yourself in.

[Ender]

Your first point is well made. Harry Turtledove did a series base don that exact premise. The first half is pretty good.

"Freed." They went form being slaves to serfs, which is not a much better situation to find yourself in.

Actually it went from being slaves to making everyone serfs. People have no idea how much a slave to the gov they are today because of this.

[juleswin]

For a man who is fighting 5 wars and agitating to start another 2. It baffles the mind how he cannot understand how 2 groups of people start fighting when dialogue has failed. Also a different way to understand the civil war can be explained using his 2 failed marriages. See when you repeatedly cheat and disrespect your partner, there reaches a point where she decides she wants out. That is how the south must have felt and they were ready to move on or at least try fighting their way out the door.

The stupidity of Donald J Trump is mindblowing

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Yes, he claims it, but where is his evidence? There is a lot of fake evidence out there; Ron Paul, Tom Woods, etc. quote these guys and it becomes mainstream knowledge. For example, Tom DiLorenzo spread the myth of 1% of whites owning slaves and the myth that the South paid the majority of taxes. They know they won't get called on it since the people reading their books and coming to their talks are inclined to agree with them. Eventually, it came out and DiLorenzo lost a lot of credibility as it was shown that he just made his numbers up.

The webpage that I linked to has many sources. There are many books, academic studies, and census reports that corroborate the claim.

Edit: I went to the link of sources on the youtube vid. I really wish he'd use inline citations. Anyway, the majority of his citations are blogs, opinion articles, and other junk, including a lesson plan from a teacher. Sounds to me like he was using reverse ratiocination to find the facts to fit his argument.

I looked through the one study he cited, from Mises (so already a questionable source), and could not find any detail about the percentage of slave-holding Whites. Although it is an intriguing paper...it argues both that freeing the slaves through purchase would have been impossible given the political machinations and economic viability of slavery, and that slavery was caused by the government since in the absence of government, slave rebellions and revolts would have succeeded.

I went ahead and looked at all the junk sources Molyneux provided that were relevant to American slavery, and could find no reference to the percentage of slave-holding Whites. Fake news, as it were...

Really, this is a garbage, junk video. Very disingenuous.
The 1.4% statistic is vindicated by the very census your source cites. Here's a blog that argues both for the 1.4 statistic and the 1/3 of Southern families stat: https://saintanselmhistory.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-slavery-and-the-1-6/

Counting the number of slave-holding families is ostensibly to gauge the centrality of slavery within the Southern economy, but is also suspiciously inflationary and quite possibly political. If there are two brothers, one a slave owner, the other not, is the non-slave owning brother counted among the 31%? If so, the manipulative nature of the statistic is manifest on its face. Now, to be clear, I'm not claiming that the 1.4% stat is apolitical, it could be political in the opposite direction, but the narrative importance of the 31% stat is far too great to ignore.

When in doubt, fall back on game theory.

[Dr.No.]

The 1.4% statistic is vindicated by the very census your source cites. Here's a blog that argues both for the 1.4 statistic and the 1/3 of Southern families stat: https://saintanselmhistory.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-slavery-and-the-1-6/

Counting the number of slave-holding families is ostensibly to gauge the centrality of slavery within the Southern economy, but is also suspiciously inflationary and quite possibly political. If there are two brothers, one a slave owner, the other not, is the non-slave owning brother counted among the 31%? If so, the manipulative nature of the statistic is manifest on its face. Now, to be clear, I'm not claiming that the 1.4% stat is apolitical, it could be political in the opposite direction, but the narrative importance of the 31% stat is far too great to ignore.

When in doubt, fall back on game theory.

I think you sent me the wrong blog. That author vehemently attacks the 1.4% number.

Firstly, the 1.4% number comes from looking at all US citizens, not just Southerners. That is clearly an issue. Just looking at Southerners, it is 6%.

Secondly, we can argue about brothers. But what about wives and children? The 31% number comes from households that had slaves. It is very conceivable that many people lived together so you had multiple "families" in one household where only one family owned slaves.

One way you can eyeball it is to consider that the average household in 1860 had nearly 7 people/household (although of course, that was for the entire country). You can see how the 6% number and the 31% number have congruence.

[katiesmith12]

Getting the Civil War wrong was part of the program of white supremacy during the Nadir. Today, getting it right is not just Trump's responsibility an it's all of ours.

[PierzStyx]

Actually it went from being slaves to making everyone serfs. People have no idea how much a slave to the gov they are today because of this.

Too true. I would say we're more like peasants than serfs, but for most people that is probably just pedantic hairsplitting. ;)

[Dr.No.]

Actually it went from being slaves to making everyone serfs. People have no idea how much a slave to the gov they are today because of this.

To compare slavery to what we have now (and to compare that to serfdom) is so ridiculous. We have choices and freedoms. We have rights. We can sue employers for ill-treatment and can leave a job at will. We are not forced to work or earn money and can leave the country (or even renounce our citizenship) if we wish. The government recognizes and protects a whole slew of rights for us that it never did for slaves. We can inherit property and wealth from our relatives, but accrue none of their debt or crimes...unlike for slaves, who inherited their parent's state of bondage. We have a right to trial, juries, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Slaves had none of those things.

[Pericles]

Why does it hurt to ask the question? Sure it has nothing to do with the current presidency, but academically it is a sound question. It has been discussed on this forum before. Why is the US the only country that needed a civil war to make slavery illegal?

The Andrew Jackson thing does have me scratch my head.

The "market value" of all of the slaves in 1860 would have been about $10Billion. The Union spent $16.5Billion on the war.

[pcosmar]

Slaves had none of those things.

Try to refuse TAX.

TAX Slavery is still slavery..

[inthehall]

Economics. Somebody wants what you have. Primary source of most conflict.

[Dr.No.]

Try to refuse TAX.

TAX Slavery is still slavery..

No one is forcing you to work for over a certain wage (over which there is a tax). No one is forcing you to work for US dollars, in the US. No one is forcing you to work, period.

[Dr.No.]

The "market value" of all of the slaves in 1860 would have been about $10Billion. The Union spent $16.5Billion on the war.

Where are you getting your numbers from?

I have seen 6 billion to buy out all the Southern slaves and a cost of war of 5.2 billion (North and South combined).

[juleswin]

Where are you getting your numbers from?

I have seen 6 billion to buy out all the Southern slaves and a cost of war of 5.2 billion (North and South combined).

Just curious, but where are you getting your numbers from?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Just curious, but where are you getting your numbers from?

I read a lot of posts from Dr No. The guy pulls more numbers out of a random hat than anybody I've seen on here. He often doesn't cite any sources. I think he just makes up stuff a lot of times.

[juleswin]

I read a lot of posts from Dr No. The guy pulls more numbers out of a random hat than anybody I've seen on here. He often doesn't cite any sources. I think he just makes up stuff a lot of times.

Yea, it also very hypocritical when he posts numbers without citation just after questioning another members post because it lacked citation. I try to cite all the numbers I post but every so often I can't find my source and I post it anyway. Dr. No seem to be playing the contrarian role of mainly doing challenges to other members posts, I don't get it but that seems to work for him.

[Dr.No.]

Just curious, but where are you getting your numbers from?

http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/slavebuyout/\

Another source on the costs:
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu. Archive seems to be down for now; can't find the specific page with the citation of the costs.


I read a lot of posts from Dr No. The guy pulls more numbers out of a random hat than anybody I've seen on here. He often doesn't cite any sources. I think he just makes up stuff a lot of times.

If it seems that way, it is because I post numbers and figures that are so damn well-known and established that I figure it doesn't need to be sourced. I mean, just in this thread, do I really need to cite the articles of secession? It isn't like there are hundreds of different versions. They are well-known and accessible online. Same with the tariff numbers.

I'll also admit that I have a near eidetic memory, which makes the process of fact-sourcing a little different for me.



Yea, it also very hypocritical when he posts numbers without citation just after questioning another members post because it lacked citation. I try to cite all the numbers I post but every so often I can't find my source and I post it anyway. Dr. No seem to be playing the contrarian role of mainly doing challenges to other members posts, I don't get it but that seems to work for him.

You are better than most, but many members of this site don't post anything or use blogs/conspiracy websites as their sources.

Anyways, when they can't beat your argument, they start the ad hominem smears...

[juleswin]

http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/slavebuyout/\

Another source on the costs:
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu. Archive seems to be down for now; can't find the specific page with the citation of the costs.



If it seems that way, it is because I post numbers and figures that are so damn well-known and established that I figure it doesn't need to be sourced. I mean, just in this thread, do I really need to cite the articles of secession? It isn't like there are hundreds of different versions. They are well-known and accessible online. Same with the tariff numbers.

I'll also admit that I have a near eidetic memory, which makes the process of fact-sourcing a little different for me.




You are better than most, but many members of this site don't post anything or use blogs/conspiracy websites as their sources.

Anyways, when they can't beat your argument, they start the ad hominem smears...

Link looks legit. Thanks for coming through for a second I thought you were pulling numbers out of your a**.

Also, this nugget at the end of the articles shows that it would have been way cheaper to buy out the slaves than fight the war.



Cost not accounted for

- Disruption to the economy caused by taking 3.8 million men out of the labor force

- Widespread property destruction, as by Sherman's March to the Sea

- Lingering problems of racial hatred that persist nearly 150 years after the war began. Many of these can be traced to the social turmoil that resulted from the sudden
emancipation of the slaves, which disrupted the established social and economic orders in the South.

- The vast social costs of war

[Danke]

No one is forcing you to work for over a certain wage (over which there is a tax). No one is forcing you to work for US dollars, in the US. No one is forcing you to work, period.

No one is forcing you to eat and seek shelter.

[Dr.No.]

Link looks legit. Thanks for coming through for a second I thought you were pulling numbers out of your a**.

Also, this nugget at the end of the articles shows that it would have been way cheaper to buy out the slaves than fight the war.

That's true. You can also include the cost of lives in the war to suggest that purchasing the slaves would have been easier.

But we can't pretend that the South would have agreed to reasonable terms. I imagine they would want well over market value, if that, and that many slaveholders would intransigently never have relinquished their slaves. Slavery was also key to Southern culture; many Southern citizens would have balked at ending such a peculiar institution.

Also, the fourteenth amendment, which was how segregation was ended, was only able to be passed after the war. Equal protection was a crucial part of our legal development.

Plus, think of it from a moral POV. Many liberals have suggested that instead of attacking abortion, conservatives should pool together and give money to mothers to encourage them to give their children up for adoption. This would result in costs in the high double-digit billions; more if the conservatives promise to provide for the kid. Conservatives rightly point out that 1) they cannot force the mother's to do anything and 2) how evil it is to pay someone to not do something (from their POV) incredibly evil.

[UWDude]

The "market value" of all of the slaves in 1860 would have been about $10Billion. The Union spent $16.5Billion on the war.

It still would have been immoral to reward those who knew what they were doing was evil. Their "peculiar institution" and biblical justifications for slavery was an obvious attempt to make themselves feel better about being evil. Chattel slave owners were evil, powerful families. They should not have been paid for their slaves, they should have been hanged by their slaves. What they got instead was very merciful.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

If it seems that way, it is because I post numbers and figures that are so damn well-known and established that I figure it doesn't need to be sourced.





No, you don't do that at all, and they need to be sourced. You can't just throw out numbers about the cost of slaves, health care costs, and taxes in colonial times and say those are so damn well known and established.

[Pericles]

No, you don't do that at all, and they need to be sourced. You can't just throw out numbers about the cost of slaves, health care costs, and taxes in colonial times and say those are so damn well known and established.

Don't know where that guy got his numbers as they are not sourced.

Number of slaves from here http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860a.zip

Total number of slaves from all slave states, including Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee - 3,950,928

Auction prices ranged from $275 to $1800 for prime field hands or women of prime child bearing age in 1859, and prices were increasing due to record cotton harvests in 1859 and 1860. Prices also vary by location. See one study done on New Orleans here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.511.3192

Assumptions are that some premium would be paid and we have a real example. Lincoln offered Delaware some $900,000 to Delaware to buy out the remaining less than 2000 slaves in the state in 1863. Delaware refused the offer, and Delaware ended slavery in December of 1865.

$6B would be on the low end, assuming slave owners want to sell, and evidence is to the contrary. The average price of slaves had doubled from 1845 to 1860. You may claim $10B is too high, but provides the incentive to sell an appreciating asset at a profit.

For the cost, I've added in state costs ($500 bounties for each soldier to enlist or re-enlist adds up, and pensions).

[Dr.No.]

Don't know where that guy got his numbers as they are not sourced.

Number of slaves from here http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860a.zip

Total number of slaves from all slave states, including Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee - 3,950,928

Auction prices ranged from $275 to $1800 for prime field hands or women of prime child bearing age in 1859, and prices were increasing due to record cotton harvests in 1859 and 1860. Prices also vary by location. See one study done on New Orleans here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.511.3192

Assumptions are that some premium would be paid and we have a real example. Lincoln offered Delaware some $900,000 to Delaware to buy out the remaining less than 2000 slaves in the state in 1863. Delaware refused the offer, and Delaware ended slavery in December of 1865.

$6B would be on the low end, assuming slave owners want to sell, and evidence is to the contrary. The average price of slaves had doubled from 1845 to 1860. You may claim $10B is too high, but provides the incentive to sell an appreciating asset at a profit.

For the cost, I've added in state costs ($500 bounties for each soldier to enlist or re-enlist adds up, and pensions).

I included a source? For the slave numbers, the source only looks at slaves in the seceding states, which is appropriate. The Lincoln-Delaware example is appropriate.

[AuH20]

Slaves were owned by approximately only 7% of all Southern citizens, yet they would have you believe that Southern culture must be eradicated. More horseshit from the same people that terrorized the Confederates. They never left.

[AuH20]

The most apt description of the North at the time and their eventual successors.................. Always meddling in a never-ending quest to subjugate others to their will.

https://civilwartalk.com/attachments/11928/

Who do you think the anti-federalists had more in common with, from a purely philosophical perspective? The North or the South?

[The Gold Standard]

No one is forcing you to work for over a certain wage (over which there is a tax). No one is forcing you to work for US dollars, in the US. No one is forcing you to work, period.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6fo7yGU8AEuG2D.jpg

[Dr.No.]

Slaves were owned by approximately only 7% of all Southern citizens, yet they would have you believe that Southern culture must be eradicated. More horse$#@! from the same people that terrorized the Confederates. They never left.

That is a very deceptive number. If a slaveholder has a wife, three children, and a younger sibling, all five benefit from, have a claim on, etc. the slaveholder's slave, but it only shows up as one citizen owning slaves. Something like 31% of Southern families/households owned slaves (makes sense when you look at household populatin size).

[r3volution 3.0]

https://civilwartalk.com/attachments/11928/

Indeed

Roundheads --> Yankees --> Progressives

It all springs from low church theology.

[Dr.No.]

The most apt description of the North at the time and their eventual successors.................. Always meddling in a never-ending quest to subjugate others to their will.

https://civilwartalk.com/attachments/11928/

Who do you think the anti-federalists had more in common with, from a purely philosophical perspective? The North or the South?

I see your quote and raise you another:
http://www.azquotes.com/public/picture_quotes/67/71/677102f1b4959ce2eb932c2e511c0254/jefferson-davis-964318.jpg

[r3volution 3.0]

I see your quote and raise you another:
http://www.azquotes.com/public/picture_quotes/67/71/677102f1b4959ce2eb932c2e511c0254/jefferson-davis-964318.jpg

https://i.giphy.com/KYNywoibU1PQ4.gif

Nowhere did I suggest he was an abolitionist.