Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,902 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 850,718
Pageviews Today: 1,052,292Threads Today: 134Posts Today: 2,656
07:55 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27780658
United States
11/15/2012 05:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
The mere fact that he posted an incidental piece of Federal municipality by-lawish (understandable when sorting out the substance of your capital...the Aussies have something similar) stuff which presumably for him is intended to symbolise that America is some sort of corporate by-product I guess shows just how stupid you people are. Just go and read a basic text book for crikeys sakes.
 Quoting: Marxist


oh really ??
so please post a book or link reference
which shows that the Act of 1871 does
not exist as a law.

good luck with that one
hahaha
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


Did I say it wasnt a law? Read my comment and think about it.
 Quoting: Marxist


you are implying the US is not a corporation.
Marxist

User ID: 27787865
New Zealand
11/15/2012 05:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Anglo-Saxon constitutional law has its layers. It's forms. I would suggest getting a book from your local library and reading up on it rather than some laymans interpretation of fairly complex rules.
 Quoting: Marxist


interpretation ???

WTF ???

it's straight out of the Congressional Text.
straw man indeed
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


The mere fact that he posted an incidental piece of Federal municipality by-lawish (understandable when sorting out the substance of your capital...the Aussies have something similar) stuff which presumably for him is intended to symbolise that America is some sort of corporate by-product I guess shows just how stupid you people are. Just go and read a basic text book for crikeys sakes.
 Quoting: Marxist


just more proof that we are a corporation
is the mere fact that the IRS is NOT a Gov entity
and all taxes paid to it goes to the Vatican Bank
and NOT the US Treasury when our constitution
specifically gives the US Treasury the right
to print it's own money. Yet we pay interest
to the Fed for it's use. And the Fed is privately
owned. The only way that can happen is through
corporations and contracts.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


Oh, for crikeys sakes! It merely sets up rules for the organisation of the legislative capital. It has long been the norm for cities to be run as corporations (incorporated societies) in the Anglo-Saxon world. That comes from the desire to mitigate the liability of city employees.
Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Serendipity
User ID: 25458009
United States
11/15/2012 06:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Okay, so with all the BS secession shit going on, it makes me question the civil war, if all these rednecks, and so-called rebels believe the civil war was about states rights (which i can see, but what state rights were being provoked by the union? anti-slavery laws or what) how could the south, being Christians and followers of Jesus, justify using slaves the way they did to achieve proficient income.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10873455


There were more white slaves in the US than there ever were African....

[link to www.electricscotland.com]

Alexander Stewart was herded off the Gildart in July of 1747, bound with chains. Stewart was pushed onto the auction block in Wecomica, St Mary’s County, Maryland. Doctor Stewart and his brother William were attending the auction, aware of Alexander being on that slave ship coming from Liverpool England. Doctor Stewart and William were residents of Annapolis and brothers to David of Ballachalun in Montieth, Scotland. The two brothers paid nine pound six shillings sterling to Mr. Benedict Callvert of Annapolis for the purchase of Alexander. He was a slave. Alexander tells of the other 88 Scots sold into slavery that day in “THE LYON IN MOURNING” pages 242-243.

Jeremiah Howell was a lifetime-indentured servant by his uncle in Lewis County, Virginia in the early 1700’s. His son, Jeremiah, won his freedom by fighting in the Revolution. There were hundreds of thousands of Scots sold into slavery during Colonial America. White slavery to the American Colonies occurred as early as 1630 in Scotland.
Marxist

User ID: 27787865
New Zealand
11/15/2012 06:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Okay, so with all the BS secession shit going on, it makes me question the civil war, if all these rednecks, and so-called rebels believe the civil war was about states rights (which i can see, but what state rights were being provoked by the union? anti-slavery laws or what) how could the south, being Christians and followers of Jesus, justify using slaves the way they did to achieve proficient income.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10873455


There were more white slaves in the US than there ever were African....

[link to www.electricscotland.com]

Alexander Stewart was herded off the Gildart in July of 1747, bound with chains. Stewart was pushed onto the auction block in Wecomica, St Mary’s County, Maryland. Doctor Stewart and his brother William were attending the auction, aware of Alexander being on that slave ship coming from Liverpool England. Doctor Stewart and William were residents of Annapolis and brothers to David of Ballachalun in Montieth, Scotland. The two brothers paid nine pound six shillings sterling to Mr. Benedict Callvert of Annapolis for the purchase of Alexander. He was a slave. Alexander tells of the other 88 Scots sold into slavery that day in “THE LYON IN MOURNING” pages 242-243.

Jeremiah Howell was a lifetime-indentured servant by his uncle in Lewis County, Virginia in the early 1700’s. His son, Jeremiah, won his freedom by fighting in the Revolution. There were hundreds of thousands of Scots sold into slavery during Colonial America. White slavery to the American Colonies occurred as early as 1630 in Scotland.
 Quoting: Serendipity 25458009


America risked going down the feudal path of serfdom back in Britain with the onset of indentureship and purchased labour which is why its ideals were set to paper.
Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Serendipity
User ID: 25458009
United States
11/15/2012 06:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
And ... in WHAT YEAR did Lincoln make the infamous 'Emancipation Proclamation'? Was it in ... 1863?

Two years after the start of the Civil War?

Was the war about 'slavery' (... there was an abundance of slave-owning business owners in the Northern States) ... or was it about the original 13 states "Rights to Self-Determination"?

A useful political football - nothing more, nothing less.
 Quoting: MindShaft


It was about the belated enforcement of the Constitution for which the US was the subject of much embarrassment abroad. Remember, the was the Age of Reason and the world was aflame with liberal ideas and the rise of civilisation, commerce and trade, and was rejecting feudalism.
 Quoting: Marxist


Lincoln was a reasonable thoughtful individual and he understood what the progressives in america understood in the Sixties ... If you want to change a culture then the most successful way is through gradual change

Lincoln wanted to gradually change the entrenched idea that slavery was ok ... his ultimate goal was the abolishment of slavery but he was willing to see it happen through patient wisdom ....

The south pushed his hand and so he emancipated the slaves
 Quoting: Simple_Man




Lincoln was a whore for the railroads. His boss was Mr. Rockefeller. As a matter of fact, Lincoln was the lawyer for the Railroads that killed the Steam Boats.

What Lincoln did was remove the necessity of the railroads to negotiate with each state where the transcontinental rail lines would go....it was taking too long and the states could not agree. So take over the Federal Govt and put your rails anywhere you want.

Put your own private standing army at the call of the president (Baldwin Felts and the Pinkertons) and you now run the country.

Ever notice that Railroad employees get special treatment by the IRS?????
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27780658
United States
11/15/2012 06:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Oh, for crikeys sakes! It merely sets up rules for the organisation of the legislative capital. It has long been the norm for cities to be run as corporations (incorporated societies) in the Anglo-Saxon world. That comes from the desire to mitigate the liability of city employees.
 Quoting: Marxist


and nowhere in that law does it say that
this corporation has to abide by the
laws of the constitution.

and nowhere in that law does it state
that we the people own Washington DC
nor elect the President of that corporation.
Serendipity
User ID: 25458009
United States
11/15/2012 06:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Okay, so with all the BS secession shit going on, it makes me question the civil war, if all these rednecks, and so-called rebels believe the civil war was about states rights (which i can see, but what state rights were being provoked by the union? anti-slavery laws or what) how could the south, being Christians and followers of Jesus, justify using slaves the way they did to achieve proficient income.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10873455


There were more white slaves in the US than there ever were African....

[link to www.electricscotland.com]

Alexander Stewart was herded off the Gildart in July of 1747, bound with chains. Stewart was pushed onto the auction block in Wecomica, St Mary’s County, Maryland. Doctor Stewart and his brother William were attending the auction, aware of Alexander being on that slave ship coming from Liverpool England. Doctor Stewart and William were residents of Annapolis and brothers to David of Ballachalun in Montieth, Scotland. The two brothers paid nine pound six shillings sterling to Mr. Benedict Callvert of Annapolis for the purchase of Alexander. He was a slave. Alexander tells of the other 88 Scots sold into slavery that day in “THE LYON IN MOURNING” pages 242-243.

Jeremiah Howell was a lifetime-indentured servant by his uncle in Lewis County, Virginia in the early 1700’s. His son, Jeremiah, won his freedom by fighting in the Revolution. There were hundreds of thousands of Scots sold into slavery during Colonial America. White slavery to the American Colonies occurred as early as 1630 in Scotland.
 Quoting: Serendipity 25458009


America risked going down the feudal path of serfdom back in Britain with the onset of indentureship and purchased labour which is why its ideals were set to paper.
 Quoting: Marxist



Slavery was pretty much done for at this state of the game....by 1860 farm machinery was already being mass produced for agriculture....it was the manufacturing facilities in the North that needed the labor and they were not about to give them free room and board like the slaves in the south got.
Marxist

User ID: 27787865
New Zealand
11/15/2012 06:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Haha .... you must be a lawyer or a very intelligent person because you are destroying this mans argument

Which leads me to my next question....

Why then are you a Marxist =)
 Quoting: Simple_Man


flogging cannot be compared with ownership
of property. there is no contract between
persons in a flogging case.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


Criminal law takes precedence over contract law and constitutional law is supreme.

For example, if you have a pre-nup with your wife from anywhere in the world including the US, which includes beating her as a remedy in the event of failure, the chances of you being able to enforce the beating clause are zero.
Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27780658
United States
11/15/2012 06:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Criminal law takes precedence over contract law and constitutional law is supreme.

 Quoting: Marxist



day-yum
ho many times do I have to tell ya,
there is no constitution any more.

this is why laws like the Patriot Act,
TSA and DHS and NDAA can be passed in congress.

if we still had a constitution
then why are these laws being passed
and not overturned in the Supreme Court ??
Marxist

User ID: 27787865
New Zealand
11/15/2012 06:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Oh, for crikeys sakes! It merely sets up rules for the organisation of the legislative capital. It has long been the norm for cities to be run as corporations (incorporated societies) in the Anglo-Saxon world. That comes from the desire to mitigate the liability of city employees.
 Quoting: Marxist


and nowhere in that law does it say that
this corporation has to abide by the
laws of the constitution.

and nowhere in that law does it state
that we the people own Washington DC
nor elect the President of that corporation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


Because its essentially a bye-law. It would be absurd for a bye-law to operate at this level as it is largely a piece of process legislation rather than being substantive.
Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27780658
United States
11/15/2012 06:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Because its essentially a bye-law. It would be absurd for a bye-law to operate at this level as it is largely a piece of process legislation rather than being substantive.
 Quoting: Marxist


I would call robbing the people of the US
to the tune of trillions and sending it
to the Vatican is VERY substantive.
Marxist

User ID: 27787865
New Zealand
11/15/2012 06:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Criminal law takes precedence over contract law and constitutional law is supreme.

 Quoting: Marxist



day-yum
ho many times do I have to tell ya,
there is no constitution any more.

this is why laws like the Patriot Act,
TSA and DHS and NDAA can be passed in congress.

if we still had a constitution
then why are these laws being passed
and not overturned in the Supreme Court ??
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


Because a constitution contemplates the security of its citizens. Basic stuff dude. First year law basically. Nothing to stop you challenging the legislation,. But arguing that its driven by reptiles, or zionist aliens or illuminated bankers aint gunna fly before a judge.
Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Marxist

User ID: 27787865
New Zealand
11/15/2012 06:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Because its essentially a bye-law. It would be absurd for a bye-law to operate at this level as it is largely a piece of process legislation rather than being substantive.
 Quoting: Marxist


I would call robbing the people of the US
to the tune of trillions and sending it
to the Vatican is VERY substantive.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


Get the proof and go to court. Its that simple. Crying wolf is going to leave most people of sound mind, cold.
Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27780658
United States
11/15/2012 06:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Because a constitution contemplates the security of its citizens. Basic stuff dude. First year law basically. Nothing to stop you challenging the legislation,. But arguing that its driven by reptiles, or zionist aliens or illuminated bankers aint gunna fly before a judge.
 Quoting: Marxist


who said anything about reptiles or aliens ?
dude you are a joke

and if we had a working constitution
then the Patriot Act would have been
overturned

NDAA would have been overturned

DHS would have been overturned

Obamacare would have been overturned

they are all illegal by the Constitution.
yet it is ignored in the Supreme Court.
there is only one way that is possible.
there is no constitution.

I'm outta this thread
I'm sick of debating with
idiots.
Serendipity
User ID: 25458009
United States
11/15/2012 06:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Karl Marx was a rich Jew - a 1%er....who developed Marxism as a way for he and his peers to keep their wealth and power while convincing the labor force that they are well taken care of by the state.

His views are well established in the US and families in the county I live in are required by the Juvenile and Domestic courts to take his "Family Classes." Which teach that the state has all power over you family.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20648966
United States
11/15/2012 06:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
it would be a good way to control the crime the negros committ, and they would have better lives as servants than they can accomplish on their own if we banned sports and rap music.
Marxist

User ID: 27787865
New Zealand
11/15/2012 06:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Karl Marx was a rich Jew - a 1%er....who developed Marxism as a way for he and his peers to keep their wealth and power while convincing the labor force that they are well taken care of by the state.

His views are well established in the US and families in the county I live in are required by the Juvenile and Domestic courts to take his "Family Classes." Which teach that the state has all power over you family.
 Quoting: Serendipity 25458009


I wont go into this stuff in detail as this thread is about the Constitution. This much I will say. Marx was quite clear that he was not talking about states.

States are a feature of mercantilism cum early/middle capitalism. As capitalists begin to co-operate across borders (such as hedge funds and multi-nationals), money takes on a global character. He never said anything about Little Joe getting bread and soup from the state kitchen as he was looking at the economics of capitalism and the poor guy is dead and can't set the record right. Plus his books are heavy on the brain. Of course, many have sought to make him into a Robin Hood character
Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27795701
United States
11/15/2012 06:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
another thing your history books
don't tell you is that about 35-40%
of the freed slaves returned to
their masters who could not function
as a free man and make it on their own
whom sought to return to slavery.
Thus the welfare state was born.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


That's not true.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27793159
United States
11/15/2012 06:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
You mean the War of Northern Aggression.

The D.O.C. is the new slave trade.
Serendipity
User ID: 25458009
United States
11/15/2012 06:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Karl Marx was a rich Jew - a 1%er....who developed Marxism as a way for he and his peers to keep their wealth and power while convincing the labor force that they are well taken care of by the state.

His views are well established in the US and families in the county I live in are required by the Juvenile and Domestic courts to take his "Family Classes." Which teach that the state has all power over you family.
 Quoting: Serendipity 25458009


I wont go into this stuff in detail as this thread is about the Constitution. This much I will say. Marx was quite clear that he was not talking about states.

States are a feature of mercantilism cum early/middle capitalism. As capitalists begin to co-operate across borders (such as hedge funds and multi-nationals), money takes on a global character. He never said anything about Little Joe getting bread and soup from the state kitchen as he was looking at the economics of capitalism and the poor guy is dead and can't set the record right. Plus his books are heavy on the brain. Of course, many have sought to make him into a Robin Hood character
 Quoting: Marxist


Robin Hood? Nope, that's not how I would describe him. Rich man developing controls for the rest of us in order to keep is status quo? Yes, that is exactly who he was.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27795701
United States
11/15/2012 06:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10873455


There IS no justification for slavery.
Marxist

User ID: 27787865
New Zealand
11/15/2012 06:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Karl Marx was a rich Jew - a 1%er....who developed Marxism as a way for he and his peers to keep their wealth and power while convincing the labor force that they are well taken care of by the state.

His views are well established in the US and families in the county I live in are required by the Juvenile and Domestic courts to take his "Family Classes." Which teach that the state has all power over you family.
 Quoting: Serendipity 25458009


I wont go into this stuff in detail as this thread is about the Constitution. This much I will say. Marx was quite clear that he was not talking about states.

States are a feature of mercantilism cum early/middle capitalism. As capitalists begin to co-operate across borders (such as hedge funds and multi-nationals), money takes on a global character. He never said anything about Little Joe getting bread and soup from the state kitchen as he was looking at the economics of capitalism and the poor guy is dead and can't set the record right. Plus his books are heavy on the brain. Of course, many have sought to make him into a Robin Hood character
 Quoting: Marxist


Robin Hood? Nope, that's not how I would describe him. Rich man developing controls for the rest of us in order to keep is status quo? Yes, that is exactly who he was.
 Quoting: Serendipity 25458009


Oh well, I can't change your mind and I guess, these ideas give your life some meaning. In any event, Marx did point out that as globalisation progressed, some would be bewildered and confused. When you get all conspiratorial about rich people, ask yourself, how would you behave were you to have a bank full of personal wealth. Wouldn't you invest in the most profitable country.

Don't make demons of the rich. They are you and I. They just happen to have more. However, one day, this party will come to an end.
Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Serendipity
User ID: 25458009
United States
11/15/2012 06:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Karl Marx was a rich Jew - a 1%er....who developed Marxism as a way for he and his peers to keep their wealth and power while convincing the labor force that they are well taken care of by the state.

His views are well established in the US and families in the county I live in are required by the Juvenile and Domestic courts to take his "Family Classes." Which teach that the state has all power over you family.
 Quoting: Serendipity 25458009


I wont go into this stuff in detail as this thread is about the Constitution. This much I will say. Marx was quite clear that he was not talking about states.

States are a feature of mercantilism cum early/middle capitalism. As capitalists begin to co-operate across borders (such as hedge funds and multi-nationals), money takes on a global character. He never said anything about Little Joe getting bread and soup from the state kitchen as he was looking at the economics of capitalism and the poor guy is dead and can't set the record right. Plus his books are heavy on the brain. Of course, many have sought to make him into a Robin Hood character
 Quoting: Marxist


Robin Hood? Nope, that's not how I would describe him. Rich man developing controls for the rest of us in order to keep is status quo? Yes, that is exactly who he was.
 Quoting: Serendipity 25458009


Oh well, I can't change your mind and I guess, these ideas give your life some meaning. In any event, Marx did point out that as globalisation progressed, some would be bewildered and confused. When you get all conspiratorial about rich people, ask yourself, how would you behave were you to have a bank full of personal wealth. Wouldn't you invest in the most profitable country.

Don't make demons of the rich. They are you and I. They just happen to have more. However, one day, this party will come to an end.
 Quoting: Marxist


Who are you to know what gives my life meaning? See, this is why I don't like Marx. He made assumptions about EVERYONE that have no merit.

I happen to realize that a poor man has never given anyone a job. But that doesn't mean that I believe the CEO should be making 10,000 times more than the men actually doing the work.
Serendipity
User ID: 25458009
United States
11/15/2012 06:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
How many regular working people were invited to Marx's discussions? None.

No, the regular Joe's were nothing more than lab rats to him.
They weren't even considered human....just something you should study and control.

And you want me think he had everyone's best interest at heart? Not gonna happen.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27795864
United States
11/15/2012 07:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
geez
some of you are disillusioned as to what
a FREE man is.

these slave traders that went to Africa did not
kidnap or steal slaves

their own families sold them into slavery
so that both parties could survive.

if your own family sells you into slavery
and that person allowed it of his own will
then the person becomes an asset, not a free man.
That was a choice they made on their own
in Africa and it has nothing to do with
where that asset shows up later on
a map.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27795864
United States
11/15/2012 07:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
And ... in WHAT YEAR did Lincoln make the infamous 'Emancipation Proclamation'? Was it in ... 1863?

Two years after the start of the Civil War?

Was the war about 'slavery' (... there was an abundance of slave-owning business owners in the Northern States) ... or was it about the original 13 states/colonies "Rights to Self-Determination"?

A useful political football - nothing more, nothing less.
 Quoting: MindShaft


Not only that, but LIncoln already had a plan in place to ship them all back to Africa, and he is quoted as saying "I have no intention that the negroe should ever hold office or vote." He didnt want them here, either as free or as slaves.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20574169
United States
11/15/2012 07:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
Okay, so with all the BS secession shit going on, it makes me question the civil war, if all these rednecks, and so-called rebels believe the civil war was about states rights (which i can see, but what state rights were being provoked by the union? anti-slavery laws or what) how could the south, being Christians and followers of Jesus, justify using slaves the way they did to achieve proficient income.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10873455


the north had slaves too. what part of this do you not understand?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20574169
United States
11/15/2012 07:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. William Henry Seward, Lincoln's anti-slavery Secretary of State during the Civil War, born in 1801, grew up in Orange County, New York, in a slave-owning family and amid neighbors who owned slaves if they could afford them. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27780658
United States
11/15/2012 07:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
another thing your history books
don't tell you is that about 35-40%
of the freed slaves returned to
their masters who could not function
as a free man and make it on their own
whom sought to return to slavery.
Thus the welfare state was born.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27780658


That's not true.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27795701


maybe you should check your facts
before calling somebody a liar.

it makes you look like a retard

in the summer and fall of 1865, President Andrew Johnson pardoned (forgave) most former Confederates and gave back their property. The Freedmen's Bureau had to order 40,000 angry freed people off the land they'd been given. "Give us our own land, and we take care of ourselves," said one ex-slave from Mississippi. "But without land, the old masters can hire us to starve us as they please."

Most former slaves had to go back to work on the plantations of former slave owners, as Mary Adams had predicted. For farming the land, they were paid $9 to $15 a month, or one-fourth to one-half of the crop. Some workers had to sign contracts that kept them in conditions much like slavery. They were fined for bad language or disobedience, and were not allowed to leave the plantation without permission.
 Quoting: Source


[link to www.thefreelibrary.com]
071676

User ID: 26630358
United States
11/15/2012 08:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery
They were actually right about States Rights. Their view of the Constitution was valid.

As to your question about slavery....pure rationalization based on fear and preservation of their status quo.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13027288


what was there view of the constitution? what state rights did they want to keep?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10873455


The northern state demanded more taxes and tariffs on southern goods then on their own or foreign goods coming into the country. Then all southern shipping had to be conducted ONLY by northern shipping. The South was not even allowed to pass their own state laws without permission from the northern led congress.

As to slaves, the south realized that slaves were not the future, and had actually created state laws to abandon slavery, by forbidding the importation of more slaves, the birth from slaves would all be gaining their freedom once they reached their majority of age twenty five. The north, at the time demanded the right and continuation of their form of slavery called servitude. Under servitude, a person would be locked into perpetual slavery paying back a monetary loan to a company or person, often forcing the servitude to extend to children and grandchildren.

Slavery was wicked and worth killing over, but servitude was a god given right of the rich north.

News