Yankee Myth # 2 - Lincoln the Humanitarian

[Ga.windbreak]

Any idea of what percent of the white South and North held slaves?
Blessings

http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_lp_CHydra.htm   1800 census 3/4ths down the page.

http://www.historyguy.com/civilwar/statistics_slave_population.html 1/2 way down.

Two links that might help you.

Peace

[williamlayton]

So, how can ya'll say that slavery was in decline?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Because the people from that time period said so and they were doing their best to educate their slaves before hand. Its there for you to see if you will but look WL. Just who do you believe, the people from that era or someone writing history today, 150 years later?

I guess by your question above you believe those who are alive today. That is your right, to believe who you will. Just don't ask those of us who want to know the truth to take your word as gospel. WADR

Peace

[Dee]

W/L the history of this war is not subject to interpretation. It is what it is. Your personal history of disputing FACTS is doing you know good here. The War of Northern Aggression is well documented, and available to those whom want to research. It would be a good endeavor for you in light of your views which you have not once held up documented evidence in support of.
If you have ANYTHING more than your personal opinion to support your statements, which we obviously do not accept, why not post the source, and let's examine it?

[williamlayton]

There is the oral history of the South which is the most damning--and we have all heard it.
I took as, a minor in college, a history of the old south and the Civil War.
I was taught by PH D's who made a very even tempered study of the South's position.
The general view of the 30 something hours of this study do indicate complexity of causes involving other factors. It also indicates a major cover-up, using these OTHER causes, of the position of a minority of slave owners and traders in an attempt too expand slavery.
The propaganda used and the use of fear too direct the general populace into agreement and support of the the system. Partly too protect the general populace and partly too allow other states too profit from this system.
The system of slavery was not in demise, it just needed elbow room too grow and prosper.
Lord there is a world of studies on this system--those who would deny and those who would agree.
Let's take your Cherokee heritage as a good example. Do you find that as a general rule Indians are more susceptible too alcoholism and need too be KEPT from this evil because it makes them crazy and more apt too war?
A perfect example of oppression by propaganda.
Blessings

[Gary G]

Slavery ended in most other industrialized nations about the same time or shortly thereafter without a single tyrant killing thousands of their innocent citizens.

"A just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them", Murray Rothbard.


Alexander Stephens asked Lincoln what the freedmen would do, without education or property. Lincoln's answer: 'Root, hog, or die.'

Even Northerners lost! It was an end to states rights, liberty, and nullification. Free men became slaves of statism.

[Dee]

So W/L, as is your nature, you pretend that a question of sources has not been asked, as if the question if ignored will go away, relieving you of any responsibility to PROVE YOUR POINT, with facts.
I ask one last time, and then will go into ignore mode. Post your sources. Your opinions have been rejected by most here. I care not one hang about some PHD "opinion" from ANYWHERE, as the initials in most cases stand for "PILED HIGH & DEEP".
Most high school teachers now a days, and almost all left wing college professors teach more "agenda" than facts.

[Gary G]

The first part of this article makes sense of "why the war":

http://mises.org/story/3033

[SouthernByGrace]

GaryG, that is a very good link. It proves most of what we're saying here. By the way, Welcome to the forum. Glad you could join us.

WL, are you taking notes on how to substantiate your claims? If not, you should be...

 

 

[Gary G]

Thank you for the invite SBG. I am not a historian and have not read a lot on the subject so I wouldn't be much help.
I have a great uncle living whose mind is still clear and he tells me the stories that his grandfather told. He (gggrandfather) was with Colquitt's brigade and made it through the worst. One story is how at Ocean Pond the yankees put the black troops on the front. When they broke and ran they were slaughtered from both sides. He felt sorry for them. At the Wilderness he got his big toe shot off dragging wounded troops down to a creek; the woods were on fire. Next day most of his unit was wiped out including the capture of his brother who died in a northern prison camp. They didn't have slaves, but fought to protect their families.

PS William is a good man and I like him, he is just old and "sot n his ways"/ lol and believing the propaganda.

[SouthernByGrace]

Gary G, so you know WL personally, huh? I'd like to meet him sometime. I believe you that he's a good man. I have to give him one thing... he is relentless in his beliefs. In a way I guess that, all in all, that's a good thing. But he sure is a stubborn ole codger. I think that's what makes me like him. He's a challenge, albeit a big one...LOL
Hey, you don't have to be no historian to be a great addition around here... I learn a little bit every day just checking out the links and sources from GW and Dee and lc. I think we're all pretty much cut from the same mold, if you know what I mean.
The way I look at it is, hey, it makes for some great conversation, and if I learn something or can share something in the process, all the better.
Again, Welcome, and looking forward to reading more of your posts.


DEO VINDICE

[Gary G]

Well, I don't know William personally, but he and I have done battle many times on the Bible Study Thread and he is a gentleman. Bullheaded too!

[littlecanoe]

SBG,  You're last post caused me to reflect on my upbringing.  I live in KY.  I have never confirmed if my mothers side of the family owned slaves or not.  There is a large plantation house which was built by this side of the family and they were somewhat well off during that time.  It's quite possible that they did.  I will need to speak with an uncle who is somewhat of a family historian. 

Here in KY, we have Lincoln's birthplace and the Monument to Jeff Davis.  I've been to both.  Early in my life, really, up until I was between 35-40 yo, I hadn't given a lot of thought to what I was taught.  Of course, there were strong sentimental ties this area being "Lincoln's Birthplace".  This area was pro-union and "Morgan" raided through here coming out of TN.  I never did hear a lot about Davis.  As an adult, I teach my children what I consider to be the true reality of the War.  Northern/Tyrannical Aggression.  For me, the case ends with Lincoln's imprisoning people who spoke freely and shutting down news papers.  We will very likely be faced with this issue in the near future when Liberal politicians try to pass equal representation in the media and by doing so limit freedom of speech.  It's at that point that Mr. Lincoln proves who he was, what he believed and to what ends he was willing to go to achieve said beliefs.  All of the flowery prose that has been penned to shore up his legacy falls helplessly to the ground. 

My epiphany was really gradual through consideration of all that I'd been taught as it stood beside the reality that time brings.  The biggest factor, since I am a Constitutionalist at heart, was the loss of states rights.  I just don't believe that most of the southern army was fighting for rich men to own slaves.  It doesn't add up, especially, when we consider that they were not draftees but volunteers.   Throughout history there lies a certain animosity between those who have and those who have not.  You might call it a flaw of human nature.   Were the issue slavery and fattening up the rich man why did so many southern sons volunteer and die?  It doesn't make sense to me.  Reading the letters that you fellas refer to gives plenty of evidence as to the why of the common man fighting.  Self-determination. 

[williamlayton]

Dee
It would be best if you do put me on the ignore list. I really don't care on several levels.
One your opinion is your opinion and it is most opinionated from a purely contaminated line of reasoning.
If you do not take a professional study as proof or the professional studies of PH D's as proof you truely have your head buried in the sand. which is my long standing opinion.
BYE

[williamlayton]

Gentlemen
You have called me a hard headed old fart!!  Well, I never denied that and I come from a long line of hardheaded ol farts.
Now Too give a verse out of context reason for my opinions is less than a study.
Study is looking at a question from a lot of angles--not just one way.
I have and have come too my own conclusions---Just as have you boys.
It is not picking a saying or quote that will turn the tide in any apology, wheather it be religous or historical.
Too me is what does the context of all the study say.
I have my reasoning, as do you. I don't see any problem yelling at each other about the lack of value of the others opinion. Makes the world go round and keeps the brain cells in motion---in my case THE brain cell.
Blessings

[Dee]

Dee
It would be best if you do put me on the ignore list. I really don't care on several levels.
One your opinion is your opinion and it is most opinionated from a purely contaminated line of reasoning.
If you do not take a professional study as proof or the professional studies of PH D's as proof you truely have your head buried in the sand. which is my long standing opinion.
BYE

You still have not posted references. Not even your PHD's opinions are referenced. Where did THEY get their information? There is nothing contaminated about my posts on this thread. They are all from historical references.
You historically make statements such as you have just made about me, continually to keep from posting actual references to YOUR statements. You want us to just take YOUR word, that we are wrong, and YOU are right. NOPE!
By the way. I have called you nothing, and as for my remark on ignore, it was referenced as to your claims of slavery being the root of the war. This discussion may not be going the way you "want it to go" but it is a good discussion with everyone offering valid transcript for their opinions. You on the other had have ignored these transcripts, and have gone so far as to tell Gaw, and myself that we are wrong, yet offer no proof, just attitude.
Good day sir,

[williamlayton]

Well, Dee, what do you want an Ibid?
The study is historical---I really don't think you understand study. Where do you get your info from?
Let's look at it this way. I have not gone to original documents, I, like you, rely on the findings of others. Heck i don't have the resources---$$$--- to go and get these documents.
I have read books and from these books I have come too conclusions. There is not one book and they are not from one viewpoint.
What is your question, really?
Glad you have not put me on ignore---yet!
You can if you wish but you would be cheating yourownself of much of the frustration you seem too enjoy so.
I have stated my reasons and MY opinions.
Blessings

[Dee]

Well, Dee, what do you want an Ibid?
The study is historical---I really don't think you understand study. Where do you get your info from?
Let's look at it this way. I have not gone to original documents, I, like you, rely on the findings of others. Heck i don't have the resources---$$$--- to go and get these documents.
I have read books and from these books I have come too conclusions. There is not one book and they are not from one viewpoint.
What is your question, really?
Glad you have not put me on ignore---yet!
You can if you wish but you would be cheating yourownself of much of the frustration you seem too enjoy so.
I have stated my reasons and MY opinions.
Blessings

LOL! Now that is indeed funny. Perhaps I do not understand the study. The other participants will have to decide, and let me know. I have gotten my info from much reading and to my great joy, many times after I make a statement concerning my past studies one of these gentlemen will look it up and post it for me. LOL
I have not put you on my ignore list simply because I want to be there at that point in history when you might say: Gentlemen! I was wrong.  It hasn't happened yet concerning ANY TOPIC but, I am still holding out in hopes of being there if it does.
All, yes, ALL, of these kind gents have offered documented proof of their statements (and mine LOL) of their claims of history GLADLY, and have not taken offense to being questioned. Only YOU have been offended when questioned, and only YOU have refused to offer ANY text to back your claims of absolute rightness on the subject.
You don't by the way frustrate me, you instead "illustrate" for me, the wrong opinions of "mythical legends" concerning the cause of the war.
SO! With that said, lets get back on topic William, and pony up that info that "YOU KNOW" is FREE for the looking on the Internet.

Blessings,

[Ga.windbreak]

You want opinions WL? Ok, I'm reminded of a quote "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Sorry guys, no more of this, I'm back on topic. Bye bye WL.

[williamlayton]

Well lets see here.
The Union is primarily manufacturing. The new states are primarily agrarian. The South is heavily dependent of agriculture, has minute manufacturing. Do I need too quote the 1860 census too let you know it is true? Hardly, I believe.
Do we have too ibid the bloody wars in Kansas? No, again.
Do we have too study all of Texas history too see that it was an important acquisition of the slave states. Again, I don't believe so. Was slavery in Texas a question which was important in perhaps not allowing it in the Union. It was mentioned and was debated.
Did the South have eyes on Oklahoma? It did as well as New Mexico, Arizona, California.
Was there much chance that the South could be more heavily industrialized? Not at this time with technology being at the stage it was.
What were the important things necessary for a confederacy too exist/continue too exist?
Recognition by a worthwhile foreign government. I have found no evidence of any flocking at the door.
More land---need I repeat? MORE LAND. Land too expand the onliest thing going for it, agriculture, and, this was only by slavery. Look at the population of the South.
The South could not generate enough money by the sale of cotton alone and it was in no position too expand this cash crop except by expansion.
What in these statements need too be quoted from a source. Any degree of High School history should bring these facts too mind.
It is therefore my considered opinion that the South was bound too slavery by a long umbilical cord. It must expand it or die as a nation---if you consider a Confederacy a union. I do not.
Blessings   

[Gary G]

Chicago Times, Dec 10,1860:
The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country.  Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole . . . We have a tariff [the Morrill Tariff] that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.

Lincoln was elected to protect this tariff. The south walked out. It became Lincoln's Tariff War!
http://mises.org/article.aspx?control=952

[Ga.windbreak]

Gary G that's a two thumbs up for your post. I have posted a different link in the other Yankee Myth thread which points to the same conclusion. Of course there are some here who will not believe what their eyes see and their brain reads but we shall continue to point out these truths where we find them. Glad to have you on board.

[williamlayton]

The Morrill Tariff
This is a good study and is one of the main causes related too slavery and secession. It will take a bit of study and close scrutiny too discern the propaganda from the facts--on both sides.
What event projected the Morrill act too be considered?
Blessings

[SouthernByGrace]

Gary G you hit the nail on the head with that one. Great link, too.

WL, you should read the information in Gary G's link. It shows evidence that the South was paying 80% of the taxes, through Tariffs. The writers got their evidence from the same sources we do. And this information is from Northern writers, no less!

WL, I fail to understand your incessant stubbornness in NOT proving your point on a single issue you discuss in this forum. All we are asking for is your sources. For example, show me one newspaper or magazine article that remotely demonstrates that the South "had its eyes on Oklahoma, New Mexico, California and Arizona," for the purpose of expanding slavery or any other reason.
And, NO we don't need you to quote the Census to demonstrate that which is as obvious as the nose on your face. NOBODY has ever disputed the FACTS that the North was primarily Industrial and the South was Agricultural. But when you say that we are wrong in believing slavery was dying a natural death, and you assert the South was counting on expansion of slavery, even after we have documented our side over and over, and you have failed to show a single shred of evidence to support you statements or your views, then your opinions are worthless to me.
Your opinions were formed from information you received from Somewhere, even if it was made up in your head.  If you don't have the proof we ask for, just say so. Otherwise, this is getting ridiculous!
Like I said earlier, you either don't have any evidence to support your views, you can't find it, or it doesn't exist.

Sorry for the "distraction" guys but I couldn't help it. Y'all look for the 3rd Yankee Myth later today.

[williamlayton]

I offered too discuss the Morrill Tariff, which should clear this up.
Well, I am kidding, it is a good source for this discussion.
I even asked a question.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

The Morrill Tariff
This is a good study and is one of the main causes related too slavery and secession. It will take a bit of study and close scrutiny too discern the propaganda from the facts--on both sides.
What event projected the Morrill act too be considered?Blessings

I guess when the sun rises its related to slavery, also?! The event was its passage in congress which in turn caused the State of SC to secede from the union. Of course this is coming from old simple minded Ron who can't think his way around a high school class room. So I guess you will dismiss it from your mind.

[williamlayton]

What eventss in history caused it too happen.
It probably can be found on the net--I'm going too speak too it from memory. Why am I going too rely on memory? You will ask.
Not too show my skills at memory I assure. I want an out if I speak incorrectly  .
Blessings

[williamlayton]

There was a great depression in 1856.
This was the first morrill act.
In 1861 was the second Morrill act. This was too bolster and protect manufacturing in the North. This also began the Republican Party as we know it today.
Prior too this time Agrarian interst were the most protected of any in the United States. The great age of manufacturing was beginning to take hold in Europe as well as in America.
England was subsidizing some manufacturing processes which imported their goods. Not all were imported too America but what was being imported was damaging American manufacturers because of the substidy and low wages in England.
The Morrill acts--the first--was what put the tariff on exported goods, all exported goods, cotton being the main. This allowed American Manufactures too compete with imported English textiles.
Now we come too big business and you boys will howl. The Americans made tremendous profit because they raised the prices too be just below English textiles. You can call it hogging if you wish. the fact is nothing gets past any that wish too gain an edge.
The South did notactually pay the tariff, the English and others had too pay the added cost of goods.
Now prior too the Morrill act of 1861, slavery was the main issue in the South. After the Morrill Act of 1861 the south quickly changed tactics and hid behind the Morrill act too get the heat off the slavery issue.
In a third morrill act in 1863 Congress attached a plan too allow slavery too be legal in the seceded Southern states if they wished too rejoin the union.
The south soundly rejected the offer.
While this great war was consuming the South, the North was busidly fighting the war and building the transcontinental RR. This shows the effect/affect the war was causing on the North. 

[Ga.windbreak]

WL the title of this thread is - Lincoln the Humanitarian. Please show some respect and get back on topic. Thank you.

[Dee]

As we say in the horse business (or used to say) about a horse with no stamina. The horse W/L tried to ride in this race had no bottom, and quit him.
He has changed horses, but alas, he saddled in the dark, and chose a donkey by mistake.