Ron Dean wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/05/2024 01:58, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 13/05/2024 15:19, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
>
major snip
>
>
The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North. What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed an interested in entering into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier had outlawed slave trading.
>
>
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
>
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would be no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them from fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time before the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that Convention a resolution was passed that the international slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
>
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
>
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and south.
>
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years before the Civil War.
>
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens- the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to their lot as slaves.
>
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is especially disgusting. Stop it.
>
Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant, unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere. Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and manufactured goods for trading and Northern merchants traded with native people for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going to Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but they bought slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This also applies to most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which otherwise I would not have had.
>
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in Germany after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not have had life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever have met except for WWII - not likely. The point is we don't always have control over the events that happened, and often tragedies that happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
>
>
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
>
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history, and even if it's true, I don't care.
>
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers. Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As for your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did you read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched evenly with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
>
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be described as short term economic favors to a few politically connected firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly exploited this misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic recognition, yet in doing so also elevated the tariff cause from its role as an ancillary secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
>
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're a racist and an apologist for slavers.
>
You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, they sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back stabbing and character assassination. You did this without an shred
of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no doubt is you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll have nothing more to do with you, a false accuser!
>
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after the Civil War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding Kansas- all years before the start of the Civil War. You claimed that tariffs were the primary cause of the Civil War. I brought up the Articles of Secession of every one of the rebel states, all of which list slavery as the reason they seceded. I also brought up the Cornerstone Speech by the vice-president of the CSA, in which he clearly states the same thing.
>
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does not exist. That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause bullshit and deny slavery caused the Civil War is the typical apologetic crap of racist revisionists. It would seem obvious to the casual observer that you are the once with no evidence, and you are going into your little anger routine (again) to cover it up. You are dishonest, you refuse to address arguments that prove you wrong (and you're still wrong about everything) and the garbage you spew is racist revisionist sewage.
>
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be wondering what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good opinion of me.
>
Chris
snip
>
From the previous century
>
Josiah Wedgewood (Darwin's grandfather) manufactured the abolitionist "am I not a man and a brother" medallion in 1787.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion
>
"The Slave's Lament", commonly attributed to Robert Burns, was published in 1792.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slave%27s_Lament
>
>
Now we are likely to hear about the English participation in the slave trade for all those years. Never mind they banned slavery years before the US- it's still obviously ALL THEIR FAULT- just as Dean trotted out the fact that slavery was at one time legal in northern states, too. A more pathetic example of tu quoque is difficult to find.
>
>
Chris
>
>
Going back to the 11th Century
>
"A social reformer, Wulfstan struggled to bridge the gap between the old and new regimes, and to alleviate the suffering of the poor. He was a strong opponent of the slave trade, and together with Lanfranc, was mainly responsible for ending the trade from Bristol." (WikiPedia)
>
This Guy, Chis read meaning into my comments that I never intended, never thought and never meant!
>
And yet you never recanted your errors. You claimed tariffs were the cause of the Civil War.
>
I was never taught that tariffs were the cause of the US Civil War. I
had always accepted that slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil War. I did a search of the net
On the net? Oh well, that settles it, if it is on the net, it just must
be true
and what I found was that unfair tariffs imposed on the South
Not quite, not even on its own terms.
Nobody imposed tariffs on the South. The tariffs were imposed
on imports from outside the US, so mainly on British merchants. The aim,
in addition to raising funds (income tax wasn't really a thing then)
was to protect the nascent industrial base of the US from competition
from England. The issue was the disparate impact these taxes had on the South - all Americans had as a result to pay higher prices on foreign goods (unless the English merchant absorbed the costs), while
it was felt that the benefits mainly accrued in the North (an obvious
the answer would have been to also build industrial capacity in the
South, but as the South was wedded to free slave labour and the plantation economy, that did not happen of course). So the South's position
was essentially: "screw the industry in the North and the farmers in
the West (which had been the main force behind the tariffs) we want to use our money to buy cheap English imports - after all, we worked
hard for that money. Well, mainly our slaveds id, but you get why we are
aggrieved, doing floggings in the heat is hard work too")
was the cause of the war between the states. I was surprised by this!
There are several sources for this claim: None less than Britannica, Wikepediam Smithsonian magazine:
https://www.britannica.com/video/245851/Tariff-of-1828
Have you seen the date? That is 1828, the Tariff of Abomination, 30
years before the outbreak of the civil war. And if anything, it weakens the claim that tariffs played a major role in secession - in 1828, it was as the article says a political issue, and politicians raised explicitly the possibility of secession in response to it. (leaving aside that the Act was designed by Southerners, and
contained significant tariffs also on imports of machinery
and other goods that were mainly for the North - they had merely misjudged the powerplay).
But there is nothing like this in the years before 1860, there
is no single Southern politician who proposes a change in
the tariffs as a condition to stay in the union. And of course,
had the secession been successful, then the Southern states would
have been "foreign" territory vis-a-vis the North, which then would indeed have been able to impose tariffs on southern
goods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
does not really provide evidence for your claim
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
a webpage by a financial firm that lobbies the current US
government against protective tariffs. No evidence for the claim that is played a role in the civil war, and a number
of glaring errors (I mentioned already one, the Morril tariff
was enacted AFTER the southern members of congress had resigned, it was a result of, not a cause for, the civil war
https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/tariffs-founding-era-to-american-civil-war/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/history-american-shifting-position-tariffs-180968775/https://philmagness.com/2017/05/on-tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war/
The Cornerstone speech and the Articles of
Secession of all of the rebel states prove you wrong.
Do you think that slavery was the only cause? I can believe that slavery
definately was a cause, but slavery had existed in the South for 240+ years before the start of the civil war. So, there must have been other
factors which sparked the war.
No, why? Only now, and after the abolition of slavery in England
and its measures against the transatlantic slave trade, was the institution in danger. That fear of losing the system was new, and triggered the war. Were there other things the South
was unhappy about? Sure. In every federal system, the states are
unhappy with "some" federal policy, just as they are now (and not just in the US, same in the UK, or Europe). And it applied of course to the
North just as much. Indeed, the unbalanced US constitution had
given the South much more control over US policies than their
size merited, so you would have many more Northerners dissatisfied
about federal policies that were enacted by the Southern bloc. The
Fugitive
Slave Act is a prime example. But "unhappiness with some federal policy
or other" does not make this a cause of the civil war. On that, Southern
politicians, Southern writers and Southern public were clear: No
compromise by the North on any of the other policies would have avoided the war, and not even compromise on the slavery issue short
of an entrenched, "eternal" constitutional commitment to slavery, not
just in the South but also the new states in the west, AND enforcement
of slave laws also in the North (eg return of escaped slaves)
I know there were people in the North and indeed the South. I learned that a small percentage of Southerners were
slave holders.
around 30% But so what? That does not mean that the other 70% did not
benefit from, or were deeply committed to the slavery system. A much larger percentage e.g. would have worked for slave owners (as overseers,
workers etc) or had them as customers. And even if a person wasn't a slaveholders at that point, they often had the aspiration of becoming
one, as a way to increase social standing etc. I gave you several quotes from ordinary soldiers, few of them will have been slaveholders personally, they were just extremely supportive
of the system, not the least because it guaranteed that there
were always some people they could look down to.
The spew you
asserted is typical- no, stereotypical- of racist Lost Cause apologists
trying to whitewash the south's reprehensible behavior. And you never rejected it.
QED. The shoe fits.
Chris
>
West Virginia creationism
Re: West Virginia creationism