Do you suppose Davey thought is was about the style of the flag??? Or uniform colours?? Perhaps the price of cotton??? Well, the bare assed truth is the continued privilege of being allowed to own people.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.
I really do not know.
But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.
I wonder why you are not.
Frank Apisa wrote:FOR THE REASONS
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.
I really do not know.
But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.
I wonder why you are not.
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:FOR THE REASONS
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.
I really do not know.
But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.
I wonder why you are not.
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.
All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.
Frank Apisa wrote:If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:FOR THE REASONS
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.
I really do not know.
But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.
I wonder why you are not.
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.
All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.
Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)
Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.
When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.
That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.
David
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:FOR THE REASONS
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.
I really do not know.
But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.
I wonder why you are not.
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.
All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.
Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)
Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.
When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.
That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.
David
As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.
You gotta deal with that, David.
Frank Apisa wrote:I will deal with that, if u give me quotes
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:FOR THE REASONS
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.
I really do not know.
But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.
I wonder why you are not.
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.
All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.
Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)
Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.
When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.
That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.
David
As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.
You gotta deal with that, David.
and maybe some links to whatever it is that u allege that thay SAID.
U STILL have ignored my questions herinabove in this post, Frank.
U don t like it, when people do that to U!
David
Frank Apisa wrote:I will deal with that, if u give me quotes
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:FOR THE REASONS
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.
I really do not know.
But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.
I wonder why you are not.
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.
All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.
Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)
Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.
When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.
That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.
David
As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.
You gotta deal with that, David.
and maybe some links to whatever it is that u allege that thay SAID.
U STILL have ignored my questions herinabove in this post, Frank.
U don t like it, when people do that to U!
David
I have suggested that you read the declarations of secession of the southern states from the Union...and see if you can find one that does not make the institution of slavery an essential ingredient in what they are doing.
Google the declarations of secession of South Carolina first...and then the other seceding states afterwards, David.
If the institution of slavery is not mentioned...you may be on to something. But I think you will find it mentioned...and mentioned prominently.
An official secession convention met in South Carolina following the November 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States.[1] On December 20, 1860, the convention issued an ordinance of secession announcing the state's withdrawal from the union.[2]
The ordinance was brief,
containing no explanation of the reasoning behind the delegates' decision:
We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and eight eight, whereby the Constitution of the United State of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendment of the said Constitution, are here by repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of “The United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.[3]
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:I will deal with that, if u give me quotes
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:FOR THE REASONS
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The "something else" was a power grab
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:If there were no slavery,Was the civil war about slavery?
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.
Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.
You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.
And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????
If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.
I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.
In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.
Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.
IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.
But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??
I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.
And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).
If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????
Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.
The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.
Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????
I think its a naked fantasy.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???Earth calling David...please come in, David.
I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.
BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.
Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.
SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]
Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.
David
Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.
I really do not know.
But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.
I wonder why you are not.
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.
All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.
Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)
Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.
When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.
That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.
David
As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.
You gotta deal with that, David.
and maybe some links to whatever it is that u allege that thay SAID.
U STILL have ignored my questions herinabove in this post, Frank.
U don t like it, when people do that to U!
David
Frank Apisa wrote:OK, Frank, I don t intend to make a big research projectI have suggested that you read the declarations of secession of the southern states from the Union...and see if you can find one that does not make the institution of slavery an essential ingredient in what they are doing.
Google the declarations of secession of South Carolina first...and then the other seceding states afterwards, David.
If the institution of slavery is not mentioned...you may be on to something. But I think you will find it mentioned...and mentioned prominently.
of this, but per your recommendation,
I Googled South Carolina 's declaration of secession
and got this brief summary description:
Wikipedia wrote:An official secession convention met in South Carolina following the November 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States.[1] On December 20, 1860, the convention issued an ordinance of secession announcing the state's withdrawal from the union.[2]
The ordinance was brief,
containing no explanation of the reasoning behind the delegates' decision:
We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and eight eight, whereby the Constitution of the United State of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendment of the said Constitution, are here by repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of “The United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.[3]
Perhaps u wanna quote us something
that particularly impressed u on this subject,
or offer a link to the information that u have specifically in mind??
(Note that all of my questions to u STILL remain un-answered by u.
When guys have done that to u, u did not like it and u objected!!!)
How about it, Frank???????
MY ancestors arrived in America AFTER
the War Between the States. We owe them nothing.
I don t wanna pay tax money to blacks. I owe them nothing.
David
Incidentally, I do not believe that any Union soldiers
were asked whether thay love the Africans enuf
to put up with inconveniences or to endanger their lives and limbs for them.