# Think Tank > History >  Real reasons for the Civil War:

## IcyPeaceMaker

This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred.

Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred. 

I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time. 

Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave. 

Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery. 

It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights.

Slavery was a part of those greater issues, but it was not the reason the Southern States seceded from the Union, nor fought the Civil War. It certainly was a Southern institution that was part of the economic system of the plantations, and because of that, it was part and parcel of the economic reasons that the South formed the Confederacy. The economic issue was one of taxation and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where the producers wanted to, rather than where they were forced to, and at under inflated prices. Funny, it sounds very much like the reason we broke from Great Britain to begin with. The South was within their rights, but there should have been another way to solve the problem. If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Lincoln had a plan to gradually free the slaves without it further hurting the plantation owners. He also had a plan to allow them to sell their products anywhere they wanted to and at a fair price. They did not choose to listen to the President, however, so they formed the Confederacy and the Civil War began.

----------


## anonymous6728

It was my understanding that the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted when the South was winning the war.  The proclamation had the effect of destabilizing the South, improving Lincoln's chances of being re-elected by appealing to Republican abolitionists, and effectively cutting off military support to the South from Britain and France.  It was Lincoln's best political move of his career.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

You must remember that the Republican party was the liberal party back then.

This site explains Lincoln's true motives: http://www.secessionist.us/blog/2007...colns-war.html Forget the opposition retoric in this. We are still feeling the effects of that war, your state and mine lost their soverignty to the will of the majority. That was never the intent of uniting the soverign states.

----------


## Aratus

it all actually had its roots in the Clay Compromise during the era of good feelings.
when the Taney court Dred Scott decision rendered null and void the earlier
compromises, northern anger at promices not kept as well as regional fears
about the way the new states would hypothetically enter the union then caused
the older debates of the federalists and anti-federalists to split apart the nation.
the peculiar institution has its roots in england's feudal structure, yet in the new world
after independence, slaves had an increasingly reduced estate, even though slavery
began as a variation on having seven year bond servants being theoretically "owned"
by the person who pays their passage. the north was disgusted by the idea of people
being legally no better than property. owners could take out mortgages... on new slaves.

prior to george washington, arthur st. clair had served our nation with an ability.
the reason why we forget the format of gov't we had upon going for our declaration
of independence, is that with our constitution and bill of rights, we had a tighter union.
john marshall and andrew jackson were utilized by honest abe when henry clay's
brainfreezes ceased to have a political relevance. the years from 1858 to 1861 were
volatile, and almost unrecognizable to anyone who understood the quiet promices
jamie monroe got from the political factions and parties who were of his era. the same
compromise that monroe felt privately thankful for is the very same thing jefferson
almost cussed out monroe for. monroe had not resolved the idea at the core of our union,
namely as to WHAT is the nature of our union, not unless one goes by john marshall's time
as chief justice. the 20th century saw our rise from an obscure republic to a collosus.
the complex yet fair minded system james madison and alexander hamilton streamlined
and delineated out in the federalist papers was a unique human social experiament
that could not have succeded save for safeguards against any future tyrant's encrouching 
on our freedoms and civil liberties. this system survived its worst hours, namely those from
1860 to 1865... and it has survived our PAX AMERICANA answer to the Rome of the Caesars!

----------


## rpfreedom08

That's why most historians call the civil war "the second war for independence".  This time the American people lost and centralized government (tyranny) won...

----------


## Aratus

personally, because JQA is a distant kinsman of moi, i feel that
jamie monroe is the last potus who could have avoided the conflict...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html
james buchanan, the bachelor president... who i think is related
to the pat buchanan who once tried to take over ross perot's lil party,
he was a fellow not in charge at all, pulled along by events, who left to
the victor of the election of 1860 a string of problems that perhaps
were almost impossible to resolve unless major concessions were made...
NONE of the other three guys on that ballot i feel would have lucked in to a
last minute plan that could have averted the terrible and bloody conflict.

----------


## Aratus

our european ancestors north or south had firm opinions about oliver cromwell 
and/or charles the first if they arrived before the year 1800. what our states
later did in the 1850s and 1860s stems from how we were colonized...

the laws defining slavery became increasingly restrictive, serfdom
and a bond servant status as under english commmon law infers
more social status and human dignity. there was a deepset moral
crusade in the north where all christain conversions in tandem to
the preamble to the declaration of independence was almost
as inclusive as were the french revolutionaries to the ideals of
liberty, egalitie, fraternity! the economics of slavery that john c. calhoun
thought he was so logically defending ran into this biblical fervor.

the way we define our federal, state and local levels of gov't was
also at the core of the dispute. the regional nature of our cash
crops and the type of farming practices might have been a secondary
concideration, although there was a regional economics. most of
the early puritans were into the idea of founding utopian communities
in the new world, and they weren't the only group to do so. the bay
colony DROVE roger williams and his followers out and away from they.
for the longest time, there was a law on the books that impelled
rhode islanders to find our mututal border before sundown... [or else!]

this ironically said as i know rhode island and vermont are about to vote..

----------


## Aratus

as Napoleon rose in power, we almost went to war
with France. New England ALMOST bolted the union
on presidents adams and jefferson, and was debating 
having the closer ties with the U.K ... in the 1830s, 
South Carolina almost left us... the politics of europe
indirectly gave us our freedom due to franklin's diplomacy,
and the short term governing structure we had BARELY took
us past all immediate threats. it was touch and go...

Virginia, to win against George III... sided with the Bay Colony
when the king asked for OUR charter. this is the second time
we faced a crisis over this, for charles II + james II had tried
this in the 1600s. the states had acted with an almost equal status
and in tandem, for to go after ONE charter threatens all...

----------


## Gadsden Flag

To say *'nothing could be further from the truth'* is rather far fetched.

Slavery had a lot to do with it. There was a huge abolitionist sentiment among many people and this made for a very fractious political climate. 

Now, the idea that slavery was the _only_ reason is the kind of one-line, simplistic reasoning which is seems to be more and more common in the television age.

Certainly there are other reasons, and maybe they even played a bigger part than slavery. But slavery is just as real a reason as any other you can name.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

State's Rights and economic viability of the South were the reasons, slave holders were few and far between, slavery was only brought up in 1863, two years after the war began, to give the northern troops something moral to fight for, because they were losing to an inferior force. Lincoln was a tyrant and should have been executed earlier, instead of the industrialists killing him after the war because he was going to give aid and comfort to the South.

----------


## jmdrake

> To say *'nothing could be further from the truth'* is rather far fetched.
> 
> Slavery had a lot to do with it. There was a huge abolitionist sentiment among many people and this made for a very fractious political climate. 
> 
> Now, the idea that slavery was the _only_ reason is the kind of one-line, simplistic reasoning which is seems to be more and more common in the television age.
> 
> Certainly there are other reasons, and maybe they even played a bigger part than slavery. But slavery is just as real a reason as any other you can name.


QFT!  This revisionist "The civil war had nothing to do with slavery" nonsense is getting old.  I would suggest everyone under the illusion that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war go back and read the southern declarations of secession where they say point black "We're seceded to protect slavery".  Were there other issues?  Certainly!  South Carolina tried to secede years before when Andrew Jackson was president over tariffs.  Andrew Jackson threatened to hang John Calhoun over inciting this and invade South Carolina to enforce the tariffs.  But somehow southerners by in large are never angry at Jackson over this.  

Further let's look at the argument that most southerners weren't slave owners.  *Well most Americans today don't own oil companies!  That doesn't mean that oil doesn't factor into our wars!*

And yes.  Lincoln wasn't about to immediately free the slaves. *But he was going to stop the expansion of slavery into new territories*!  Also Lincoln was considering the same "compensated emancipation" plan Ron Paul talked about on Meet The Press before Lincoln was elected and he even TRIED such a plan for the states that didn't secede after he was elected *and before issuing the emancipation proclamation*.  Does that mean that Lincoln was a "saint"?  Of course not.  He violated the constitution on more than one occasion, and was either or white supremacist or a political opportunist.  And no he didn't have the courage to say "I will do whatever I take to end slavery no matter what" but no politician of any stature at the time did.  Also doing so would have required changing the constitution and there simply wasn't the votes needed in the congress and the various state legislatures for that to be a reality.  In fact *that was the whole point of quibbling over the expansion of slavery*.

I know this will not convince a single southern apologist and I expect people will continue to quote Lincoln out of context to "prove" their point that Lincoln was the "most evil president of all time" while ignoring the fact that Andrew Jackson threatened to do to South Carolina what Lincoln eventually did over secession.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## ChooseLiberty

If only the southern states had known about how poorly the Feds deal with insurgencies things would probably be different.

----------


## acptulsa

The Missouri Compromise was about slavery more than tariffs or state vs. federal regulation of international trade.  So was the "Bloody Kansas" fighting of the same time.  Deep at the root of it, these other states' rights questions were in play, to be sure, but ask the common man at the time and you'd find out that the public itself was primarily inflamed by the slavery issue.

Southerners were generally quite poor.  The share cropper system was endured in the South because the politicians mollified them by saying, "You have more than the blacks so don't complain."  The class systems of the world are, often as not, all about keeping the third-lowest strata and second-lowest strata quiet about being robbed because they might lose their half a leg up on the lowest strata.  This is why millions who could never afford a slave fought for the CSA--not tariffs or international trade.

Yes, the issues of the day were more complex than any elementary school textbood would indicate.  That said, the histories aren't _quite_ as revisionist as indicated...

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

Drake, you're just plain wrong, your ad lib crap completely discredits you. The first post in this thread is accurate, your revisionist nonsense is pure yankee garbage.

----------


## jmdrake

> Drake, you're just plain wrong, your ad lib crap completely discredits you. The first post in this thread is accurate, your revisionist nonsense is pure yankee garbage.


Yes.  The above is intelligent debate.   

Did you write this before or after drinking a gallon of moonshine?

Have you ever read the southern declarations of secession?

Or you aware of Lincoln's compensated emancipation attempt?

Do you know what the phrase "expansion of slavery" means?

Are you aware of Andrew Jackson's threat to invade South Carolina and the circumstances surrounding it?

Are you aware of Andrew Jackson's threat to hang John Calhoun and the circumstances surrounding that?

When you can honestly answer those questions (including the moonshine one) get back with us and attempt a debate.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> The Missouri Compromise was about slavery more than tariffs or state vs. federal regulation of international trade.  So was the "Bloody Kansas" fighting of the same time.  Deep at the root of it, these other states' rights questions were in play, to be sure, but ask the common man at the time and you'd find out that the public itself was primarily inflamed by the slavery issue.
> 
> Southerners were generally quite poor.  The share cropper system was endured in the South because the politicians mollified them by saying, "You have more than the blacks so don't complain."  The class systems of the world are, often as not, all about keeping the third-lowest strata and second-lowest strata quiet about being robbed because they might lose their half a leg up on the lowest strata.  This is why millions who could never afford a slave fought for the CSA--not tariffs or international trade.
> 
> Yes, the issues of the day were more complex than any elementary school textbood would indicate.  That said, the histories aren't _quite_ as revisionist as indicated...


QFT.  But it's so much easier to dismiss anybody that disagrees with you as "yankee garbage".

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

No it's easy to dismiss yankee garbage as yankee revisionist garbage.

The states used to be soverign, your hero destroyed the soverignty of ALL the states, yours included. Any state has the right, under the constitution, to secede any time for any reason whatsoever. Let me spell it for you, R_i_g_h_t, get it?

No yankee whore or any other entity has the right to invade or commit war against any soverign, it was Lincoln's illegal war, just as illegal as Bush's global, endless war.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> It was my understanding that the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted when the South was winning the war.  The proclamation had the effect of destabilizing the South, improving Lincoln's chances of being re-elected by appealing to Republican abolitionists, and effectively cutting off military support to the South from Britain and France.  It was Lincoln's best political move of his career.


We tend to forget that the American Loyalists in the British Colony of New York lost in great shame to the American Patriots during the Revolutionary War.  Such colonists had to start over after they were so bitterly defeated because everything was taken away from them.  The Civil War likewise created an existential crisis which produced similar winners and losers.  Why do we leave the south so naked when teaching the history of their defeat while we tend to clothe the American Loyalist so kindly?  I would think that the Loyalists would be considered the greater traitors in comparison.
Anyway, our nation has gone through a lot of healing despite the shameful way the south is still depicted in history.  One example of this healing was demonstrated by Presidential Candidate John Conally when he openly converted from a yellow dog, southern Democrat (a conservative) to that of a conservative Repuplican.  Ironically, we haven't gone about establishing the more perfect Union we are today because of our victories together in the 2 great wars; but, to the contrary, we have become a more perfect Union because of our mutual butt kicking we collectively received in Vietnam.

----------


## Mesogen

Ever since I got into this Ron Paul thing, I've been baffled by this whole fascination some "libertarians" have with states' "rights" to enforce the institution of slavery. Some people who call themselves libertarian simply want more state sovereignty and they put that above individual freedom and sovereignty. 

It reminds me of a debate I watched about the legalization of marijuana. The anti guy says that the pro people all scream state's rights when it comes to the legalization of weed. But then the same people cry against state's rights when it came to Jim Crow laws and especially slavery. I say the debate about state sovereignty is totally false. I don't give a crap how much sovereignty a state government or a federal government has as long as it doesn't interfere with MY personal, individual rights. If a state government is defending my rights from a tyrannical federal government (or world government) then great. If a federal government is defending my rights against the tyranny of a state government, then also great. 

This thing about defending state's rights during the civil war have nothing to do with freedom or liberty, IMO.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

States rights was not to prolong slavery (which the south was planning to free slaves before the war), states rights and slavery are mutually exclusive concepts.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

Legal conflict pays lawyers well.




> Ever since I got into this Ron Paul thing, I've been baffled by this whole fascination some "libertarians" have with states' "rights" to enforce the institution of slavery. Some people who call themselves libertarian simply want more state sovereignty and they put that above individual freedom and sovereignty.


"State rights" was the first way in which a movement successfully brought our nation back to the original civil purpose that our founding fathers intended in the Constitution from the brink of a legal tyranny that our Federal government had quickly become.  This movement also created the excellent legal precendent of our 2 party system which allowed in the ushering to power the Presidents of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who wisely tweaked the interpretation of the Constitution without having to resort to the necessity of an ammendment (clarification) to do so.  Their interpretation of our Constitution as a consequence brought us back ultimately to the original civil purpose intended in the Declaration of Independence regarding "We the people in order to establish a more perfect Union . . . regarding the pursuit of our collective happiness (contentment)."
So, I just think of state rights as a tool for us to have to use to insure that the civil purpose of our Constitutation reins supreme over any legal purpose.




> It reminds me of a debate I watched about the legalization of marijuana. The anti guy says that the pro people all scream state's rights when it comes to the legalization of weed. But then the same people cry against state's rights when it came to Jim Crow laws and especially slavery. I say the debate about state sovereignty is totally false. I don't give a crap how much sovereignty a state government or a federal government has as long as it doesn't interfere with MY personal, individual rights. If a state government is defending my rights from a tyrannical federal government (or world government) then great. If a federal government is defending my rights against the tyranny of a state government, then also great.


When our forefather designed our Constitution, they didn't care about who, what, when, where or how we all might sleep together.  To the contrary, our forefather's left the Bill of Rights as our tools so that we could use them to get out from underneath legal tyranny.  So, as a courtroom should be considered hell to our American culture, any place outside of a courtroom should be considered heaven.      




> This thing about defending state's rights during the civil war have nothing to do with freedom or liberty, IMO.


Through the use of an irresponsible political agenda which naively proposed social conflict between a righteous 51% of the masses at the expense of the welfare of the remaining 49, African Americans can't deny that they have traded in the bad condition of slavery for an even worst condition of being imprisoned within a legal tyranny.  In other words, who makes up the majority of the prison population in the United States?  Do you honestly call this freedom?  
The only responsible solution for African Americans is for them to trade in social conflict for a more responsible movement which develops a common American culture rather than continuing in on the same old arguing about differences.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm

Slavery & States' Rights:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/wheelercauses.htm

The War for States' Rights:
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/

USCA: Amendment X
*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*

----------


## jmdrake

> No it's easy to dismiss yankee garbage as yankee revisionist garbage.
> 
> The states used to be soverign, your hero destroyed the soverignty of ALL the states, yours included. Any state has the right, under the constitution, to secede any time for any reason whatsoever. Let me spell it for you, R_i_g_h_t, get it?
> 
> No yankee whore or any other entity has the right to invade or commit war against any soverign, it was Lincoln's illegal war, just as illegal as Bush's global, endless war.


Yes. The above is intelligent debate.

Did you write this before or after drinking a gallon of moonshine?

Have you ever read the southern declarations of secession?

Or you aware of Lincoln's compensated emancipation attempt?

Do you know what the phrase "expansion of slavery" means?

Are you aware of Andrew Jackson's threat to invade South Carolina and the circumstances surrounding it?

Are you aware of Andrew Jackson's threat to hang John Calhoun and the circumstances surrounding that?

When you can honestly answer those questions (including the moonshine one) get back with us and attempt a debate.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm
> 
> Slavery & States' Rights:
> http://www.civilwarhome.com/wheelercauses.htm
> 
> The War for States' Rights:
> http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/
> 
> USCA: Amendment X
> *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj7.html
_ The greatest party battle centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.

Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. "The bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.

His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay.

Jackson met head-on the challenge of John C. Calhoun, leader of forces trying to rid themselves of a high protective tariff.

When South Carolina undertook to nullify the tariff, Jackson ordered armed forces to Charleston and privately threatened to hang Calhoun. Violence seemed imminent until Clay negotiated a compromise: tariffs were lowered and South Carolina dropped nullification.

In January of 1832, while the President was dining with friends at the White House, someone whispered to him that the Senate had rejected the nomination of Martin Van Buren as Minister to England. Jackson jumped to his feet and exclaimed, "By the Eternal! I'll smash them!" So he did. His favorite, Van Buren, became Vice President, and succeeded to the Presidency when "Old Hickory" retired to the Hermitage, where he died in June 1845._ 

But Andy Jackson was a good "suthenur" so it was all forgiven.  

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## Aratus

> We tend to forget that the American Loyalists in the British Colony of New York lost in great shame to the American Patriots during the Revolutionary War.  Such colonists had to start over after they were so bitterly defeated because everything was taken away from them.  The Civil War likewise created an existential crisis which produced similar winners and losers.  Why do we leave the south so naked when teaching the history of their defeat while we tend to clothe the American Loyalist so kindly?  I would think that the Loyalists would be considered the greater traitors in comparison.
> Anyway, our nation has gone through a lot of healing despite the shameful way the south is still depicted in history.  One example of this healing was demonstrated by Presidential Candidate John Conally when he openly converted from a yellow dog, southern Democrat (a conservative) to that of a conservative Repuplican.  Ironically, we haven't gone about establishing the more perfect Union we are today because of our victories together in the 2 great wars; but, to the contrary, we have become a more perfect Union because of our mutual butt kicking we collectively received in Vietnam.




the english civil war in the 1600s has cavalier verses roundhead...

----------


## Aratus

canada almost revolted when we did. when they ignored us, nova scotia 
and its stubborn bleak winter windswept shores became a haven...

----------


## Aratus

did you know the only book william mckinley 
wrote was about henry clay and his tariffs?

this is the same guy who almost handed out
commissions to annie oakley and william jennings bryan.
he had black troops and old southern generals  being
in the splendid lil' war. gen'l wheeler, when some spanish
http://www.spanamwar.com/wheeler.htm troops retreated, 
ordered up a charge against the darn "yankees"
to the amusement of all, the very same gen'l wheeler 
who was with the potus on montauk point as 
the vets healthy and sick came back...

----------


## Aratus

...our union, and slavery were the issues.
there is a politics and an economics behind this,
yet on both sides the crusade went beyond reason
and atheism or deism into human dignity & religion...

----------


## Aratus

like the Battle of the Bulge and if its [a.]  "nuts"... or actually  [b.] "balls"...!!!
http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/Bulge/kinnard.html  methinks
Gen'l Wheeler might have used a word with more packed emotion in it than
the humble word "darn"... a word which brings to mind a broadway musical
and something sometimes said by boSox fans! me included! Bess Truman spent 
years as "The Boss" as she tries to get Harry S. to simply say "horse manure"!!!

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

200 years ago, colonies all over the world threw off the oppressive governments which suppressed them into involuntary servitude. We are now experiencing a reversal of fortunes in this country, which has progressed almost from the signing of our constitution. America is now playing the roll of King George, and it has become time to throw off the tyranical government once again.

The South attempted to regain it's usurped soverignty in 1862, but was overwelmed by the loyalists of tyranny. Those are simple facts.

----------


## jmdrake

> 200 years ago, colonies all over the world threw off the oppressive governments which suppressed them into involuntary servitude. We are now experiencing a reversal of fortunes in this country, which has progressed almost from the signing of our constitution. America is now playing the roll of King George, and it has become time to throw off the tyranical government once again.
> 
> The South attempted to regain it's usurped soverignty in 1862, but was overwelmed by the loyalists of tyranny. Those are simple facts.


Nonsense.  The 1860 Democratic National Convention was split between Northern democrats who were concerned with state sovereignty and southern democrats who's main concern was slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_De...nal_Convention

But I know you're going to keep ignoring the facts that don't fit your world view.  Tell me this.  What's your view on Andrew Jackson and his threat to invade South Carolina?  Remember Andy Jackson is the same one that killed the national bank.  Have you figured out yet that the same people who were pushing for the national bank were funding the secessionist movement?  Do you have a clue as to *why* they would do that?

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## Aratus

his sec' of state was john quincy adams... and the sentence or
so that is actually pivotal to the monroe doctrine was clearly a joint
effort by our potus and our sec' of state! this is the very same jamie monroe
who was briefly jointly our sec' of war and our sec' of state for madison!
HE MAY HAVE BEEN THE LAST POTUS WHO COULD TALK TO BOTH FACTIONs!
when jackson savaged biddle's bank, monroe was again further torn...

----------


## Aratus

the seeds of the war were already there in 1825...

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

Lincoln's letters reveal some truth!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23434604/

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> 200 years ago, colonies all over the world threw off the oppressive governments which suppressed them into involuntary servitude. We are now experiencing a reversal of fortunes in this country, which has progressed almost from the signing of our constitution. America is now playing the roll of King George, and it has become time to throw off the tyranical government once again.
> 
> The South attempted to regain it's usurped soverignty in 1862, but was overwelmed by the loyalists of tyranny. Those are simple facts.


But the tyrant is a principality and power.  It is an entity without a face or a soul.  It is not a person.  It is a legal monster created by us because of our preference for political conflict and the short termed gratification of hatred it produces.  We can't get enough of this type of gratification.  This destruction by division of the American culture just is never going to quench the real thirst we share for  collective civil contentment.  For cripes sake!  Can't we see that we are irresponsible when we bicker about legal issues by blaming liberals and conservatives?  
This is how it is supposed to be in our American culture.  Our characters are supposed to view anything that looks like a courtroom as nothing more than a necessary evil to avoid.  If we don't feel this way, we need to make ourselves feel this way.  
We need to recapture the civil purpose of our Constitution by replacing experienced law makers and judges with inexperienced civilians.   We need to fire our lawyers.  We need to notify the prosecuting attorney that they are no longer invited to step on either our private property or our public civil rights.  We need to peacefully assemble to gain colective power so we can pay less taxes and penalties.
This is how we break out of a legal tyranny to kill the soulless beast who persecutes us.  According to how it is defined in the Constitution, our American character should consider courtrooms as the epitomy of hell; while, we should cherish any freedom outside of a courtroom as the essence of heaven.
Let's wake to see just how rediculous all this has become.  While those ruling over us are spending trillions to wipe out violence caused by terroism in foreign Iraq, the same legal experts here domestically have the very same type of terrorism committed against us as reclassified to that of mere crimes.  While the crimes will never end in Iraq keeping the precious souls of our fighting men there forever, the terrorism committed over here against us pays quite well for those who work within the function of the legal beast of tyranny.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lincoln's letters reveal some truth!
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23434604/


Yep!  Glad we can agree on something.  Lincoln wanted to do the same "compensated emancipation" plan that Ron Paul talked about on Meet The Press.  But unfortunately neither the slave states nor the congress were inclined to go along.  Southern states wanted more than $400 per slave.  Congress didn't want to pay that much.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

Maybe you noticed in the computations, that the north held more slaves than the south.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Yep!  Glad we can agree on something.  Lincoln wanted to do the same "compensated emancipation" plan that Ron Paul talked about on Meet The Press.  But unfortunately neither the slave states nor the congress were inclined to go along.  Southern states wanted more than $400 per slave.  Congress didn't want to pay that much.


This topic kind of bothers me in that we need more African Americans to join in with Dr. Ron Paul's transcendental movement towards the U.S. Constitution's civil purpose.
Interestingly though, the word "slave" originated from the word "Slav."  Ironically, anytime we use the "S" word today, we use a derogatory expression that was once used by Europeans when referring to anyone reminding them of the pathetic condition of the Slavic race.  So, Europeans eventually referred to all lowly people as slaves.   
In regards to the slaves sold by a Chief who ruled over an ancient hearth now known as the Ivory Coast of Africa, each soul was worth 1/12th of a horse.  This chief ruled over the famous Timbuktu in Mali, Africa and specifically over a University / Library located there.  He also sent disciples with gold to the library in Alexandria to buy scrolls.  A number of these scrolls were reportedly found recently.    
Anyway, the definition of a slave is someone who doesn't own their own soul to the point that their master can sentence them to death.      
So, how much was a horse worth?  Can a person be worth 1/12th of a horse and be considered the owner of their own soul?  Certainly the souls of the African slaves increased as they were transported to be sold in America. 
I know I've often been told that I'm not worth 3 cents myself.  I've also been told that I'm not worth shooting.  This fact alone has sent me to my knees often to pray that the price of bullets stay high.

----------


## jmdrake

> Maybe you noticed in the computations, that the north held more slaves than the south.


You can't count.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm

There were 0 slaves in the "north", 432,586 slaves in the "border states" and 3,953,760 slaves overall.

Sorry to bust your bubble.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> This topic kind of bothers me in that we need more African Americans to join in with Dr. Ron Paul's transcendental movement towards the U.S. Constitution's civil purpose.
> Interestingly though, the word "slave" originated from the word "Slav."  Ironically, anytime we use the "S" word today, we use a derogatory expression that was once used by Europeans when referring to anyone reminding them of the pathetic condition of the Slavic race.  So, Europeans eventually referred to all lowly people as slaves.   
> In regards to the slaves sold by a Chief who ruled over an ancient hearth now known as the Ivory Coast of Africa, each soul was worth 1/12th of a horse.  This chief ruled over the famous Timbuktu in Mali, Africa and specifically over a University / Library located there.  He also sent disciples with gold to the library in Alexandria to buy scrolls.  A number of these scrolls were reportedly found recently.    
> Anyway, the definition of a slave is someone who doesn't own their own soul to the point that their master can sentence them to death.      
> So, how much was a horse worth?  Can a person be worth 1/12th of a horse and be considered the owner of their own soul?  Certainly the souls of the African slaves increased as they were transported to be sold in America. 
> I know I've often been told that I'm not worth 3 cents myself.  I've also been told that I'm not worth shooting.  This fact alone has sent me to my knees often to pray that the price of bullets stay high.


LOL at that last sentence.  Did you know that the IRA used electric drills to execute people so that they could save on bullets?  

As far as the African American vote, the combination of the MSM blackout, excitement over Obama and the racist newsletter smear campaign did its toll.  I managed to get past the smear campaign when I talked one on one with people and even won over a few supporters.  But ultimately its an uphill battle.  The blackout is the biggest problem.  People who aren't tuned into alternative media simply don't know enough about Dr. Paul.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------

