The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery- Walter Williams

[jmdrake]

That's nice. Lincoln tried compensated emancipation. He was successfully in Washington D.C. but the idea failed everywhere else. That said, here's the Ron Paul quote on slavery that you don't want to hear.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=297&Itemid=60

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

 

[jmdrake]

Can you name the neo-confederates for us?

It's one of those "If the shoe fits wear it" things. In other words, name yourself. It's funny that modern people who support the confederacy don't want to be called modern people who support the confederacy. Would you rather I call you a racist? I don't think you're a racist but if you prefer that label I'll use it. How about I just call you misguided and uninformed because you thought there were laws keeping black people from moving to Illinois before the civil war?

 

[sratiug]

Actually black people were allowed by law to move into Illinois when the war of southern stupidity was instigated by firing on Ft. Sumpter. Not all blacks were slaves.

Maybe you can correct this wikipedia page then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29which says blacks were not allowed to migrate into Illinois under their law or their constitution of 1848. And Fort Sumter is in the South.

 

[jmdrake]

Maybe you can correct this wikipedia page then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29which says blacks were not allowed to migrate into Illinois under their law or their constitution of 1848. And Fort Sumter is in the South.

Maybe you missed this part of that Wikipedia page. [citation needed] Regardless, the assertion that the civil war was about Illinois immigration laws is laughably stupid.

Anyway, I looked up the Illinois black codes of 1853. Here's what it said about negro immigration.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht329602.html
Legislators in the first General Assembly passed measures designed to discourage African-Americans from coming to Illinois. Blacks were denied suffrage, and other laws deprived them of most rights accorded free white men. African-Americans were prohibited from immigrating without a certificate of freedom.

As I said before, not all blacks were slaves in 1853. So once again you don't know what you're talking about. Don't count on Wikipedia to give you all the facts.

Edit: I've corrected the Wikipedia page to better reflect verified facts. It now says:

The Illinois Black Code of 1853 barred blacks from immigrated to the state unless they had a certificate of freedom. [4]

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's nice. Lincoln tried compensated emancipation. He was successfully in Washington D.C. but the idea failed everywhere else. That said, here's the Ron Paul quote on slavery that you don't want to hear.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=297&Itemid=60

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

Actually, I'm very aware of that quote. It's actually one that I would use to defend my position. I'm surprised you would bring that up because it works against your line of argumentation. Even considering any interpretation of the above RP quote, he was still correct that the civil war was unnecessary(he brought this up in the 2008 debates)-and that every nation in the world ended slavery without a (so-called) "civil war".

The article you quoted was from 2003, the video I posted was from 2008. Perhaps, like any other person, RP changed his mind on an issue in 5 years' time?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's one of those "If the shoe fits wear it" things. In other words, name yourself. It's funny that modern people who support the confederacy don't want to be called modern people who support the confederacy. Would you rather I call you a racist? I don't think you're a racist but if you prefer that label I'll use it. How about I just call you misguided and uninformed because you thought there were laws keeping black people from moving to Illinois before the civil war?

re-read the thread. None of us "support" the confederacy except for a few things, like secession and states' rights. It was a tyrannical regime, like the Northern one.

 

[jmdrake]

Actually, I'm very aware of that quote. It's actually one that I would use to defend my position. I'm surprised you would bring that up because it works against your line of argumentation. Even considering any interpretation of the above RP quote, he was still correct that the civil war was unnecessary(he brought this up in the 2008 debates)-and that every nation in the world ended slavery without a (so-called) "civil war".

The article you quoted was from 2003, the video I posted was from 2008. Perhaps, like any other person, RP changed his mind on an issue in 5 years' time?

No it doesn't support your position. Or maybe you've misstated your position or you don't understand mine. My position is that slavery was a primary factor in the civil war. This entire thread from it's title and article in the OP is about denying the truth that slavery was a "but for" cause of the civil war. Walter Williams misrepresented the fact regarding the Morrill Tariff which was not passed until after secession and could not have passed but for secession.

Ron Paul clearly says that slavery was a "but for" cause of the civil war. It wasn't the only cause, but without it session, and the civil war, would not have happened. As for the video you posted, you keep ignoring the fact that Lincoln attempted compensated emancipation with the border states but failed. It's unlikely a president Ron Paul would have had any better luck. The key difference between what happened in other countries and U.S. slavery is that in other countries there weren't "slave states" and "free states". All of the provinces own slaves so it wasn't a regional issue.

 

[jmdrake]

re-read the thread. None of us "support" the confederacy except for a few things, like secession and states' rights. It was a tyrannical regime, like the Northern one.

I have read the thread. And I haven't seen anyone besides me consistently point out the tyranny of the south. In fact others seem to get offended when I point that out. If you pointed that out fine, but you're in a minority.

 

[sratiug]

Maybe you missed this part of that Wikipedia page. [citation needed] Regardless, the assertion that the civil war was about Illinois immigration laws is laughably stupid.

Anyway, I looked up the Illinois black codes of 1853. Here's what it said about negro immigration.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht329602.html
Legislators in the first General Assembly passed measures designed to discourage African-Americans from coming to Illinois. Blacks were denied suffrage, and other laws deprived them of most rights accorded free white men. African-Americans were prohibited from immigrating without a certificate of freedom.

As I said before, not all blacks were slaves in 1853. So once again you don't know what you're talking about. Don't count on Wikipedia to give you all the facts.

Edit: I've corrected the Wikipedia page to better reflect verified facts. It now says:

The Illinois Black Code of 1853 barred blacks from immigrated to the state unless they had a certificate of freedom. [4]

From the Illinois Constitution of 1848.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848

Article XIV.
The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state;and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free.

 

[jmdrake]

From the Illinois Constitution of 1848.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848

And when you read the actual law that was passed it didn't block free persons of color who had proof of their freedom from immigrating to Illinois. So your point is?

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to try your mistaken factoid into this little gem.

The war was fought in large part to keep blacks out of the northern states.

What twisted bit of logic brought you to the conclusion that the north felt it needed to fight a war to keep blacks in the south? I mean come up. That's just stupid. The best case scenario of any war is that people in the affected areas are more likely to migrate. And if the north in general wanted to fight a war to keep blacks out, why would northerners after the war head south to recruit blacks to migrate north to work in northern factories?

 

[burt]

Oh, and by the way, Lincoln thought so highly of the fugitive slave act that he personally represented slave owners in court in legally fighting for the return of their slaves.

Lincoln only had a part in representing slaveholders in two cases in the 1840s IIRC, which even you should realize came before the fugitive slave act. It is a puzzlement to everyone why he agreed to participate in those cases, and he was well known to be anti-slavery in opinion. If you studied the politics of the 1850s from credible sources that were not, as you are, more interested in assassinating Lincoln's character than being balanced and reasonable, you would be aware that, although Lincoln did not envision blacks and whites living harmoniously next to each other as full citizens, he did not think that men should be held as slave labor. That is clear to all who don't have their head shoved up somewhere.

.....and the bit about the North fighting a war to keep the fugitive slave act in effect is insane. Not only have you gleaned your unimpressive "knowledge" from bullshit sources, you have managed to yourself screw the bullshit all up.

Please.....defend your claims.

 

[burt]

Were black people allowed by law to move into Illinois when the War of Northern Aggression was instigated by the racist Abraham Lincoln?

You mean the War Where the Yankees Kicked the Rebel's Asses? It is incorrect to think of Illinois as a purely "northern" state that was anti-slavery. The southern portion of the state was nestled in between two slave states, and slavery was allowed in salt mines there until about 1850, IIRC. It was populated by southerners. Sentiment in southern Illinois was sympathetic to the slave states.

 

[burt]

...Even considering any interpretation of the above RP quote, he was still correct that the civil war was unnecessary(he brought this up in the 2008 debates)-and that every nation in the world ended slavery without a (so-called) "civil war".

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Can't claim in one breath that the Civil War was not fought to free slaves, and then in the next breath claim that only the US fought a civil war to free the slaves, while everyone else did it peacefully.

The fact is that you cannot pretend to know what might have happened to end slavery in other countries had half of any of those countries rebelled, led by an oligarchy of slaveowners, and declared they would carve out their own country for the purpose of preserving their slavery. You can't know how long that slavery would have endured (had they been successful) nor the bloodshed that would have followed (had they not). This business of comparing the situation here to any other country is as silly as your insisting they called their war by the wrong name.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Can't claim in one breath that the Civil War was not fought to free slaves, and then in the next breath claim that only the US fought a civil war to free the slaves, while everyone else did it peacefully.

I didn't "have my cake and eat it too". Slavery and the civil war are different issues. RP was simply responding to the common misconception (which you also have). Were you around during those debates? If not, go back and watch them for full context.

 

[burt]

Actually, the laughable part is that I had to sit and explain it to you and then go find a resource, and you're still wrong. (I didn't "have to" go to wikipedia, I just went because I was sick of explaining it myself. There are numerous other sources to quote, I simply didn't have time to go hunting for them) It is bad to paste info without sourcing, but I linked to the source, which is considered crediting the source (on forums, at least). I never said all the people fighting in that war mis-named it. Plenty of people at the time called it the war between the states(or something similar), which is a correct name. It's the historians who I mostly blame for incorrectly using the term "civil war". Some people then did call it a "civil war" back then, but that's just propaganda-like calling the hostile invasion of mideast nations a "war on terror".

You have a great talent for avoiding the point. Even the Wikipedia page that you provided gave many definitions for what constituted a civil war. You chose one of them. (first you accuse me of an appeal to authority for asserting that most people on both sides in the 1850-60s referred to it a a civil war, and then you rely on the definition of a lone prof. for your support....sheesh!) What you can't get around is that you do not get to choose your brand of definition of what a civil war is in order to apply it to a conflict 150 years ago. Particularly when you insist on have such a lopsided view of events.

 

[burt]

I didn't "have my cake and eat it too". Slavery and the civil war are different issues. RP was simply responding to the common misconception (which you also have). Were you around during those debates? If not, go back and watch them for full context.

Tim Russert on Meet The Nation: "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war - there were better ways of getting rid of slavery." If you want to claim that the war was not about slavery, then the only thing left is that the US got rid of slavery in the most peaceful way imaginable - the 13th Amendment. Ron Paul could not be more pleased than that.

 

[libertybrewcity]

Did Walter Williams endorse Paul in 08?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You have a great talent for avoiding the point. Even the Wikipedia page that you provided gave many definitions for what constituted a civil war. You chose one of them. (first you accuse me of an appeal to authority for asserting that most people on both sides in the 1850-60s referred to it a a civil war, and then you rely on the definition of a lone prof. for your support....sheesh!) What you can't get around is that you do not get to choose your brand of definition of what a civil war is in order to apply it to a conflict 150 years ago. Particularly when you insist on have such a lopsided view of events.

Exactly right. That is why it is incorrect to call it a "civil war". (My view of events is not "lopsided". Everyone has different opinions of the events and what they mean, but the basic facts are universal-such as the fact that it was not a "civil war", unless you redefine the word to fit an agenda.)

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't "have my cake and eat it too". Slavery and the civil war are different issues. RP was simply responding to the common misconception (which you also have). Were you around during those debates? If not, go back and watch them for full context.

LOL. You must love the rubber bands because you are really stretching it. Ron Paul wasn't responding to any "misconception" about the civil war. In fact the context of the speech wasn't about the civil war at all. He just threw in the fact that slavery contributed to the civil war in order to make a point about a flaw in the constitution. And in the clip you played from 2008 Ron Paul did not say that slavery didn't contribute to the civil war. He was merely making the point (erroneous IMO considering that Lincoln tried it) that the slaves could have been freed without the civil war. But that's not the same as saying slavery was not a but for cause for the civil war. We could have gotten OBL without invading Afghanistan. But that doesn't mean the 9/11 attacks weren't a but for cause for that war either.

Even the "Southern Avenger" admits that slavery was one of the causes for the civil war.

See:

 

[sratiug]

And when you read the actual law that was passed it didn't block free persons of color who had proof of their freedom from immigrating to Illinois. So your point is?

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to try your mistaken factoid into this little gem.



What twisted bit of logic brought you to the conclusion that the north felt it needed to fight a war to keep blacks in the south? I mean come up. That's just stupid. The best case scenario of any war is that people in the affected areas are more likely to migrate. And if the north in general wanted to fight a war to keep blacks out, why would northerners after the war head south to recruit blacks to migrate north to work in northern factories?

Did you post the actual law? The link you posted said this...

But in 1853, under the leadership of southern Illinois Democrat John A. Logan, the General Assembly adopted the draconian "Black Law" of 1853. For the most part, the law simply brought together in one place several existing laws. Under this law, no black from another state could remain within the Illinois borders for more than ten days. Beyond ten days and he or she was subject to arrest, confinement in jail, and a $50 fine and removal from the state. If unable to pay the fine, the law directed the sheriff to auction the offending African-American to the bidder willing to pay the costs and the tine and to work the "guilty" party the fewest number of days. If the convicted man or woman did not leave within ten days after completing the required service, the process resumed, but the fine was increased $50 for each additional infraction. Although most newspapers opposed the measure, there is but little doubt that it reflected the views of much of the state's population.