War Of Northern Aggression

[JakeStarkey]

The lower South rose up against constitutional and electoral process, and Lincoln imposed the death penalty on them.

 

[g5000]

It's a simple fact there would have been no Civil War if the South had not willfully violated the Constitution by continuing to import slaves beyond 1808.

See Article I, Section 9, Clause 1.

Congress passed a law banning the importation of slaves, effective January 1 of that year. But the South flaunted it. The South willfully violated the Constitution.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Nonsense. Cotton exports were the primary US export from 1800 to 1930. That is NOT a "relatively short period of time". You will not find any other export which had as big a footprint nor one which was the number one export for as long a period. Go ahead and try.

As I stated earlier, the slave population in the South was 650,000 at the time the Constitution was ratified. This is why the South was agreeable to the compromise in the Constitution which ordered the end of the importation of slaves by 1808.

However, between 1790 and 1808, the English textile industry exploded due to technological advances having nothing to do with the cotton gin. This industrial advancement made textiles much cheaper, and thus greatly increased the demand for cotton.

The increased demand for cotton, in turn, required more slave labor.

So when the 1808 timeframe rolled around, the South began reneging on the Constitutional ban.

The slave population steadily and rapidly increased to the point that the slave population was 4 million in the South at the outbreak of the war.

Only a fool claims slavery was dying out.

You did not address the actual point I was making. I agree that in the immediate aftermath of the ratification of the Constitution the industrial revolution caused a huge increase in demand for cotton. That demand for cotton was strong does not negate the fact that the economics of slavery had turned by the 1860's. It had. In all but the deep south, the only profitable aspect of slavery was breeding them for sale "down the river". The slave population could have been freed and the slaves employed on wages as is demonstrated quite admirably by the very statistics you seem to think refute what I said.

BTW there was no "Constituional Ban". The constituion merely prohibited the outlawing of the international slave trad for 20 years. Congress did in fact pass a law which banned the International slave trade as soon as that provision allowed... and in fact sooner than the UK did by a couple of months. That some in the South continued to smuggle slaves is irrelevant.

 

[Steven_R]

Your opinion and $3.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

How about a Supreme Court decision? Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I've already discussed that piece of shit. A bunch of sycophants Lincoln placed on the court ruled that Texas had remained a state since it had joined the union despite the fact that it had no Senators or Representatives in Congress since 1861. Anyone who believes that will also believe Obama is a big supporter of capitalism.

Strictly speaking, I'm not sure a state is required to send a Congressional delegation. Elect, yes. Actually sent them to DC? That's a little more problematic.

 

[bripat9643]

Slavery was on its way out even if there had never been a civil war. It was going to be rendered irrelevant by the industrial revolution.

Nope. A complete myth. In fact, the industrial revolution had a lot to do with the explosion in the slavery population, and with the Jim Crow South after the war. Textiles became cheaper, thus increasing the demand for cotton.

Slavery ended in every other country in the world by 1889. Why would anyone believe it wouldn't have ended in the South by then?

Secession would have sped up the process since Northern states would no longer be required to enforce the fugitive slave act and slaves could easily have escaped to the North. Slavery cannot long endure in a nation that has a long border with a country where it's outlawed.

 

[bripat9643]

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

I can make legal arguments both ways. At various times in our history prior to the Civil War, factions in the North and the South suggested seccesion.. The Hartford Convention of 1814-15 suggested the seccision of New England states from the union based upon their oppisition to the War of 1812 and their fear of slave state dominance based upon the Louisana Purchase. Then we have the famous "Nullification Crisis of 1832".

So where do you get off claiming secession is patently illegal?

 

[g5000]

You did not address the actual point I was making. I agree that in the immediate aftermath of the ratification of the Constitution the industrial revolution caused a huge increase in demand for cotton. That demand for cotton was strong does not negate the fact that the economics of slavery had turned by the 1860's. It had. In all but the deep south, the only profitable aspect of slavery was breeding them for sale "down the river". The slave population could have been freed and the slaves employed on wages as is demonstrated quite admirably by the very statistics you seem to think refute what I said.

Again, nonsense. The Jim Crow sharecropper South continued the reliance on virtual slave labor well into the 1930s.

BTW there was no "Constituional Ban". The constituion merely prohibited the outlawing of the international slave trad for 20 years. Congress did in fact pass a law which banned the International slave trade as soon as that provision allowed... and in fact sooner than the UK did by a couple of months. That some in the South continued to smuggle slaves is irrelevant.

As I stated in my last post, the Constitution permitted Congress to ban the slave trade after 1808. And that is what Congress did.

The South violated that ban, and thus violated the Constitution.

If the South had not violated the constitutional ban, there would have been no war.

 

[bripat9643]

Your opinion and $3.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

How about a Supreme Court decision? Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the Supreme Court has spoken.
I do think that at this time (1869) the court was biased by the bloody war that had just ended and did not come to the ruling through a strict interpretation of the constitution.

Furthermore, Lincoln appointed a majority of the justices on the court

 

[bripat9643]

It was the South that wanted war, not Lincoln.

You still hear rednecks today who can't wait for the next one.

If the South wanted a war of aggression against the North, Davis would've sent Confederate troops into Washington DC to hang Abraham Lincoln from a convenient lamp post after routing the Union army at Manassas. The Union capitol lay unprotected and ripe for the taking 20 miles from the Confederacy.

The states comprising the Confederacy wanted to leave the union peacefully.

There is no doubt about it.

As for your redneck comment, I will consider the source and refrain from commenting on it.

Who shot first? Simple.

Simple logic for simple minds.

 

[laughinReaper]

.
A couple of months ago the new president of the NRA got Southern racists all riled up by calling the Civil War "The War Of Northern Aggression" etc. Now, the Lincoln Memorial has been vandalized, we don't yet know who the vandals are or if there is a connection to the President of the NRA's racist and historically inaccurate comments and the Lincoln Memorial vandals but...

New NRA President Calls Civil War 'Northern Aggression' - YouTube
​

And then-----and then this nutball called President Obama "the fake President"...

.

kinda a big leap don'tcha think? Prolly just some board teens on a intoxicated frolic.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Let's see...who fired on who first?

They were fired on in response to their aggression. There is more to "aggression" than pulling a trigger.

The Poles were accused of firing on the Nazis as a pretext for the German invasion. Since democracy has become popular, warmongering thugs always maneuver their victims into firing the first shot so they won't lose the support of their citizens.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

I can make legal arguments both ways. At various times in our history prior to the Civil War, factions in the North and the South suggested seccesion.. The Hartford Convention of 1814-15 suggested the seccision of New England states from the union based upon their oppisition to the War of 1812 and their fear of slave state dominance based upon the Louisana Purchase. Then we have the famous "Nullification Crisis of 1832".

So where do you get off claiming secession is patently illegal?

Where did I say it was?

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. A complete myth. In fact, the industrial revolution had a lot to do with the explosion in the slavery population, and with the Jim Crow South after the war. Textiles became cheaper, thus increasing the demand for cotton.

At the time of the drafting of our Constituion, slavery was on its way out as it was uneconimical. The invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793 and the already ongoing industrial revolution made slavery economical and greatly incresed the demand for cotton.. but that was only for a relatively short period of time.

Nonsense. Cotton exports were the primary US export from 1800 to 1930. That is NOT a "relatively short period of time". You can see from the chart below that cotton was responsible for 57 percent of all US exports when the war broke out. You will not find any other export which had as big a footprint nor one which was the number one export for as long a period. Go ahead and try.

As I stated earlier, the slave population in the South was 650,000 at the time the Constitution was ratified. This is why the South was agreeable to the compromise in the Constitution which ordered the end of the importation of slaves by 1808.

However, between 1790 and 1808, the English and US textile industries exploded due to technological advances having nothing to do with the cotton gin. Everyone has heard of Eli Whitney, but few have heard of Samual Slater, "Father of the American Industrial revolution". This industrial advancement made textiles much cheaper, and thus greatly increased the demand for cotton. The demand for cotton drove the invention of the cotton gin, not the other way around.

The increased demand for cotton, in turn, required more slave labor.

So when the 1808 timeframe rolled around, the South began reneging on the Constitutional ban.

The slave population steadily and rapidly increased to the point that the slave population was 4 million in the South at the outbreak of the war.

Only a fool claims slavery was dying out.

If growing cotton required slaves, then why did cotton production and cotton exports continue to increase after slavery was abolished?

Your own data undermines your claim.

 

[bripat9643]

Why are we doing this again? Some send for PaperView, who will come with her loads and loads of primary documents with which she will yet again beat bripat's ass for the 83rd time, make him cry, and he will, for the 83rd time, admit, "damn you, PaperView, you are right. Again. Curses."

No one has ever beat my ass on this issue, Fakey. That's because the facts don't support the case advanced by the Lincoln sycophants.

 

[bripat9643]

The lower South rose up against constitutional and electoral process, and Lincoln imposed the death penalty on them.

Invading states and murdering thousands of their citizens is not a "constitutional or electoral process."

 

[bripat9643]

How about a Supreme Court decision? Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I've already discussed that piece of shit. A bunch of sycophants Lincoln placed on the court ruled that Texas had remained a state since it had joined the union despite the fact that it had no Senators or Representatives in Congress since 1861. Anyone who believes that will also believe Obama is a big supporter of capitalism.

Strictly speaking, I'm not sure a state is required to send a Congressional delegation. Elect, yes. Actually sent them to DC? That's a little more problematic.

They weren't allowed to have representatives after 1865, and I doubt Lincoln would have allowed any representation from Southern states after the war started.

 

[eagle1462010]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

I've been reading most of the posts on this thread and it seems that the actual quotes from the man have been misrepresented on this thread.

He stated that Yankee General Started the NRA in NY to teach Yankees how to shoot in the War of Northern Aggression. Saying that is what it was called in the South.

It appears the video is preaching the TALKING POINTS of Media Matters and others in this case, which is nothing more than usual tactics by the Left to attack the NRA.

Nothing more and nothing less, while taking chit out of context.

 

[BlindBoo]

Slavery was on its way out even if there had never been a civil war. It was going to be rendered irrelevant by the industrial revolution.

The Cotton Gin was invented in 1793.

To the Slave owners this meant the slaves could produce more. But there was a world wide movement to abolish it and sooner or later it would be outlawed here too. I believe it would have been later.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Again, nonsense. The Jim Crow sharecropper South continued the reliance on virtual slave labor well into the 1930s.

Incorrect. Jim Crow sharecropper status was more economical for the South than slavery because they did not have to take care of the young and the elderly. Your claim that it was equivalent to slavery is merely your claim.

As I stated in my last post, the Constitution permitted Congress to ban the slave trade after 1808. And that is what Congress did.

The South violated that ban, and thus violated the Constitution.

If the South had not violated the constitutional ban, there would have been no war.

That is not what you said, but I will not argue the point if you now assert that is what you meant.

There most definitly would have been a war. You seem to think that the increase in the number of slaves was soley attributable to the illegal importation of slaves? That is totally incorrect. Almost all of it was due to natural growth from native born African Americans, not from the importation of slaves. As I indicated previously, for many of the "northern" and atlantic slave states (Virginia, Kentucky, Tennesse, North Carolina) the primary economic benefit of slavery was based upon selling slaves to the deep south.

One of the primary "excuses" given by the south for its instituion was the "benign nature" as evidenced by the substantial population growth in the slave population. Something quite odd and rather unique when compared to most other countries having slave populations.

Or, in the alternative you can argue that the growth of the black population from about 4 million in 1860 to to 30 million in 1990 was due to the smuggeling of black slaves into the US during that time frame... your choice.

 

[BlindBoo]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Unless I missed it in the article, he didn't say that. He called it the War of Northern Aggression. That is an accurate label.

U didn't listen to the clip. He said it.