Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large

Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
rainee said:
So on April 12 South Carolina attacked North Eastern soldiers in their state after being seceded for what - about three months?
At the time it was not illegal to secede either, that was ruled after the war.
Click to expand...
The point being what? The north didn't attack only because the states seceded, people were still trying to figure out a compromise for a while, including Lincoln.

However once shooting starts it's hard to stop.

As far as cotton goes yes that's primarily what drove the slave culture of the south. And South Carolina seceded when it did because of Lincoln's election. They assumed he would try to take their slaves, but he hadn't even been inaugurated.

Bottom line is the south seceded over slavery and were fighting for their "states rights" to own slaves.

I note you had no answer to my story about the confederate flag.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Rusha said:
Oh. Because I never went through or to the surrounding areas such as Oakland, Berkley, Richmond, San Francisco...
Click to expand...
Hi again Rusha! And yes of course you may have gone into surrounding areas!
Please understand I was just trying to feel the situation out.

When I saw how comparatively few were in the entire location of Northern Cal according to a map I went ahead and looked up Concord.

But I saw numbers as so: Population 3,996.2 people per square mile (1,542.9/km²).
And the racial makeup of Concord was 78,767 (64.5%) White, 4,371 (3.6%) African American...

You may have seen people like G-head put a lot of store into stats. I don't, I know you can play a lot of deceptive games with stats.

But I did want you to have a chance to say with numbers like that, so people who look at numbers would not think wrongly.

Peace Rusha
For all we know you are a little human African American magnet :)
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rainee said:
Hi again Rusha! And yes of course you may have gone into surrounding areas!
Please understand I was just trying to feel the situation out.

When I saw how comparatively few were in the entire location of Northern Cal according to a map I went ahead and looked up Concord.

But I saw numbers as so: Population 3,996.2 people per square mile (1,542.9/km²).
And the racial makeup of Concord was 78,767 (64.5%) White, 4,371 (3.6%) African American...

You may have seen people like G-head put a lot of store into stats. I don't, I know you can play a lot of deceptive games with stats.

But I did want you to have a chance to say with numbers like that, so people who look at numbers would not think wrongly.

Peace Rusha
For all we know you are a little human African American magnet :)
Click to expand...

My childhood, teen and early twenties were spent in Concord, Antioch and Suisun.

From 1988, I moved to Lake County, CA (Lower Lake and Clearlake). That is where my kids were raised from early childhood through mid teens. It's completely different than Contra Costa and Solano County.

Insofar as being a magnet for African Americans, I highly doubt it.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
rexlunae said:
There's no question of that. The American Flag has had a complex relationship with slavery, and it flew with the armies that ended up abolishing the institution. The Confederate flag has no such complexity. It was flown for slavery. It was revived for segregation. There's no time in its history that it stood for something worthy or noble. So can we stop repeating that tired straw man please?
Click to expand...
First, I hate to think what people here in this country think of your clap trap when they had to leave their own countries that practice slavery of all kinds today.
Second, the South did have plantations that did have slaves. But that did not make the entire South plantation owning slavers, far from it.
However all who were in the Southern States were willing to leave rather than be abused by the greedy lying powers that be up North.
(Not that you care about them any more than you care really about other people who had to escape awful homelands)

As far tiresome repetition, you guys that don't tell the truth can stop with the propaganda.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
rainee said:
First, I hate to think what people here in this country think of your clap trap when they had to leave their own countries that practice slavery of all kinds today.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by that.

rainee said:
Second, the South did have plantations that did have slaves.
Click to expand...

As did several states that remained in the Union.

rainee said:
But that did not make the entire South plantation owning slavers, far from it.
Click to expand...

Of course not? What relevance is that here?

rainee said:
However all who were in the Southern States were willing to leave rather than be abused by the greedy lying powers that be up North.
Click to expand...

Self-pity doesn't really help your case, and it wasn't "greedy lying" that lead the South to secede. It was the sense that Lincoln might threaten slavery. No union could survive if it were severable simply by unilateral decree on the part of individual members. The Slave Power had dominated the Federal government up until the election of Lincoln, and it had used that dominance to push a pro-slavery agenda against the unwilling North. And if not for the impatience of the South with what probably would have been a temporary setback, they probably would have had many more victories if they hadn't left the Union.


rainee said:
(Not that you care about them any more than you care really about other people who had to escape awful homelands)
Click to expand...

I really don't know what you're getting at.

rainee said:
As far tiresome repetition, you guys that don't tell the truth can stop with the propaganda.
Click to expand...

I always tell the truth the best I can.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Alate_One said:
The point being what? The north didn't attack only because the states seceded, people were still trying to figure out a compromise for a while, including Lincoln.
Click to expand...

Oh my word, Alate One! Is this type of thinking what you had to develop to believe in evolution?
First Lincoln was Not the same as the business men and driving powers up there that elected him. But Lincoln was not unaware of reality.

And yes I think the North was NOT going to let those states go and South Carolina was perhaps dumb because the state thought it actually could secede.

But I love how you can't get that northern soldiers really should not have been in a seceded state, that is very romantic of you, how you must imagine soldiers so nice and peaceful just hanging out wanting to be friends 3 months after the state had already taken the stand of getting out. I bet those soldiers must have played a lot of checkers...

I have to say again that I am thankful that slavery here is abolished.
But I have to add there are some real fantasies apparently wrapped up in what the North at that time was all about.
However once shooting starts it's hard to stop.
Click to expand...

Cute, don't even know what say to that immature approach.

People were boiling mad who couldn't get away and others were going to kill rather than let them go.

Bbl8ter
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Had the south not seceded--overreacted to Lincoln's election, basically--he may have been able to work out some kind of compromise that, while imperfect, could have avoided the war.

Secession pretty much guaranteed conflict. There didn't need to be. Turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, though.
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Granite said:
Had the south not seceded--overreacted to Lincoln's election, basically--he may have been able to work out some kind of compromise that, while imperfect, could have avoided the war.

Secession pretty much guaranteed conflict. There didn't need to be. Turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, though.
Click to expand...
The South didn't over react, it only decided to play the all or nothing instead of some then nothing cards in the hands of the people with power and interest. Slavery was done the moment Lincoln said, "This far and no more." Those territories would have come in free and the states that eventually arose from them would have likewise been free. With that power shift the South could no longer have guaranteed the safety of its economic institutions.

No, for the empowered in the South war was inevitable. The only slim chance they stood was in attempting to use the arguably legal route of withdraw and, failing that allowance, a bloodying of an invading and not entirely undivided Union else in the hopes the cost benefit analysis would persuade them to sue for peace. The north, still largely racist itself, could then claim a moral victory for that which was under its control while profiting from the agricultural trade of the South as it always had.

It was a gamble, but the only gamble with a chance for a profitable long term outcome.

Thankfully, their cards were insufficient.
 
drbrumley

drbrumley

Well-known member
Granite said:
Had the south not seceded--overreacted to Lincoln's election, basically--he may have been able to work out some kind of compromise that, while imperfect, could have avoided the war.

Secession pretty much guaranteed conflict. There didn't need to be. Turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, though.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in your view. the scenario is like this...

1.Lincoln was about to abolish slavery

2. The South knew this and therefore seceded.

3. Lincoln then went about to free the slaves..

Think that about sums up your argument.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
drbrumley said:
Yes, and in your view. the scenario is like this...

1.Lincoln was about to abolish slavery

2. The South knew this and therefore seceded.

3. Lincoln then went about to free the slaves..

Think that about sums up your argument.
Click to expand...

No, not really.

Given what he said, it seems plain enough he wasn't about to "abolish slavery" (and had no mandate or means to do so without the war). This kind of speculation strikes me as southern paranoia, actually. We all know about Lincoln's comments regarding preserving the union and slavery. Secession guaranteed a war and eventually gave Lincoln what he needed to end human bondage. His views on race and slavery were emboldened by the Confederacy--certainly not moderated because of the war.

They overreacted and in a very real way contributed to making him an emancipator.
 
drbrumley

drbrumley

Well-known member
Granite said:
No, not really.

Given what he said, it seems plain enough he wasn't about to "abolish slavery" (and had no mandate or means to do so without the war). This kind of speculation strikes me as southern paranoia, actually. We all know about Lincoln's comments regarding preserving the union and slavery. Secession guaranteed a war and eventually gave Lincoln what he needed to end human bondage. His views on race and slavery were emboldened by the Confederacy--certainly not moderated because of the war.

They overreacted and in a very real way contributed to making him an emancipator.
Click to expand...

Good, glad we can be civil with one another today. :up:

So with that said, seceding started the war in your opinion. In fact I do agree with that. Nothing Lincoln said or done would have made them change their mind?
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
So with that said, seceding started the war in your opinion. In fact I do agree with that. Nothing Lincoln said or done would have made them change their mind?
Click to expand...

Well secession guaranteed two words from Washington, and they weren't "happy birthday."

I can't think of anything Lincoln could've said or done that would've assuaged their fears. He extended the olive branch in his first inaugural. Better angels of our nature and all that. Friends, but not enemies.

And they refused to listen. They denounced him as an extremist, tyrant, and glorified baboon before he even took office, and threatened hell and gunfire if he were elected.

(Now why does that sound familiar?):think: :chuckle:
 
R

rexlunae

New member
Town Heretic said:
The South didn't over react, it only decided to play the all or nothing instead of some then nothing cards in the hands of the people with power and interest.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But the election of Lincoln was the first reversal they had suffered after many more significant victories. Meanwhile, Lincoln seemed less than eager to end slavery at the outset of his term, and I would think that they could likely have simply waited him out in anticipation of victories down the road rather than taking rash action and hoping for an absolute victory in the present. If they had succeeded in annexing Cuba and other territories, they would have further cemented their Congressional advantage, and their Electoral College advantage.

Sure seems like an overreaction to me.

Town Heretic said:
Slavery was done the moment Lincoln said, "This far and no more." Those territories would have come in free and the states that eventually arose from them would have likewise been free.
Click to expand...

In addition to deciding that a freed slave couldn't be considered a citizen, the Supreme Court had indicated in Dredd Scott that Congress had no authority to restrict slavery in the territories.

See Section III:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=29&page=transcript

Essentially, the Court ruled that Congress could only legislate for a territory in the same way that it legislates over the whole United States, therefore it couldn't directly make laws which would normally be the domain of a state government. The upshot of this is that while unorganized, a territory must be open to slavery. It essentially abolished the concept of a free territory unless that territory had a government that banned slavery itself. So whatever Lincoln did, the new territories would likely have come in as slave territories, and then slave states, unless at some point along the way, the political will to change that and dispossess at least some of their citizens could be mustered.

In addition, Dredd Scott ruled that a slave could be brought into a "free" state without gaining his or her freedom. Since that person has no means of access to the court, this undermines the very concept of a free state. Perhaps the free states could ban their own citizens from owning slaves themselves, but there was no way for them to avoid men and women being brought among them in chains, and by virtue of the Fugitive Slave Act, they were actively conscripted to ensure that none would escape.

So, it was in the context of the collapse favoring the Slave Power of many compromises and carefully balanced powers that Lincoln was swept into office. The states of the coming Confederacy had been on the verge of winning by political and legal means all that they wanted, but in their unwillingness to accept an election that they considered averse, they lost everything.
 
B

bybee

New member
rexlunae said:
Maybe. But the election of Lincoln was the first reversal they had suffered after many more significant victories. Meanwhile, Lincoln seemed less than eager to end slavery at the outset of his term, and I would think that they could likely have simply waited him out in anticipation of victories down the road rather than taking rash action and hoping for an absolute victory in the present. If they had succeeded in annexing Cuba and other territories, they would have further cemented their Congressional advantage, and their Electoral College advantage.

Sure seems like an overreaction to me.



In addition to deciding that a freed slave couldn't be considered a citizen, the Supreme Court had indicated in Dredd Scott that Congress had no authority to restrict slavery in the territories.

See Section III:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=29&page=transcript

Essentially, the Court ruled that Congress could only legislate for a territory in the same way that it legislates over the whole United States, therefore it couldn't directly make laws which would normally be the domain of a state government. The upshot of this is that while unorganized, a territory must be open to slavery. It essentially abolished the concept of a free territory unless that territory had a government that banned slavery itself. So whatever Lincoln did, the new territories would likely have come in as slave territories, and then slave states, unless at some point along the way, the political will to change that and dispossess at least some of their citizens could be mustered.

In addition, Dredd Scott ruled that a slave could be brought into a "free" state without gaining his or her freedom. Since that person has no means of access to the court, this undermines the very concept of a free state. Perhaps the free states could ban their own citizens from owning slaves themselves, but there was no way for them to avoid men and women being brought among them in chains, and by virtue of the Fugitive Slave Act, they were actively conscripted to ensure that none would escape.

So, it was in the context of the collapse favoring the Slave Power of many compromises and carefully balanced powers that Lincoln was swept into office. The states of the coming Confederacy had been on the verge of winning by political and legal means all that they wanted, but in their unwillingness to accept an election that they considered averse, they lost everything.
Click to expand...

There are certain rights which, I believe, come from the Creator but one might also believe that they stem from our common necessities as human beings.
One person cannot own another person.
The basic unit of a viable society is man and woman united to form a family which is part of the extended family of man.
If we live in society then some goods and some services must be available to all.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Granite said:
Had the south not seceded--overreacted to Lincoln's election, basically--he may have been able to work out some kind of compromise that, while imperfect, could have avoided the war.

Secession pretty much guaranteed conflict. There didn't need to be. Turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, though.
Click to expand...

Town Heretic said:
The South didn't over react, it only decided to play the all or nothing instead of some then nothing cards in the hands of the people with power and interest.

Slavery was done the moment Lincoln said, "This far and no more." Those territories would have come in free and the states that eventually arose from them would have likewise been free. With that power shift the South could no longer have guaranteed the safety of its economic institutions.

No, for the empowered in the South war was inevitable. The only slim chance they stood was in attempting to use the arguably legal route of withdraw and, failing that allowance, a bloodying of an invading and not entirely undivided Union else in the hopes the cost benefit analysis would persuade them to sue for peace. The north, still largely racist itself, could then claim a moral victory for that which was under its control while profiting from the agricultural trade of the South as it always had.

It was a gamble, but the only gamble with a chance for a profitable long term outcome.

Thankfully, their cards were insufficient.
Click to expand...

Alate One, I have only a few minutes, hope I do at least a half way decent job but I see DR has written good things off these two and I see Bybee is putting something sound and level and moral - so I thought I might ought to move now before the thread travels much further...

Now then see these two men post above? See how DR was even getting along on a level?

Men understand something I guess basic to their core.

There are many moving parts in this topic but may I show you one the guys just seem to naturally understand?

What would you say Alate if you heard of a successful man growing every day richer when finally one of the rich women he had gathered as a wife told him she was divorcing him and taking maybe 50%, maybe more, of what made him wealthy with her.

Would he try to make peace, reconcile with her in some way, save his marriage to her, lastly maybe even try to force her to stay with him?
.

That is what is meant when it is said the North wanted to preserve the Union.

But what if the woman would not stay but was determined to leave him and take her riches with her - and leave him a poorer man? Not only that but she told him she would thrive without him?

What might happen next, Alate One? Surely you know, yeah?

The guys above seem to think like guys, and well, some days you eat the bear - and some days the bear eats you, yes?

But that's not it, is it.

Tbc




.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
This is simply some quotes from a page about myths regarding the Civil War. I want to paste the Addie but am still learning how to work the device I'm using. Sigh.
Anyway this is his claim about one point, his fourth one - which he calls something a myth. Behold:

#4 Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.
Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union’s goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later.

On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

However, Lincoln’s own anti-slavery sentiment was widely known at the time. In the same letter, he went on: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.” A month later, Lincoln combined official duty and private wish in his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
Click to expand...

I do think because of his background that Lincoln did want all men to be free.
I don't know if his idea of freedom is the same as those of today because people - most all of them - worked like slaves. But freedom was the ability to make life for yourself better for those who loved and died for freedom, I think.
But please notice this is an article about myths and he blissfully writes the Union went war to hold the nation together...

And yet he will post this just a few paragraphs further down in number 5:

5. The South couldn’t have made it long as a slave society.
Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them — or forced them to abandon slavery?
Click to expand...

I don't know if any of you agree with this writer but I have several problems with this above.
Once the New Territories were brought into the Union, this area called the corn belt would be able to produce massive amounts of corn wheat and so on and without the expense of slaves. Only a few high dollar cash crops needed many many many hands, right? Like cotton, sugar cane, and the like, right?
But other fairly big Farms had folks give BIRTH TO THEIR FARM HANDS. Which nobody talks about much but farmers usually had big families so the children could help with the farm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top