re: An American badass didn't give a f**k 160 years ago today...

quote:

---

The ensuing history of the US pretty much states, unequivocally, that the war was not about slavery or states' rights but was, instead, the same war they have all been about, money and power. Neither slavery, which had a small but loud opposition (considering the majority of people in the south did not have a say in the matter) nor the glorified state's rights meant anything to the majority of people....again, most of the people in the south did not have a say in the matter and at best more than half in any state had a say in the matter....women and slaves could not vote remember. What did matter, to a very small number of white men, is power and money, as it always has and always will. That was the issue...who would have the power and the most money. It is insulting to suggest slavery could have lead to such passion when more than half the country did not have a say in the matter and at least half of those who did either supported slavery or did not care one way or the other. It is equally insulting to suggest it was state's rights, again, more than half the country did not have a say and better than half of those who did couldn't care less. It was all about money and power. Its a child's fairy tale to suggest any other motivation when the writings and data from the era from those, again, who had a say in the matter, indicate exactly what the issue was....money and power.

There were roughly 2,236,000 people in the United States eligible to vote in 1860. That was about 7% of the total population. Lincoln won about 40% of the popular vote and was not anti-slavery, he was anti- expansionist. The idea that enough Americans were concerned with slavery to end it is ludicrous. Its equally ludicrous to suggest enough Americans gave a tinkers dam about state rights. Money and power...yes, enough people jockeying for either or both would gladly sacrifice millions or lives....they have done it numerous times throughout the history of our species....

---

This guy gets it.

quote:

---

I stated why they went to war.

---

Did you, the States that produced a document stating their reasons for secession specifically mention the institution of slavery as the driver for secession?

But don't take my word for it, read the documents submitted by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia here.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

quote:

---

The downvotes

---

I helped!

Sad truth.

quote:

---

If the Civil War was about "states rights" and not slavery, as asserted by so many confused Southerners, which "states rights" specifically was the Civil War about?

---

The right of self determination.

Yes, the issue they were choosing was slavery and they chose to secede rather than continue fighting an uphill battle to keep it.

The point that so many confused parrots such as yourself that repeats that line from some form of social media doesn’t seem to understand: the north wasn’t fighting to free the slaves. If that was the case, they would have freed everyone under their jurisdiction immediately. But the Emancipation proclamation specifically only freed slaves in the “rebel states.” For fear of losing support from slave holding states that allied with the Union.

Pretty dramatic decisiveness by Rear Admiral Farragut to turn what was about to be a complete and epic failure of a mission into a strategic Union victory.

Per Confederate Brig. Gen. Richard L. Page, Commander of Fort Morgan:

quote:

---

When abreast of the fort the leading monitor, the Tecumseh, suddenly sank...

At this moment the Brooklyn, the leading ship, stopped her engine, apparently in doubt; whereupon the order was passed to concentrate (fire) on her, in the hope of sinking her,

Farragut's coolness and quick perception saved the fleet from great disaster and probably from destruction. While the Brooklyn hesitated, the admiral put his helm (the Hartford) to starboard, sheered outside the Brooklyn, and took the lead, the rest following, thus saving the fouling and entanglement of the vessels and the danger of being sunk under my guns.

The ships continued passing rapidly by, no single vessel being under fire more than a few moments...

---

I've been to Fort Morgan, as many of you probably have. It's surreal to think about the total calamity that took place 160 years ago at what is a sleepy beach spot today.

So it was still for the right of the state to do what they wanted? Now we have an overreaching federal government. One side fought for the founder’s ideals and it wasn’t the one many “educated “ people think.

This is the way

quote:

---

Guess who controlled the vast majority of that wealth

---

You’re gonna get suspended from the nba if you keep asking questions like that

Spot on. Slavery existed because of the basic human need to garner as much wealth and power as humanly possible without any regard to the morality or ethical issues involved. The wealthy and powerful industrialists didn’t give a shite about slavery other than how it might impact their wealth and power….what they did care about was limiting the wealth and power of wealthy and powerful planters because doing so would increase their wealth and power. There was a very small but loud group of religious folks opposed to slavery and the industrialists seized on that as a reason to attack the planters. Common folks north or south were certainly unconcerned with the morality of slavery. They were also completely ignorant of what the “states rights” issues meant for trade…they were too busy surviving to be concerned with either slavery or free trade. Few of them could vote, women couldn’t vote and slaves of course could not vote. Only about 7% of the population could vote. It’s completely insane to suggest that more than half of them were morally opposed to slavery considering the way they treated their “employees” (not as bad as slaves were treated but not a lot better). They were only opposed to sharing wealth and power with anyone they could avoid sharing it with….so, as the wealthy and powerful do from time to time, they chose up sides, pitted the common people against one another and when enough of one side died a “winner” was declared, the “loser” was punished and things went back to what they were more or less and it lasted until enough common people gained the vote and made some minor changes.

Things haven’t changed much. Presently the common folks are being pitted against one another so one group of wealthy powerful people can garner a little more wealth and power and lord it over another group of wealthy and powerful people. It’s a story as old as man kind. Morality and ethics only matter to the common people…the wealthy and powerful know they are nothing but words and tools used to get the common people to do their bidding.