Historical Facts Tiy Weren't Told

A

ajm122188

Guest
Historical Facts You Weren't Told
We do not support slavery and this material is not to suggest that we do. It is simply to inform those who have been misled in regard to the Civil War.
1) The wife of which Civil War General still owned slaves after the end of the Civil War? General U.S. Grant of the Union or General Robert E. Lee of the Confederacy?
Answer: General U.S. Grant, later to become President, sought to sell his wife's two slaves while in an impoverished condition after the war. This was legal because, while the Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in states in rebellion on January 1, 1863, it was not outlawed in the rest of the Union until the passage of the 13 Amendment three years later on December 31, 1865.
2) Which country outlawed African slave trade in their original constitution? The United States of America or the Confederate States of America?
Answer: The Confederate States of America allowed the owning of slaves, however the importation of new African slaves was made illegal because they felt that it might cause the warring of African tribes against each other. The people captured in tribal conflicts were sold by the winning tribe to slave traders. The people of the South felt that the slave trade encouraged these bloody conflicts to continue. As compassionate as they were in coming to this conclusion and assuming responsibility in these bloody African conflicts, we see that they were mistaken as African tribal warfare continues to this very day.
3) Who said, "Any people anywhere, being inclined, and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States or Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy?
Answer: Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 12 1848 - spoken to the U.S. House of Representatives.
4)Who said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States or Jefferson Davis, President , President of the Confederate States of America?
Answer: Abraham Lincoln - First Inaugural Address - March 4, 1861.
5) Who said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side" ?
Answer: General U.S. Grant 1862
6) What was the major emphasis of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Answer: The Emancipation Proclamation is 540 words long. of those, 400 words limit the proclamation to the states in rebellion - it defines the states in rebellion and states that it is directed ONLY to the states in rebellion. It further says that if those states in rebellion would cease and return to the union within 100 days then they would keep slavery intact.
 

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yes, the civil war is all too often boiled down to the glorious north defending freedom against the south which was willing to kill to own slaves. The fact that slavery was legal in the north, and in any case blacks didn't have anything approaching equality; or that the vast majority of southern soldiers did not own slaves and that none of the southern leadership considered slavery the key issue of the war, are easily forgotten. I mean if we thought about those things, we might have to admit that the confederacy had some valid points; and that would be unamerican.
 
Upvote 0

dulcinea

Active Member
Dec 3, 2004
139
17
43
The United States
Visit site
✟15,360.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
MoonlessNight said:
I mean if we thought about those things, we might have to admit that the confederacy had some valid points; and that would be unamerican.
Isn't everything except blind obedience considered unamerican nowadays? ;)

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political tool to keep Europe (especially England) from siding with the Confederate States. It was all about politics, not setting slaves free. And I say that as a woman descended from slaves.
 
Upvote 0

Agrippa

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2004
842
24
39
✟1,097.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
ajm122188 said:
Historical Facts You Weren't Told
We do not support slavery and this material is not to suggest that we do. It is simply to inform those who have been misled in regard to the Civil War.
1) The wife of which Civil War General still owned slaves after the end of the Civil War? General U.S. Grant of the Union or General Robert E. Lee of the Confederacy?
Answer: General U.S. Grant, later to become President, sought to sell his wife's two slaves while in an impoverished condition after the war. This was legal because, while the Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in states in rebellion on January 1, 1863, it was not outlawed in the rest of the Union until the passage of the 13 Amendment three years later on December 31, 1865.


The slaves of General Grant's wife (they were not his) appear to have been freed by January 1865 at the latest (when Missouri abolished slavery). Grant owned one slave during his life; he obtained the man in late 1858 under unknown circumstances and, though in financial difficulty, freed him in early 1859 rather than sell him.

2) Which country outlawed African slave trade in their original constitution? The United States of America or the Confederate States of America?
Answer: The Confederate States of America allowed the owning of slaves, however the importation of new African slaves was made illegal because they felt that it might cause the warring of African tribes against each other. The people captured in tribal conflicts were sold by the winning tribe to slave traders. The people of the South felt that the slave trade encouraged these bloody conflicts to continue. As compassionate as they were in coming to this conclusion and assuming responsibility in these bloody African conflicts, we see that they were mistaken as African tribal warfare continues to this very day.


The US nearly abolished the slave trade in 1789; every state but two supported the move. The dissenters, as might be expected, were South Carolina and Georgia. So, a twenty year moratorium was placed on the issue. The northern states abolished the slave trade on their own and, as soon as the twenty years passed (1808), the slave trade was abolished in the US Constitution.

If you rail against the Emancipation Proclamation as a political measure, you should also rail against the slave trade clause in the Confederate Constitution, which was done to try to garner help from the United Kingdom (they may have helped a nation with slavery, they certainly wouldn't have helped a nation involved in the slave trade).

3) Who said, "Any people anywhere, being inclined, and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States or Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy?
Answer: Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 12 1848 - spoken to the U.S. House of Representatives.


Lincoln acknowledge that right, but only as a right of revolution rather than a right of secession. He acknowledged the right of the state to suppress rebellions and called the idea of the right of secession 'soliphism'.

4)Who said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States or Jefferson Davis, President , President of the Confederate States of America?
Answer: Abraham Lincoln - First Inaugural Address - March 4, 1861.


Lincoln abhorred slavery but believed he had no legal right to end it in the states. If Lincoln were the tyrant Confederate symphathizers claimed him to be, he never would have said that. He used what means he thought he possessed; for example, before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, he constantly tried to get delegations from Delaware, Maryland and the Union slave states to agree to a program of compensated emancipation.

5) Who said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side" ?
Answer: General U.S. Grant 1862


Grant said:
My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all Constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go.

Grant opposed slavery, but he, like Lincoln, saw the primary motive of the war the preservation of the Union, regardless of his feelings towards the south's Peculiar Institution.

Grant said:
The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.

The goal of the war may not of been to end slavery but those involved knew just how closely connected the two issues (secession and slavery) were.

6) What was the major emphasis of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Answer: The Emancipation Proclamation is 540 words long. of those, 400 words limit the proclamation to the states in rebellion - it defines the states in rebellion and states that it is directed ONLY to the states in rebellion. It further says that if those states in rebellion would cease and return to the union within 100 days then they would keep slavery intact.

Did Lincoln every make secret that his primary goal was the preservation of the Union? The major emphasis of the Emanicpation Proclamation was freedom for most slaves. Lincoln believed he did not have the power to free slaves in states that remained loyal (hence Delaware, Maryland, and others were exlcuded). Notice the phrasing:

Emancipation Proclamation said:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for supressing said rebellion...
 
Upvote 0

dulcinea

Active Member
Dec 3, 2004
139
17
43
The United States
Visit site
✟15,360.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Agrippa said:
The major emphasis of the Emanicpation Proclamation was freedom for most slaves.
Bull.

He didn't have the power to free the slaves in the South, since those states believed they were now a separate nation and had no reason to follow what the President of the United States did. Or do you really think that slaveholders in Alabama, after hearing about the Emancipation Proclamation, said, "Well, golly gee, ol' Abe Lincoln said the slaves are free, better free my slaves!"

I don't think so. The Proclamation freed very few, if ANY, slaves when it came into effect. It did pave the way for the 13th amendment, but that was only ratified after Lincoln's death, so that doesn't win it many points in my book. The Proclamation was a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo that didn't do anything except make Lincoln like he was concerned about freeing slaves - which wasn't one of his top priorities at all.
 
Upvote 0

praying

Snazzy Title Goes Here
Supporter
Jan 9, 2004
32,635
1,608
67
New Jersey
✟86,040.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
2) Which country outlawed African slave trade in their original constitution? The United States of America or the Confederate States of America?
Answer: The Confederate States of America allowed the owning of slaves, however the importation of new African slaves was made illegal because they felt that it might cause the warring of African tribes against each other. The people captured in tribal conflicts were sold by the winning tribe to slave traders. The people of the South felt that the slave trade encouraged these bloody conflicts to continue. As compassionate as they were in coming to this conclusion and assuming responsibility in these bloody African conflicts, we see that they were mistaken as African tribal warfare continues to this very day.



What country codified slavery, racial hatred and discrimination into the their constitution and the individual constitutions of the various states??



Of the 3.446 documented lynchings of African Americans in what states did 3029 of them occur???


Doesn't get anymore compassionate than that I tell you.
 
Upvote 0

praying

Snazzy Title Goes Here
Supporter
Jan 9, 2004
32,635
1,608
67
New Jersey
✟86,040.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
MoonlessNight said:
Yes, the civil war is all too often boiled down to the glorious north defending freedom against the south which was willing to kill to own slaves. The fact that slavery was legal in the north, and in any case blacks didn't have anything approaching equality; or that the vast majority of southern soldiers did not own slaves and that none of the southern leadership considered slavery the key issue of the war, are easily forgotten. I mean if we thought about those things, we might have to admit that the confederacy had some valid points; and that would be unamerican.

I find the cornerstone speech to be quite unAmerican.


Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883):
Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883), although originally opposed to secession, was elected vice-president of the Confederacy. After the war he returned to political service in Georgia and in the House of Representatives. He was elected governor of Georgia in 1882 and died in office.

We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.

... we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world-seven States have, within the last three months, thrown off an old Government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.] This new Constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited.

In reference to it, I make this first general remark: It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and privileges. All the great principles of Magna Chartal are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old Constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old Constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated.... So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ....

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.]

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1861stephens.html
 
Upvote 0

Grey Eminence

Regular Member
Dec 8, 2004
666
14
43
✟874.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-NDP
Bull.

He didn't have the power to free the slaves in the South, since those states believed they were now a separate nation and had no reason to follow what the President of the United States did. Or do you really think that slaveholders in Alabama, after hearing about the Emancipation Proclamation, said, "Well, golly gee, ol' Abe Lincoln said the slaves are free, better free my slaves!"




I don't think so. The Proclamation freed very few, if ANY, slaves when it came into effect. It did pave the way for the 13th amendment, but that was only ratified after Lincoln's death, so that doesn't win it many points in my book. The Proclamation was a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo that didn't do anything except make Lincoln like he was concerned about freeing slaves - which wasn't one of his top priorities at all. -- dulcinea




Your first point is one of broad agreement. The Confederacy was regarded as a belligerent power in its own right with respect to the European political situation and as a rebel state by the US with understanding of that basis in Europe.



However, the speech when it was given came after General Grant’s successful campaigns on the Mississippi and the battle of Gettysburg. The defeat of the Confederacy was at that point largely ensured. The proclamation ended any hope of Confederate legitimacy in Europe and ensured a direct end to the war.



Given that the primary war aim of Lincoln was the return of the southern states to Federal control the matter can be viewed in that context. Emancipation removed any hope of significant support for the Confederacy which was far more important to the war than the direct issue of slavery.



The South gambled that the institution of slavery would be better served through independence than with the Union. One only has to look at the correlation of separatist voting by county and the level of slave ownership as a percentage of population. Not to mention the rhetoric leading up to the war. The South lost, and it lost big. The fortunes of war.



As for Emancipation addressing immediate concerns… it did begin to address the contraband matter which had been a matter for the Union since the start of the war. More so when the Union began occupying Rebel territories in Louisiana and the barrier island regions of the Carolinas.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

praying

Snazzy Title Goes Here
Supporter
Jan 9, 2004
32,635
1,608
67
New Jersey
✟86,040.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
MatthewG215 said:
No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious.

Well then the answer is no, there was no opposition at all (well so little you could say none for all intents and purposes).

Slavery and discrimination in the CSA were embodied in the laws of the land and the individual state constitutions. If you are really interested go here Documenting the American South and look up the various consittutions and read for yourself the ideals they embodied. It is an online digital collection of original documents regarding the American South digitized and posted on the web by the Univeristy of North Carolina. Great site very educational.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Agrippa

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2004
842
24
39
✟1,097.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
MatthewG215 said:
Was there much opposition to slavery in the CSA? Did people in the CSA take up arms to free slaves in their territory at all?

Actually, prior to Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1830, the majority of the anti-slavery societies were located in the south. After the rebellion, the southern anti-slavery societies died out and northerners began to take up the burden.

dulcinea said:
Bull.

He didn't have the power to free the slaves in the South, since those states believed they were now a separate nation and had no reason to follow what the President of the United States did. Or do you really think that slaveholders in Alabama, after hearing about the Emancipation Proclamation, said, "Well, golly gee, ol' Abe Lincoln said the slaves are free, better free my slaves!"

I don't think so. The Proclamation freed very few, if ANY, slaves when it came into effect. It did pave the way for the 13th amendment, but that was only ratified after Lincoln's death, so that doesn't win it many points in my book. The Proclamation was a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo that didn't do anything except make Lincoln like he was concerned about freeing slaves - which wasn't one of his top priorities at all.

With the Emancipation Proclamation, what was going to happen when Union soldiers reached a plantation? Prior to the EP, the status of slaves was in limbo. Some Union officers freed them or at least ignored it when they ran away. Others kept them in bondage, keeping the established order intact. Now there was a set policy: the slaves would be freed once the Union armies arrived. Since Lincoln was adament that the Confederacy would be subdued, there could only be one result.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
mhatten in post #7:
<< What country codified slavery, racial hatred and discrimination into the their constitution and the individual constitutions of the various states?? >>

I don't see how you can say that the US put racial hatred and discrimination into the Constitution. Actually, at the time the Federal Constitution was written there was slavery in the northern states as well. In that sense you can say that it wasn't practical to ban it. As the northern states abolished slavery on their own initiative the stage was set for confrontation between North and South over the issue.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
MatthewG215 in post #10:
<<
Was there much opposition to slavery in the CSA? Did people in the CSA take up arms to free slaves in their territory at all? >>

There was little opposition to slavery (among people who could vote) in either North or South until shortly before the Civil War. However, it is on record that during the Civil War in some families brothers fought on opposite sides. This has been documented in particular battles, that one brother fought for the Union while another fought for the Confederacy. This is one reason that for many Americans to this day the Civil War still stands out as the most horrible of wars. It was "the days when brother fought brother." In this sense the divisiveness of the Civil War should not be underestimated.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
mhatten in post #13:
<< Well then the answer is no, there was no opposition at all (well so little you could say none for all intents and purposes).

Slavery and discrimination in the CSA were embodied in the laws of the land. . .
>>

Your answer is far too sweeping. I've heard that a county in Alabama proclaimed that it had succeeded from the Confederacy. I'm not sure what practical effect that had. I confess that I am unable to name the county.
 
Upvote 0