Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (442)	8/2/2006 9:19:47 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

Dred Scott allowed slave owners to move to the north and keep their slaves in bondage there. It would have had the effect of making the entire US a slave country. Assuming that a sufficient number of Southerners wanted to move north with their slaves, a rather unlikely supposition. Add in the fact that slaves remained in Northern states under the grandfather clause, while others were classified as "permanent servants". Grant lived in Missouri, a slave state. Grant already owned the slave when he moved to St. Louis. In fact, it was there that he freed him, since he was not needed in an urban environment. Why did the South attack Ft Sumter? This has always been obscured by partisan rhetoric. The North says it was naked aggression and the South says it because Lincoln broke his promise not to resupply the garrison there. Either way, it hardly matters, because by this time both sides enthusiatically welcomed armed hostilities. I take Lincoln's words to his cabinet as meaning what they say, that he believed he was compelled by God to free the slaves. Who can say for certain? He is also on record as saying he was determined to preserve the Union, whether it meant freeing the slaves or not. But the evil south as evil is not. The moonlight and magnolias view of the south with happy-go-lucky slaves is a myth. Remember that this evil affected both sides at one time. That it died out in the North first was more a matter of economic realities than that of pure intentions. To this day I have encountered virulent racism in the North, as well as in the South, although mercifully it appears to be on the wane everywhere. Many Americans saw the civil war as the judgment of God on America for the sin of slavery. And some Americans thought that 911 and Katrina were indicative of God's wrath for our sinful ways. If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came... This also supposes that God is in the wrath and retribution business, a notion that I and many folks reject. No one is unhappy that slavery passed as an institution in this nation, but trying to assign blame to just one subset of people ignores the much larger reality. Our sainted founding fathers also thought slavery was a pretty good idea, if you'll recall.