It was a slave supported society that fought a war to keep their slaves so
this is a valid extrapolation.
guarded by drooling illiterates,
No comment. They were not then and are not now all that way,
No they had steam engines.
Valid point. Neither the average person or the the slaves would have ever
got near the "Good" cars.
A valid point. With very few exceptions southern railroads ran from one town
to another and ended at the edge of town. There were very few direct
interchanges. Having to transfer goods from one railroad to another across
town by wagon was very common.
A coordinated connected railway system that allowed the Union to move an
army from one theater of war to another in a matter of days was one big
Union advantage. That they had no generals who could or would fight was the
reason the war lasted so long.
So sorry to say although the statement was over the top, as it is a valid
extension of the way things were, it is a valid portrait of what might have
been if the south had won the war.
It does ignore the question of whether an already decaying society could
have survived in a world that was rapidly moving away from slavery.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 05:24:08 GMT, Bill Dixon wrote:
Thus the "dragging" and "drooling" - excessively hierarchical societies
have about the same effect as inbreeding, and sooner or later a lot of the
steam engines would be rapidly turning into leaking rusting junk, just like
the society and its leadership.
We now have our national wealth increasingly concentrated in the upper
[measured by wealth] few percentiles of our population. Maybe we deserve
The South seceded to keep their slaves - this was morally wrong.
The North started the war for economic reasons - this was legally wrong.
Even Abe Lincoln, as a lawyer, believed that a state which had freely joined
the union had a right to leave, as did most of the judicial.
No, I'm not a supporter of a slaveholding south, just a history buff.
BTW, I know the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. This was after
the North refused to remove their troops from South Carolina territory.
Which reminds me, the Civil War was responsible for changing "these united
States" to "this United States".
None of which is pertinent to model railroading, so I'll drop it at this
read the "correct" history gentlemen. not the history that your teachers
and the north wrote for you to learn. Fact one: the war was not fought
over slavery: fact two: the north needed sympathy for there cause so in
july 1863 Licoln gave his speech in Gettysburg. this did nothing for
freeing the slaves up north. Fact three: most slaves were treated
better than most poor whites were. Fact four:
the majority of the slaves stayed with there ex slave owners after the
war because they knew where there bread was buttered.
fact five : the north invaded the south after the south suceeded from
the union. The constitution provided for the states rights to suceed
from the union and it was all about the greedy north taxing the hell out
of the southern ports as a ploy to get the south to export cotton from
New York so the north could get the proffits.
Read and learn the history from a nutreal source that has the facts strait.
Bill Dixon wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:53:48 -0500, E. T. Atkins wrote:
A real nut, alright. You got the rest of those books from the Lincoln
Library about how the Jews of Europe just went on vacation and disappeared?
(That's the George Lincoln Rockwell library, naz.. - er, uh, 'natch)
Keep on droolin' on your sheet, Bubba, and by the way: spelling counts.
Steve, you're pretty good at slinging insults but I haven't seen you produce
any historic info. Perhaps you have none. I suggest you read a book called
"The Causes of the Civil War", I don't recall the author.
A good honest history of the US Civil War and the causes for it is
James M McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" (named for a song used by
both sides during the civil war).
Comrade Spelling Challenged ("E.T Atkins") is maybe 20-25% correct in
his list of "5 facts".
Take an example: Comrade Atkins says "This [Emancipation proclamation]
did nothing to free the slaves up north". Correct - the specific
proclamation only freed slaves (without compensation to the owners) in
states that on 1 jan 1863 (not july 1863) were in rebellion against the
union. In other words - the proclamation did not apply to slave states
that had stayed within the union.
What applied to states that had stayed within the union was that the US
congress on April 10th 1862 had promised compensation to any owner who
voluntarily freed his slaves, on April 16th 1862 had banned slavery in
the District of Columbia, and on June 19th 1862 had banned slavery in
areas not yet organized into states (ie the territories).
Of course, most of the states which stayed within the union had a ban
on slavery _before_ the start of the civil war. So the slaves not freed
by the proclamation was slaves in some of of the border states that
stayed in the union (Maryland, Missouri, Delawere and Kentucky, plus
union-occupied parts of New Orleans and Virginia, and the part of NW
Virginia which was about to become West Virginia).
Slaves in Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia were emancipated by
separate state actions. The last slaves freed were in the border states
of Kentucky and Delawere - on the ratification (on December 6th 1865) of
the 13th Amendment to the US constitution, which banned slavery in all
states and territories.
So Atkins is correct in saying that the Emancipation Proclamation only
applied to slaves in the rebel states, but incorrect in his inference
that it was all done by a bunch of cynical damnyankees who freed slaves
in the south but didn't care one whit about slavery within the union.
He is also confused about dates and battles. The Emancipation
Proclamation was issued after the union turned back an invasion of
Maryland during the bitterly fought battle of Antietam in 1862, it was
not part of the famous speech Lincoln gave at Gettysburg in 1863.
He is _partially_ correct in saying that the war was not about slavery.
Or rather - was not _exclusively_ about slavery.
For some people, especially in the south, it was about states right. As
for whether states had the right to seceede from the union - could very
well be. For all practical purposes, it matters little. The civil war
was fought, and it gave the results it gave.
As for whether slaves were treated so well in the south and the former
slaves staying with their former owners after the war "because they know
what side their bread was buttered on" - I am not sure - is there a
polite way of saying "utter bullshit" ?
Enough ? Maybe time to talk about model trains again ?
Tell me, oh, tell me........pulllleeeeeeezzzzze!
Where in the Constitution does it say that a state has the right to secede
from the union?
I want the exact article and section.
Give it a whack.
Nowhere, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question :-).
But you might want to know that the Articles of Confederation spoke of
"perpetual union." When the Constitution was being written, several of the
delegates insisted that "perpetual" be removed in case their states wanted
out at a later date. So the constitution does say so, albeit by omission.
Also note that most legal authorities at the time held the opinion that
secession was a legal option for a state. Unless a book I read was lying,
even Lincoln defended that position in a trial before the war.
My response is not intended to provoke a long thread of tirades, just to point
out the relevant history. So this is the end of my participation in this
It doesn't, of course, as you already know. But many people - at least all
libertarians and strict constructionists - would point out that nowhere in
the constitution does it say that a state *doesn't* have the right to
secede from the union.
The constitution wasn't intended to outline what the states and people can
or cannot do. Its intention was to outline only what the federal government
specifically can and cannot do, and states that all other matters not
specifically enumerated in the document are left to the states and the
Of course that truth was tossed in the garbage long ago, and Abraham
Lincoln had a great deal to do with that. Most all people today, regardless
of their political stripes, can see the truth of this is quickly and name
something that they feel the federal government has no business being
BTW, there is no question at all that Texas has the right to secede from
the union. It is in the Texas constitution.
But, back to trains. Just for kicks I ordered an On30 Confederate train set
the other day. It looks really cool. The boxcar with the picture of Robert
E. Lee appeals to my anti-federalist streak.
Yes. IIRC there were some nut bags out by the Davis Mountains that seceded
some time ago. The State said they could not secede and locked them up.
Seceding as fun as it might be is not so easy these days. Bruce
Like I said, just fought on their side. Too bad - we could have traded
that putz McClellan (who wasn't all that disapproving of slavery) for him
and had the war over a couple years and a couple hundred thousand dead
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.