text:
War of the Rebellion Forums
Secession, Politics, & Debates (Moderated)
Slavery; THE Cause?
Thread starter unionblue
First Prev 28 of 154
unionblue
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Elektratig,
Thank you for the above reference. I will check it out.
Near Kankakee
Gentlemen:
The last two or three posts comprise totally the reason I continue with this board. Real scholarship. On point. Right or wrong. Great opinions! Gawd! Someone should give me a doctorate based on what I am learning. UNC, are you listening?
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over ther Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that his interest was; somehow, the cause of the war."
--Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 1865.
"However much they who marched South and North in 1861 may have fixed on the technical points of union and local autonomy as a shibboleth, all nevertheless knew, as we know, that the question of Negro slavery was the real cause of the conflict."
--W. E. B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk, 1903.
seanachai
I was taught in school, as I am sure many were, that the issue of slavery is what began the civil war. I have since discovered that history is written by the winners and that slavery was not an immediate cause for the war between the states. Research I have done suggests that initally it was an issue of states rights and unequal representation in government. I will have to locate the book, but to my recollection, at one point, things were looking bleak for the North. Other nations were beginning to get involved, and several were looking at backing the south. Lincoln, though not convinced of slaves equality, (it has been said that he himself did not find them as competent as whites) could quite possibly be one of the first of many to play the race card to garner support. Once it was spun that Lincoln was not fighting for control over states that were struggling for independence (hmmm...I'm having a flashback....I see......a large tea party.....) but rather for equality for all men, well hell....who wouldnt step up to the plate of that humanitarian effort?
Regardless of Lincoln's true intentions...what I find highly interesting is that while he claimed all men were equal, he was awfully busy trying to assimilate the Native American tribes, and not hesitating once to use force to "convert the heathens". Now, is it just me or does that not sound just a shade bit like a double standard??????
seanachai,
History is written sometimes by the folks who are neither the winners nor losers, but just the folks who have researched it and laid it out.
I beg to differ that there was any other immediate cause than slavery that brought about the Civil War. It had long been a constant source of agitation and anguish between the states way before that little dust-up at Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens. Even the states who seceded were pretty plain what their reasons for leaving the Union were about. And it was not about tariffs, not about a big interferring federal government, and the only States Right the folks leaving the Union were upset about was taking men as property into other territories, states, and giving federal protection to do so.
As for your assertion about unequal representation, the South had the fedral government in its back pocket for a long time to include the White House, Supreme Court and the Congress. The unequal representation you must refer to is the one where a legal election took place under the US Constitution and the South refused to obey the law and abide by those legal results.
I think you may be a bit closer to the facts when you say that France and England might have intervened on behalf of the South, only if the war had been about anything but slavery, as that was the one fact that kept England and France from recognizing the South during the entire conflict. The Emancipation Proclamation just put the lid on the whole thing permanetly.
Lincoln had a lot to say about racial equality, the lack thereof and how he looked at it. I suggest you google on the internet a speech by Frederick Douglass and see what he had to say about Lincoln's final views in that area. You might be surprised.
As for your flashback to the American Revolution, you might recall they did NOT claim they were doing anything legal or had some hidden get-out-of-the Empire card hidden in the Magna Carter. They were totally honest in claiming they were in REBELLION.
As to actions taken by this nation against Native Americans, there is little excuse for what was done to them in the name of westward expansion, so you have me there.
Be glad to discuss the issue with you after you find your book and catch up a bit.
Until that time,
seabachai:
"Regardless of Lincoln's true intentions...what I find highly interesting is that while he claimed all men were equal, he was awfully busy trying to assimilate the Native American tribes, and not hesitating once to use force to "convert the heathens". Now, is it just me or does that not sound just a shade bit like a double standard??????"
Please refresh my memory. Outside of the Santee Sioux uprising in '72, how was he awfully busy?
Seriously, this is a part of him I was unaware of and would like to look into it more closely.
Right here.
I was taught in school, as I am sure many were, that the issue of slavery is what began the civil war.
When I was growing up, we never talked much about the Civil War. It was only when I went to college at an oustanding institution of higher learning in the south that I learned from a great teacher who is the descendant of a soldier of the Army of Northern Virginia, the truth, that had there been no slavery there would not have been a war.
I have since discovered that history is written by the winners
Then you have discovered a myth.
Have you read any of the memoirs by such winners as Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, James Longstreet, Jubal Early, Edward P. Alexander, G. Moxley Sorrel, Walter Taylor, Dabney Maury, John S. Mosby, John B. Gordon, Richard Taylor, Sam Watkins, John Bell Hood, Joseph E. Johnston, Robert Barnwell Rhett, Edward A. Pollard, Mary Chesnut, or William A. Fletcher? Have you read any of the writings of such descendants of winners as Charles Ramsdell, Grady McWhiney, C. Vann Woodward, James I. Robertson, Allen Tate, Robert Penn Warren, or Shelby Foote?
And when was the last time you read a history of the Vietnam War written by a Vietnamese historian?
and that slavery was not an immediate cause for the war between the states.
You have discovered another myth. Have you read what Mississippi had to say on the matter? "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
Research I have done suggests that initally it was an issue of states rights and unequal representation in government.
Then your research must have consisted of modern-day websites, charlatans like Thomas DiLorenzo, and postwar apologia from the likes of Margaret Rutherford, the SCV, or the UDC. It certainly didn't include the actual words written by the secessionists at the time.
I will have to locate the book, but to my recollection, at one point, things were looking bleak for the North. Other nations were beginning to get involved, and several were looking at backing the south. Lincoln, though not convinced of slaves equality, (it has been said that he himself did not find them as competent as whites) could quite possibly be one of the first of many to play the race card to garner support. Once it was spun that Lincoln was not fighting for control over states that were struggling for independence (hmmm...I'm having a flashback....I see......a large tea party.....) but rather for equality for all men, well hell....who wouldnt step up to the plate of that humanitarian effort?
That's another myth. See Allen C. Guelzo's book, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America. If the E.P. were nothing more than a political ploy to drum up support, it was the absolute worst instrument at the absolute worst time. It had just as much chance of provoking foreign intervention as preventing foreign intervention because the British viewed it as a provocation for servile insurrection. It was unpopular in many parts of the North as well, helping Democrats gain seats in the 1862 elections.
As for those flashbacks, stay away from the LSD, or the mushrooms, or whatever.
It sounds like someone has sold you a bill of goods regarding Lincoln's policy toward the Native Americans. You may want to check out what David H. Donald [A Mississippian] has to say in his book, Lincoln.
To quote Kenneth C. Davis :Convinced of slavery's immorality, Lincoln was NOT, however, and abolitionist. In the strange world of mid-nineteenth-century politics, when slavery was the one issue on which most politicians rose or fell, Lincoln walked a careful line. Believing that slavery was wrong, he also held that it WAS legal under the constitution. A pragmatic and ambitious "nonextensionist," opposed to allowing slavery to spread beyond its current boundaries, Lincoln thought it would gradually die out, echoing the same vain hope that Jefferson and Washington had voiced some seventy years earlier.
By modern standards, much of what Lincoln thought and said about blacks would be called racist. He did not think blacks equal to whites in intellect or ability. He opposed the idea that blacks should vote, serve on juries, or intermarry with whites. For the sake of winning a state election, he was willing to keep emancipated blacks out of Illinois.
Earlier in his political life, Lincoln believed that all blacks should be removed from the US and resettled in some other country:"My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever high hope there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution would be impossible." Still he did believe fiercely that when the Declaration said "all men are created equal," it included Negroes, and Lincoln took that to mean that blacks should be given the opportunity to labor for wages as white men did." (but not the right to vote or be on a jury or marry a white person...???)
October 1855: Separate elections in Kansas produce proslavery and antislavery representatives in congress. Free-soil Kansans adopt a constitution that bans slavery but also EXCLUDES all blacks from the territory. (free'em but dont send'em here)
August 21-October 15, 1858: The Lincoln Douglas debates. In a series of seven debates, Lincoln confronts Senator Douglas. Lincoln takes an antislavery stand; Douglas defends the American right to decide the issue by popular sovereignty, even though the Dred Scott decision has negated that idea.
Stephen Douglas, in a debate with Abraham Lincoln (1857):
Mr. Lincoln tried to avoid the main issue by attacking the truth of my proposition, that our fathers made this government divided into free and slave states, recognizing the right of each to decide all its local questions for itself. Did they not thus make it? It is true they did not establish slavery in any of the states, or abolish it in any of the territories; but finding thirteen states, twelve of which were slave and one free, they agreed to form a government uniting them together, as they stood divided into free and slave states, and to guarantee forever to each state the right to do as it pleased on the slavery question. Having thus made the government, and conferred this right upon each state forever, I assert that this government CAN exist as they made it, divided into free and slave states, if any one state chooses to retain slavery. He says that he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished everywhere. I look forward to a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business—not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, the right of the people to rule, than I do for all the negroes in Christendom.
Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union not to emancipate the slaves. During his debates with Stephen Douglass, Lincoln made his position on race quite clear: " I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." In late 1862 he proclaimed "My paramount object in the struggle is to save the union. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it. If I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
(One large reason for sectional friction in the US was not slavery but economics. The south desired to buy cheaper imported European products but the powerful northern manufacturers imposed stiff import tariffs. These tariffs were quickly increased after southern congressmen left Washington in 1861. The industrial north, had no need for slaves because they had immigrants willing to work for very little, while the major planters of the agrarian south were totally dependent on human labor! So basically, there were two nations, divided by politics, economy and culture. The north was booming with the industrial revolution and a massive influx of immigrants and the southern states were pretty much at a standstill. They were an agricultural slave based economy that had been the norm since the creation of the nation. Most of its wealth was tied up in slaves and the production of cotton produced by those slaves. [ Lets say you had thousands of dollars tied up in Kathie Lee stock when it came out that she was using child labor…would you give away all your stock causing you to lose those thousands of dollars and purposefully put yourself in financial ruin? Honestly…or is it different because those kids weren't in the U.S?])
One of Davis' first acts as president of the confederacy was to dispatch three commissioners to Washington in an attempt to negotiate a settlement with the union. Leading them was VP Alexander Hamilton Stephens of GA. At Christmas, before going to Washington, Lincoln had sent Stephens a letter marked "for your eyes only", promising that his administration would not interfere with slavery. Now Stephens arrived in Washington, hoping to negotiate an end to the crisis. With the situation moving toward a showdown, Stephens and the other delegates met in secret with Lincoln's secretary of state, William Henry Seward, but Lincoln refused to meet with Stephens, unwilling to legitimize a confederate government he now viewed as a collection of rebels.
On Sept. 22, Lincoln announced his plans to order the freeing of southern slaves unless the southern states returned to the Union. With no response form the south, Lincoln announced the EP. It was purely a political act as obviously he had no authority in those territories but it brought the issue of slavery to the forefront of the conflict. Lincoln later explained this pragmatic gesture by saying:"Things had gone from bad to worse until I felt that we had reached the end of our rope on the plan of operations we had been pursuing. We had about played our last card . We must change our tactics or leave the game. I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy." In other words it was halfway thru this bloody war that slavery became a central issue! The proclamation was a brilliant maneuver as the citizens of neither Britain nor France would have accepted their nations support of slavery and it strengthened Lincolns hand in the N. When Lincoln instituted the first military draft in 1863, there were many riots in several major cities including NY. Btwn July 13 and 16 more that 1000 people were killed or wounded as army troops restored peace at gunpoint. To control the Northern insurrection, Lincoln ignored the constitution once again by suspending the right of habeas corpus which made it possible for the govt to imprison its critics w/o formal charges and w/o trial. By fall 1863, Lincoln was becoming increasingly concerned with foreign military presence in Canada and Mexico. His concern over the French in Mexico led to a hasty attack at Sabine Pass at the mouth of the Sabine River separating TX from LA. Sept 8,1863, 47 Texas militia men with 6 cannons chased off a flotilla of union ships composed of 22 transports carrying 5000 yankee troops escorted by 4 gun boats. With France and Britain coming dangerously close to recognizing and aiding the south it was Russia's pro north Czar, Alexander II, who tipped the balance the other way after receiving info that England and France were plotting war to divide the Russian empire. Alexander ordered two Russian fleets to the US in the fall of 1863. One anchored off the VA coast and the other in San Francisco, both in perfect position to attack both British and French commercial shipping lines. No threats or ultimatums were made public, but it was clear that should war come, the Russian navy was in a position to wreak havoc. Due chiefly to the presence of these fleets coupled with the effect of the EP on their constituents, Britain and France declined to intervene for the south as planned. By early 1865 the south had been bled dry both in men and materials. The Mississippi River was in federal hands and union general Sherman had cut the confederacy in two with his infamous march to the sea thru GA. The confederate nation was able to keep an army in the field only because of matchless endurance and determination of its surviving soldiers. Opposing it was a nation which the war had strengthened instead of weakened. The war could only end as it did. The confederacy died because the war had finally worn it out.
We can analyze the hell out of this war, but to truly see it for what it was, we must look at it thru the eyes of those in the middle of it. Unfortuantely, no matter how you paint the picture, it will be tainted with our "future" perspective. Suffice it to say, we can always agree to disagree.
I agree totally with your very last statement in your above post, "we can always agree to disagree" and my how I disagree with almost everything else in your post!
But that is the fun of this board, is it not? To disagree, to debate, to learn? My one area I love to discuss is that the war was about economics instead of slavery. My basic view on the matter is no way did the tariff or anything about economics have anything to do with the war. Please refer to the thread entitled "How did Tariffs Work?" and you will find abundant evidence that the tariff was simply not an issue to force the North and the South into war that would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The rest of my post will have to wait as I must quit this thread for a time. But I promise I will be back to debate a bit more, as per your last comment.
To quote Kenneth C. Davis :Convinced of slavery's immorality, Lincoln was NOT, however, and abolitionist.
He was not an immediate abolitionist. Lincoln favored compensated gradual emancipation.
This was Abraham Lincoln in 1858, NOT Abraham Lincoln in 1864 or 1865. And please give the citation that supports your claim he was willing to keep emancipated blacks out of Illinois.
"How to better the condition of the colored race has long been a study which has attracted my serious and careful attention; hence I think I am clear and decided as to what course I shall pursue in the premises, regarding it a religious duty, as the nation's guardian of these people, who have so heroically vindicated their manhood on the battle-field, where, in assisting to save the life of the Republic, they have demonstrated in blood their right to the ballot, which is but the humane protection of the flag they have so fearlessly defended. The restoration of the Rebel States to the Union must rest upon the principle of civil and political equality of the both races; and it must be sealed by general amnesty." [Abraham Lincoln to James Wadsworth, January, 1864, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 7, pp. 101-102]
Earlier in his political life, Lincoln believed that all blacks should be removed from the US and resettled in some other country
This is true. He abandoned this notion in 1864, but colonization was a concept embraced by the most eminent statesmen of the time. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Henry Clay, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Francis Scott Key, and Daniel Webster all favored colonization. A belief in colonization is not evidence of racism, though. It is evidence the individual believed there was so much rancor caused by slavery that the two races would not be able to live together peacefully once slavery was ended. The behavior of white southerners after the Civil War shows they weren't altogether wrong.
This was the Topeka Constitution, which was rejected by Congress. The Constitution adopted by freesoilers and accepted by Congress was the 1859 Wyandotte Constitution, which had no such exclusion of blacks:
http://www.kshs.org/research/collections/documents/online/wyandotteconstitution.htm
Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union not to emancipate the slaves. During his debates with Stephen Douglass, Lincoln made his position on race quite clear: " I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Once again, that was Abraham Lincoln in 1858, not during the Civil War.
In late 1862 he proclaimed "My paramount object in the struggle is to save the union. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it. If I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
And he wrote this with the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation already written and shown to his cabinet.
(One large reason for sectional friction in the US was not slavery but economics. The south desired to buy cheaper imported European products but the powerful northern manufacturers imposed stiff import tariffs. These tariffs were quickly increased after southern congressmen left Washington in 1861. The industrial north, had no need for slaves because they had immigrants willing to work for very little, while the major planters of the agrarian south were totally dependent on human labor!
Completely wrong. The above paragraph has little resemblence to the actual history.
Slavery was the largest factor in the sectional tensions. The tariff was a comparatively minor irritant. At the time of secession it was at its lowest point in 50 years. And manufacturers do not impose tariffs. Tariffs are imposed by the US Congress, and had to have southern support to get through the Senate.
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery." [Henry Benning to Virginia Secession Convention, 18 Feb 1861]
Southerners primarily bought US-made goods.
In the 1850s there was a movement in the South for direct importation into Southern ports.
"There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation's exports or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these classes in mind when he wrote: 'I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.' One of the fairest of the many English travelers wrote: 'But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale.' " [Robert R. Russel, Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861, pp. 107-108]
The idea that the North was industrialized is another fiction. There was more industry in the North than in the South, but the North was still an agricultural area, not an industrial area. A simple glance at the 1860 Census shows this to be the case. And slavery was abolished in the North not due to economics but due to the influence of the Revolutionary War's philosophy of "all men are created equal." Once again, see Arthur Zilversmit's The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North.
So basically, there were two nations, divided by politics, economy and culture. The north was booming with the industrial revolution and a massive influx of immigrants and the southern states were pretty much at a standstill. They were an agricultural slave based economy that had been the norm since the creation of the nation.
If there were two nations, the reason for the difference was the effect of slavery. And once again, the North was not an industrialized area. It was still an agricultural region.
One of Davis' first acts as president of the confederacy was to dispatch three commissioners to Washington in an attempt to negotiate a settlement with the union. Leading them was VP Alexander Hamilton Stephens of GA.
I'm afraid you may be confusing the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in 1865 with the three commissioners sent to Washington in 1861. The three commissioners were Martin J. Crawford, A. B. Roman, and John Forsyth. Stephens did not accompany them.
At Christmas, before going to Washington, Lincoln had sent Stephens a letter marked "for your eyes only", promising that his administration would not interfere with slavery.
And saying, "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us." [Abraham Lincoln to Alexander Stephens, 22 Dec 1860]
Now Stephens arrived in Washington, hoping to negotiate an end to the crisis.
No, he didn't.
It was purely a political act as obviously he had no authority in those territories but it brought the issue of slavery to the forefront of the conflict.
Wrong again. Slavery was at the forefront from the very beginning. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes] One can say Lincoln had no authority in those territories only if one accepts that secession was a legal act. If, however, one accepts the position of the United States and the US Supreme Court that secession was an unconstitutional act with no legality whatsoever, then Lincoln did indeed have authority in those areas.
In other words it was halfway thru this bloody war that slavery became a central issue!
Wrong again. Protection of slavery had always been the issue for the confederates. The Union's goal for the first half of the war was solely to preserve the Union. In the second half of the war, the Union added the destruction of slavery as a second goal.
The proclamation was a brilliant maneuver as the citizens of neither Britain nor France would have accepted their nations support of slavery and it strengthened Lincolns hand in the N.
Wrong again. Lincoln didn't know what the affect would be on the British or the French. As they saw the E.P. as possibly encouraging servile insurrection, there was as much chance for them to intervene immediately on the issuing of the E.P. as there was for them not to intervene because of it. Additionally, the E.P. was unpopular among the citizens of the North, as the results of the 1862 Congressional elections show us.
When Lincoln instituted the first military draft in 1863,
No. The confederates instituted the first military draft.
there were many riots in several major cities including NY.
There was a draft riot in New York at this time. Which other cities do you contend had riots?
To control the Northern insurrection, Lincoln ignored the constitution once again by suspending the right of habeas corpus which made it possible for the govt to imprison its critics w/o formal charges and w/o trial.
False again. The Constitution provides for suspension of habeas corpus in the event of insurrection or invasion, so it's impossible for him to have ignored the Constitution. And perhaps you can provide the date for this particular suspension?
With France and Britain coming dangerously close to recognizing and aiding the south it was Russia's pro north Czar, Alexander II, who tipped the balance the other way after receiving info that England and France were plotting war to divide the Russian empire. Alexander ordered two Russian fleets to the US in the fall of 1863. One anchored off the VA coast and the other in San Francisco, both in perfect position to attack both British and French commercial shipping lines. No threats or ultimatums were made public, but it was clear that should war come, the Russian navy was in a position to wreak havoc. Due chiefly to the presence of these fleets coupled with the effect of the EP on their constituents, Britain and France declined to intervene for the south as planned.
Wrong again. They were there only to winter in American harbors because Alexander II didn't want them to be bottled up in the Baltic in the event there was a war between Russia and Great Britain. See David H. Donald, Lincoln, p. 468.
The confederacy died because the war had finally worn it out.
The confederacy died because they were beaten militarily.
Unfortuantely, no matter how you paint the picture, it will be tainted with our "future" perspective. Suffice it to say, we can always agree to disagree.
You're allowed your own perspective, you're allowed your own conclusions based on the facts, but you're not allowed your own facts, and as I showed above, in many cases what you claimed as fact was not really true.
The quotes of Lincoln and several other pieces of information were posted to illustrate a point. How can a person, let alone a President, be respected if they flip flop on their position on a very contraversial issue? I care not when he said it, it is the fact that he said it in the first place and then dared to do a complete 180 and assume the position of the savior of the slaves. One minute he wants to send them back to Africa because he doesnt want them on equal footing with whites or taking all the white women and the next he wants to set them free????? Anyone who doesnt have the cajones to stand up for their position, regardless of what anyone else thinks especially when governing a country, isnt worth their weight in salt. Besides, for every book or person I cite, you will simply debunk it with one of your own. I see us at an impass. I will not concede to you, neither will you concede to me (nor do I expect you to). Perhaps some day, though I distinctly hope not, I shall attain the narrow focus it takes for someone to fight so vehemently to prove others wrong.
Bernstein, Iver. The New York City Draft Riots, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990
Cunliffe, Marcus. The Presidency, 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987
Denney, Robert E. The Civil War Years: A Day by Day Chronicle of the Life of a Nation. New Yourk: Sterling, 1992
Donald, David. Why the North Won the Civil War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1960
Holzer, Harold, ed. The Lincoln Douglas Debates: The First Complete Unexpurgated Text. New York: Harper Collins 1983
Schlesinger, Arthur M., JR., ed. The Almanac of American History. New York: Perigee Books, 1983
PS...just a tid bit from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html
Lincoln warned the South in his Inaugural Address: "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.... You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it."
Lincoln thought secession illegal, and was willing to use force to defend Federal law and the Union. When Confederate batteries fired on Fort Sumter and forced its surrender, he called on the states for 75,000 volunteers. Four more slave states joined the Confederacy but four remained within the Union. The Civil War had begun.
Union Blue:
My Dear Sir,
I would like to extend my thanks for making this discussion merely that...an exchange of information and ideas, if you would. I anticipate and look forward to further debates.
cedarstripper
Cash,
A good and thorough post. I'm glad you attended to the point that attitudes and perspectives evolved from the campaign days of the late 1850s to the height of the war. If I may just add a thought about emancipation as a Union cause to fight.
"Wrong again. Protection of slavery had always been the issue for the confederates. The Union's goal for the first half of the war was solely to preserve the Union. In the second half of the war, the Union added the destruction of slavery as a second goal."
The addition of emancipation as a Union goal is often cheapened as merely a political ploy for Europe's sake. It seems obvious (to me at least), that at the expense so far paid in lives in this **** war, a lasting victory and peace demanded that a stake be driven through slavery's heart, less it come back to life to rekindle sectional hatred. What wise man would leave such a thing alive at war's end?
The quotes of Lincoln and several other pieces of information were posted to illustrate a point. How can a person, let alone a President, be respected if they flip flop on their position on a very contraversial issue?
On the issue of slavery he never wavered. He was always against it. On the issue of black equality and voting, he changed his mind because he found out he had been wrong. How can a person, let alone a President, be respected if he refuses to change his mind when he's been proven wrong?
I care not when he said it, it is the fact that he said it in the first place
To claim that what he believed in 1858 was what he believed his entire life is fallacious. I have no respect for a man who is unwilling to change his opinion when he's shown to be wrong. Lincoln was shown to be wrong on the question of black equality and voting, and he had the intellectual integrity to change his opinion based on that new information.
and then dared to do a complete 180 and assume the position of the savior of the slaves.
He did not do a complete 180 on the issue of slavery. He was always against it and always looking for ways to get rid of it. He was in favor of gradual, compensated emancipation, but the war itself was a revolutionizing factor that led to immediate emancipation.
One minute he wants to send them back to Africa because he doesnt want them on equal footing with whites or taking all the white women
He never said anything about "taking all the white women." I think it would be best if we confine ourselves to the actual historical record rather than dreaming up things.
and the next he wants to set them free?????
Setting blacks free was always part of his plan.
Anyone who doesnt have the cajones to stand up for their position, regardless of what anyone else thinks especially when governing a country, isnt worth their weight in salt.
Then you should have a high regard for Lincoln, who stood up for his position that slavery was wrong and should be kept from expanding regardless of what others thought.
Cedarstripper,
Thanks for your kind words. I agree completely. And so did the soldiers:
"I have no heart in this war if the slaves cannot go free." [Chauncey Cooke to Doe Cooke, Jan. 6, 1863]
"[Our cause is] nobler even than the Revolution for they fought for their own freedom while we fight for that of another race. . . . If the doom of slavery is not sealed by the war I shall curse the day I entered the Army or lifted a finger in the preservation of the Union." [Walter Poor to George Fox, May 15, 1861]
"I believe that Slavery (the worst of all curses) was the sole cause of this Rebellion, and untill [sic] this cause is removed and slavery abolished, the rebellion will continue to exist." [George W. Lowe to Elizabeth Lowe, Jan. 18, 1862]
"We are now fighting to destroy the cause of these dangerous diseases, which is slavery and the slave power." [John A. Gillis, Diary entry of July 4, 1862]
"The war will never end until we end slavery." [Edward H. Bassett to family, Dec. 1, 1861]
"I am no abolitionist, but the more I see of slavery in all its enormity the more I am satisfied that it is a curse to our country." [Walter Q. Gresham to Tillie Gresham, March 24, 1862]
"I am doing quite a business in the confiscation of slave property. . . . It certainly makes the rebels wince to see their '******s' taken off which is a source of private satisfaction to me. . . . Crippling the institution of slavery is . . . striking a blow at the heart of the rebellion." [Lucius Hubbard to Mary Hubbard, Sept. 8, 1862]
"Thank God the contest is now between Slavery & freedom, & every honest man knows what he is fighting for." [Constant Hanks to mother, April 20, 1863]
"The God of battle will be with us . . . now that we are fighting for Liberty and Union and not Union and Slavery." [John Q. A. Campbell, Diary entry of Oct. 28, 1862]
"The New York soldier was beginning to see it. The war was changing, and it was no longer being looked upon as a species of tournament between unstained chivalrous knights. It had reached a point now where the fighting of it was turning loose some unpleasant emotional drives. It had become a war against--against slavery, perhaps against the men who owned slaves, by inevitable extension against that man and his family and his goods and chattels who by living with the hated institution seemed to have made war necessary and who in any case were standing in the road when the avengers came." [Bruce Catton, Glory Road, pp. 86-87]
"Increasingly the men ran into the problem of slavery, and as they did they began to encounter an arrogance in the southern attitude toward slavery that increased their own antagonism. Slavery seemed to be central. It was the one sensitive, untouchable nerve-ending, and to press upon it brought anguished cries of outrage that could be evoked in no other way." [Bruce Catton, This Hallowed Ground, p. 224]
"When fugitive slaves came into camp these boys would shelter them; yet there were not really very many cases of this kind, after all, 'and had the owners been satisfied to exercise a little patience when the fugitives could not readily be found the soldiers would soon have got tired of their new playthings and turned every black out of camp
themselves.
"But there was no patience. The slavholder was driven on by a perverse and malignant fate; he could not be patient, because time was not on his side. Protesting bitterly against change, he was forever being led to do the very things that would bring change the most speedily. He was unable to let these heedless Federals get tired of their new playthings. He had to prod them and storm at them, and because he did, the soldiers' attitude hardened and they grew more and more aggressive." [Ibid., p. 225]
While I shall never respect Lincoln in this matter, I do respect your staunch and fierce defense of the actions of the North. You seem very well read and versed in the rationalization of the war and (while I am willing to concede that I do not yet have an immense amount of information to draw from) this has provided me not only more authors to read, but also the valuable lesson that the war is still not over.
Excellent posts above and also very humbling as they reveal just how much more I have to learn. And thanks for saving me all that typing!
Cedarstripper, an excellent response also in your post #552.
Seanachai, THE war is over, take my word for it. It is our 'war' here at CivilWarTalk.com that appears to be THE eternal struggle.
I find myself continually fascinated at how many different interpertations individuals can draw from historical fact. And that is why I continue to view and participate in this board on many threads. Always something new to view, always something new to learn.
Seanachi,
It's interesting to note the dates of the excerpts from letters that Cash provided - all except one are from early in the war, dated before the EP was issued. And consider the lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic written in 1861, that was I imagine sung by a few Union soldiers - ...."as He died to make men holy; we shall die to make men free"... I suspect that throughout the war, the idea of wiping out slavery was not foreign to the average soldier, even if it was no more than to punish the rebels who brought on this war.
MobileBoy
Mobile,Al
You guys are just about all more knowledgable on this subject than me , but basic facts would lead me to conclude that this war was all about economics.Sure slavery and sectionalism were big issues leading to Southern secession.I have heard it argued over and over about which half of the Union (North or South) really needed the other.I have never heard anyone claim the North fought the war at its onset to free the slaves.So why wouldn't the North let the South go.Obviously because the North would have been worse off economically.Otherwise why didn't the powers that be leave the Confederacy alone.I do think Jefferson Davis made a mistake by firing on Fort Sumpter , but we all know Lincoln wasn't going to let the Southern states go anyway.As for how the South would have been they were obviously willing to go it alone so they seemed to believe that they're life would be better.Who knows if they were right.From my perspective slavery was a huge issue with the South.I don't see how you can say it wasn't since many of the politicians were slave owners.Also many of the South's wealthiest men owned plantations.Money always has an influence on politics.To the common Southerner I would think that they probably fought more than anything because they didn't like the idea of a far off govt. telling them what to do , or interfering with their lives.Most of the poeple in the South still feel this way particularly white Southerners.I fail to see how someone who has never lived in the South can have such steadfast opinions on why Southerners felt the way they did back then.I'm not bragging about southern cultural superiority either.In the first place I don't think the South's culture is better but it is different.I just mean the way some poeple in the South view things can't be fully understood unless you live in the region and know the culture.Look at the last election.Why do you think Bush swept the South?If you look at the white vote only he easily got 75% in Alabama.Half of them don't like Bush that much but vote for a Democrat.Most Southern whites just won't do it..Please don't remind me that Lincoln was a Republican I'm talking modern times.I didn't vote for Bush I'm just saying how things are.They associate the democratic party with higher government taxes,wasted govt. spending etch...Apologize for my ADD but its not very hard at all to imagine the vast majority of the Confederate population to strongly favor disunion.My economic theory of the war deals only with why the North wouldn't let the South go.Maybe I'm wrong but it seems clear that it would have damaged the North financially in 1861 and thus the North invaded.That's the point I wanted to make sorry for my rambling guys.
MobileBoy said:
So why wouldn't the North let the South go.Obviously because the North would have been worse off economically.Otherwise why didn't the powers that be leave the Confederacy alone.
Humans have all kinds of motivations, so I won't discount there were some who thought they would be worse off economically.
But if we look at what they wrote, we find a different motivation for the majority. They believed disunion itself to be an evil because they believed it was unconstitutional and because they believed that if any state could secede over any issue it felt like, then there was no way ever to hold the Union together.
Maine, for instance, passed the following resolutions:
[begin quote]
Resolved, That we the people of the State of Maine devotedly cherish the constitution and laws of the United States, and have ever been willing to assist in maintaining the National Union, and to respect faithfully the rights of all its members.
Resolved, That in the present attempt to coerce the government of the United States, and the will of the majority of the people thereof, to the will of the minority, by treason most foul, and rebellion the most unjustifiable, it is the right and the duty of the state to proffer to the national government for its own maintenance and for the suppression of this treason and rebellion. all the means and resources which it can command.
Resolved, That while as a member of the family of the states, we are ever ready to review our course in reference to any seeming infringement of the rights of sister states, still we can never so far forget the pride of our sovereignty, or the dignity of our manhood, as to hold parley with treason or with traitors.
Resolved, That whenever we shall see the sentiment of patriotism and devotion to American liberty manifested in the slave-holding states, we will vie with such states in the restoration of harmony, and will tender to such, every fraternal concession consistent with the security of our own citizens.
Resolved, That it is our right and our solemn purpose, with "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor," to defend to the last our Federal Government, and the strength and the glory of our national capitol, by whatever hands assailed, as the only hope of our own and of the world's freedom and progress.
[end quote]
Minnesota adopted these resolutions on 22 Jan 1861:
1. Resolved, That one of the vital and necessary principles which form the basis of all free governments, is that the constitutional majority must always rule. And therefore, the right of the people of any State to withdraw from the Union, thereby hazarding the liberties and happiness of the millions comprising this Confederacy, can never be acknowledged by us under any circumstances.
We regard secession upon the part of any State as amounting directly to revolution, and precipitating civil war with all its sad train of consequences.
2. Resolved, That the people of the State of Minnesota re-iterate their unalterable devotion to the Constitution of the United States, and that if its provisions are strictly observed, it will, in its own words, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
3. Resolved, That ABRAHAM LINCOLN and HANNIBAL HAMLIN, having been constitutionally and legally elected President and Vice President of the United States, at a general election fully and freely participated in, on the same day, by the people of every State of the Union, South as well as North, that any attempt to dissolve or destroy the Union on account thereof, is without excuse or justification, and should receive the condemnation of every patriot in the land.
4. Resolved, That we have heard with astonishment and indignation of the recent outrages perpetrated at Charleston, South Carolina, by firing upon an American steamer, sailing under the flag of our country, and that we expect of the General Government the strongest and most vigorous effort to assert its supremacy, and to check the work of rebellion and treason. Fully impressed with our duty to make every possible effort to uphold the Union, and to maintain the authority of the General Government, we hereby tender to the President of the United States, for that purpose, through the Governor of this State, aid in men and money, to the extent of our ability.
When one or more States erect the standard of disunion, and place themselves in military array against the Government bequeathed to us by our ancestors, we can discover no other honorable or patriotic resource than to test, both on land and on ocean, the full strength of the Federal authority under our National Flag.
5. Resolved, That we declare to each State of this Union our sincere desire to secure a renewal of that fraternal feeling which ought always to exist between citizens of a common country, and which distinguished the history of the nation for more than half a century. Especially do we express to those patriotic citizens of the Southern States, who have nobly and manfully exerted their utmost effort to prevent the catastrophe of dissolution, our sincere gratitude and highest admiration.
6. Resolved, That the most sincere thanks of the nation are justly due to that distinguished patriot and veteran, Lt. General Winfield Scott for the prompt and decisive steps he has taken to stay the tide of revolution, and for the determined spirit he has evinced in maintaining the honor of our Government.
7. Resolved, That we never will consent or submit to the obstruction of the free navigation of the Mississippi river, from its source to its mouth, by any power hostile to the Federal Government.
8. Resolved, That the Governor of this State is hereby requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to the President of the United States, to Lt. General Winfield Scott, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United States, and to the Governors of the several States.
New Jersey passed these resolutions on 24 Jan 1861:
Whereas, the people of New Jersey, conforming to the opinion of "the Father of his Country," consider the unity of the government, which constitutes the people of the United States one people, a main pillar in the edifice of their independence, the support of their tranquility at home and peace abroad, of their prosperity, and of that liberty which they so highly prize; and properly estimating the immense value of their National Union to their individual happiness, they cherish a cordial, habitual and immovable attachment to it as the palladium of their political safety and prosperity---therefore,
1. Be it resolved by the Senate and General Assembly Of the State of New Jersey, That it is the duty of every good citizen, in all suitable and proper ways, to stand by and sustain the Union of the States as transmitted to us by our fathers.
2. And be it resolved, That the government of the United States is a national government, and the Union it was designed to perfect is not a mere compact or league; and that the constitution was adopted in a spirit of mutual compromise and concession by the people of the United States, and can only be preserved by the constant recognition of that spirit.
3. And be it resolved, That however undoubted way be the right of the general government to maintain its authority and enforce its laws over all parts of the country, it is equally certain that forbearance and compromise are indispensable at this crisis to the perpetuity of the Union, and that it is the dictate of reason, wisdom and patriotism peacefully to adjust whatever differences exist between the different sections of our country.
4. And be it resolved, That the resolutions and propositions submitted to the Senate of the United States by the Hon. John J. Crittenden of Ky., for the compromise of the questions in dispute between the people of the Northern and of the Southern States, or any other constitutional method that will permanently settle the question of slavery, will be acceptable to the people of the State of New Jersey, and the Senators and Representatives in Congress from Now Jersey be requested and earnestly alleged to support those resolutions and propositions.
5. And be it resolved, That as the Union of the States is in imminent danger, unless the remedies before suggested be speedily adopted, then, as a last resort, the State of New Jersey hereby makes application, according to the terms of the constitution, of the Congress of the United States to call a convention (of the States) to propose amendments to said constitution.
6. And be it resolved, That such of the States as have in force laws which interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens of the other States, either in regard to their persons or property, or which militate against, the just construction of that part of the constitution that provides that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," are earnestly urged and requested, for the sake of peace and the Union, to repeal all such laws.
7. And be it resolved, That his Excellency Charles S. Olden, Peter D. Yroom Robert F. Stockton Benjamin Williamson, Joseph F. Randolph, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Rodman M. Price, William C. Alexander, and Thomas J. Stryker be appointed commissioners to confer with Congress and our sister States, and urge upon them the importance of carrying into effect the principles and objects of the foregoing resolutions.
8. And be it resolved, That the commissioners above named, in addition to their other powers, be authorized to meet with those now or hereafter to be appointed by our sister State of Virginia, and such commissioners of other states as have been, or may be hereafter appointed, to meet at Washington on the fourth day of February next.
9. And be it resolved, That copies of the foregoing resolutions be sent to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, and to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from New Jersey, and to the Governors of the several States.
Ohio passed these resolutions on 12 Jan 1861:
1. That the people of Ohio, believing that the preservation of the Unity of Government that constitutes the American people one people, is essential to the support of their tranquility at home, of their peace abroad, of their safety, of their prosperity, and of that very liberty which they so highly prize, are firmly and ardently attached to the National Constitution and the Union of the States.
2. That the General Government cannot permit the secession of any State without violating the obligations by which it is bound, under the compact, to the other States and to every citizen of the United States.
3. That, whilst the constitutional rights of every State in the Union should be preserved inviolate, the powers and authority of the National Government must be maintained, and the laws of Congress faithfully enforced, in every State and Territory, until repealed by Congress or adjudged to be unconstitutional by the proper ,judicial tribunal; and all attempts by State authorities to nullify the Constitution of the United States or the laws of the Federal Government, or to resist the execution thereof, are revolutionary in their character, and tend to the disruption of the best and wisest system of government in the world.
4. That the people of Ohio are inflexibly opposed to intermeddling with the internal affairs and domestic relations of the other States of the Union; in the same manner and to the same extent as they are opposed to any interference by the people of other States with their domestic concerns.
5. That it is the will and purpose of the people of Ohio to fulfil, in good faith, all their obligations under the Constitution of the United States, according to the spirit and intent thereof; and they demand the faithful discharge of the same duty by every State in the Union; and thus, as far as may be, to insure tranquility between the State of Ohio and the other States.
6. That it is incumbent upon any States having enactments on their statute books, conflicting with or rendering less efficient the Constitution or laws of the United States, to repeal them: and it is equally incumbent upon the General Government and the several States to secure to every citizen of the Union his rights in every State under that provision of the Constitution which guarantees to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States, and thus inspire and restore confidence and a spirit of fraternal feeling between the different States of the Union.
7. That the Union loving citizens of those States who have labored, and still labor with devotional courage and patriotism, to withhold their States from the vortex of secession, are entitled to the admiration and gratitude of the whole American people.
8. That we hail with joy, the recent firm, dignified and patriotic special message of the President of the United States, and that the entire power and resources of Ohio, are hereby pledged whenever necessary and demanded, for the maintenance under strict subordination to the civil authority, of the Constitution and Laws of the General Government, by whomsoever administered.
9. That the Governor be requested to forward, forthwith, copies of the foregoing resolutions to the President of the nation, and to the Governors of all the States of the Union, and to each of the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this State, to be by them presented to each branch of the National Legislature.
And on 24 Jan 1861, Pennsylvania passed the following resolutions:
WHEREAS, A Convention of delegates assembled in the city of Charleston, in the State of South Carolina, did on the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, adopt an ordinance entitled "An ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her, under the compact, entitled the Constitution of the United States of America," whereby it is declared that the said Union is dissolved:
AND WHEREAS, It becomes the duty or the people of Pennsylvania, through their representatives in this General Assembly, to make known what they consider to be the objects sought, and the obligations and duties imposed by the Constitution; be it therefore,
Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, In General Assembly met, and it is hereby resolved, That the Constitution of the United States of America, was ordained and established as set forth in its preamble, by the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, and if the people of any State in this Union, are not in the fall enjoyment of all the benefits intended to be secured to them by the said Constitution, if their rights under it are disregarded, their tranquility disturbed, their prosperity retarded, or their liberties imperiled by the people of any other State, full and adequate redress can, and ought to be provided for such grievances, through the action of Congress, and other proper departments of the National Government.
2. Resolved, That the people of Pennsylvania, entertain and desire to cherish "the most fraternal sentiments for their brethren of other States, and are ready now, as they have ever been, to co-operate in all measures needful for their welfare, security and happiness, under the Constitution which makes us one people. That while they cannot surrender their love of liberty inherited from the founders of their State, sealed with the blood of the Revolution, and witnessed in the history of their legislation, and while they claim the observance of all their rights under the Constitution, they nevertheless maintain now, as they have ever done, the Constitutional rights of the people of the slaveholding States, to the uninterrupted enjoyment of their own domestic institutions.
3. Resolved, That we adopt the sentiment and language of President Andrew Jackson, expressed in his message to Congress, on the sixteenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three: "That the right of the people of a single State, to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged; and that such authority is utterly repugnant, both to the principles upon which the general government is constituted, and the objects which it was expressly formed to attain."
4. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States America, contains all the powers necessary to the maintenance of its authority,. and it is the solemn and most imperative duty of the government, to adopt and carry into effect whatever measures may be necessary to that end, and the faith and the power of Pennsylvania, are hereby pledged to the support of such measures, in any manner, and to any extent that may be required of her, by the constituted authorities of the United States.
5. Resolved, That all plots, conspiracies and warlike demonstrations against the United States, in any section of the country, are treasonable in their character, and whatever power of the government is necessary to their suppression, should be applied to that purpose without hesitation or delay.
6. Resolved, That the Governor be, and be is hereby requested to transmit a copy of these Resolutions to the President of the United States, properly attested, under the Great Seal of the Commonwealth, and like attested copies to the Governors of the several States of this Union, and also to our Senators and Representatives in Congress, who are hereby requested to present the same to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.
In his final annual message to Congress, President James Buchanan said,
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments or General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:
The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing the Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant troth to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.
It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether founded upon inference; not from any language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution.
It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed, consequently, by the same authority which formed the State constitutions. Nor is the Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative, executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them directly on persons and things, and, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it.
It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of Confederation were entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States," and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that "the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites that it was established "in order to form a more perfect union." And yet it is contended that this "more perfect union" does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity.
For the majority, then, it was much more than just economics.
Restricted Debate Juneteenth and Slavery as the Primary Cause of the American Civil War Secession, Politics, & Debates (Moderated) 77 Jun 18, 2019
Restricted Debate Slavery as Cause of the Civil War: "Revisionists," "NeoRevisionists," and "Fundamentalists" Secession, Politics, & Debates (Moderated) 371 May 5, 2019
J Restricted Debate Retrieved 2: Slavery as the Primary Cause of the Civil War: the Real Lost Cause Argument. Secession, Politics, & Debates (Moderated) 691 Apr 8, 2019
How Did Slavery Cause Secession - A Discussion Thread Secession, Politics, & Debates (Moderated) 105 Mar 19, 2018
Master List of Quotes Citing Reasons OTHER THAN Slavery as the Principal Cause of Secession Secession, Politics, & Debates (Moderated) 94 Sep 13, 2017
Restricted Debate Juneteenth and Slavery as the Primary Cause of the American Civil War
Restricted Debate Slavery as Cause of the Civil War: "Revisionists," "NeoRevisionists," and "Fundamentalists"
Restricted Debate Retrieved 2: Slavery as the Primary Cause of the Civil War: the Real Lost Cause Argument.
How Did Slavery Cause Secession - A Discussion Thread
Master List of Quotes Citing Reasons OTHER THAN Slavery as the Principal Cause of Secession


text:
Hay County was one of the 26 counties of Western Australia that were designated in 1829 as cadastral divisions. It was named after Robert William Hay, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1825 to 1836. It approximately corresponds to the southeastern Kojonup Land District and northern Plantagenet Land District which form the basis for land titles in the area.

References

Counties of Western Australia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


As of November 30, 2011, the Bureau had 35,704 employees, including 13,864 special agents and 21,840 support professionals (intelligence analysts, language and information technology specialists, scientists, and others) working around the world. The FBI is organized into five functional branches—the National Security Branch; the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch; the Human Resources Branch; the Science and Technology Branch; and the Information and Technology Branch—and the Office of the Director, which contains most of its administrative offices. The Bureau's total budget for fiscal year 2011 was approximately $7.9 billion.
As the FBI's mission and workforce have expanded since September 11, 2001, it has outgrown this aging headquarters building, and has taken additional space in more than 20 annexes throughout the city. Over the past decade, the FBI and GSA—which handles leasing for the agency—have been considering three broad alternatives to meet FBI headquarters needs: modernizing the Hoover Building; demolishing the Hoover Building and constructing a new headquarters on the site of the existing one; and acquiring a new headquarters at a new site. According to a November 2011 GAO report, "the FBI's headquarters facilities—the Hoover Building and the headquarters annexes—do not fully support the FBI's long-term security, space, and building condition requirements." On December 8, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a resolution authorizing GSA to seek a new location for a consolidated FBI headquarters.
In addition to this headquarters building, the FBI maintains 56 field offices (also called divisions) in major metropolitan areas throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. The three largest of these are in Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C. Within the field office areas are a nearly 400 additional "resident agencies" located in smaller cities and towns. More than 60 international offices, known as "legal attachés," are housed in U.S. embassies throughout the world.
Many specialized FBI functions, including a training academy with a mock city and 1.1-mile driving track, are located on a 385-acre complex in Quantico, Virginia. The Bureau maintains a Criminal Justices Information Service "data campus" on 986 acres of land in Clarksburg, West Virginia. The heart of this campus is a 500,000-square-foot office building completed in 1995 that contains a 100,000-square-foot computer center. The FBI also operates a records management and call center facility in Winchester, Virginia.


Should E-Cigarettes Be Included in No-Smoking Bans?
Cities and states are starting to approve bans on vaping in public places, such as bars and restaurants.
At one point in history, smoking cigarettes was permitted almost anywhere. Outdoors and indoors, from offices to hospitals, it didn't matter, especially on television.
It took decades — after the objective and uncompensated medical community was settled on the science that secondhand smoke was as harmful as firsthand smoke — to ban the use of traditional combustible tobacco products in many public places.
Then came electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), more commonly known now among teenagers as "juuling," the branded form of ingesting vaporized nicotine solutions in a variety of flavors. They're marketed as a way for smokers to quit cigarettes without quitting nicotine.
Now, this "safer" form of smoking is being banned even quicker than traditional cigarettes, mainly because advocates are lumping them in with existing laws.
It's yet another example of regulation that's attempting to keep pace with new technology, and one that advocates of the bans say protect the health of others.
Opponents of the bans, particularly those funded by e-cigarette manufacturers, say the bans are going too far.
The modern e-cigarette was invented in 2003 by Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik.
For more than a decade before "No E-Cigarettes" signs hung next to "No Smoking" ones, users were puffing away on their glowing-end devices in places where traditional smoking had been banned, including restaurants, workplaces, airports, and even hospitals.
As e-cigs and vaping had a technological workaround for the traditional smoking bans, more countries, states, cities, counties, and municipalities have passed bans on using any type of inhaled nicotine delivery system. Among the latest is Decatur, Alabama.
Last week the city's council voted to ban the use of e-cigarettes in nearly all businesses in the city of fewer than 56,000 people. E-cigarettes are now subject to the same restrictions as the city's 2007 ban that applied to cigarettes and cigars.
Decatur joined hundreds of other cities that put e-cigarettes in the same category as traditional smoked tobacco products, at least in terms of where people can and can't use them.
Florida voters recently passed an amendment to its constitution that bans vaping indoors under other clean air provisions. It became the 10th state to pass such a prohibition.
Hervé Damas, MD, a former professional football player turned Miami physician, says he believes these bans will become more common because the data shows there's been an increase in teen usage of nicotine products, specifically Juul.
Whether from cigarettes or vaping, public health advocates say those who ingest nicotine through methods that are exhaled pose a risk to those around them.
That risk is exposing the unwilling public to a substance that's been proven to be addictive.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) didn't start regulating e-cigarettes the same as tobacco-filled products until 2016.
Essentially, these bans are saying if you consume nicotine in a process that involves your lungs, it isn't welcome in a place where people regularly share air.
Advocates of smoking bans had to stand up against well-funded attorneys and lobbyists with mounds of paperwork to unequivocally prove that not only was nicotine one of the most addictive legalized substances, but that smoking cigarettes were harmful to human health.
Similar battle lines have been drawn in the debate over whether to prevent bans on e-cigarettes or not.
In California, where lawmakers were pushing for a statewide ban on vaping indoors, circulated a study out of England that stated e-cigarettes were about 95 percent less harmful than tobacco. An e-cigarette manufacturer paid the main researcher.
California's statewide ban took effect in April 2016.
Overall, some research suggests most people are uncertain about the safety of e-cigarettes and view them as a safer alternative to smoking.
Vaping is becoming increasingly popular with teens, reducing years of decline in teen smoking rates.
Still, vaping advocates say the products aren't for children but shouldn't be treated the same as tobacco products, especially in being banned from open public spaces, such as parks and beaches.
One of the groups that advocates for business owners to decide if they should allow vaping, including in bars and restaurants, calls itself Vaper Rights.
It's a website run for "adult e-vapor consumers and other interested stakeholders" by Nu Mark, an offshoot of Altria, the tobacco giant that now owns 35 percent of Juul.
Now that the FDA is contemplating banning most flavored e-cigarettes from being sold in stores, Juul is ramping up its lobbying power in Washington, D.C.


DECAPANTE COLOR.IT allows you to easily change color, without affecting the natural pigment or attack the oxidized, leaving the hair soft. No damage you can delete the old color oxidation with 1 or 2 applications, each application decappa 2/3 tones. It contains no ammonia or Whitener, not decappa tone on tone colors and color direct.
method of use : Mix equal parts of A + B. Apply to dry hair, cover with a plastic shower cap and leave on for 15/20 minutes under a heat source. Rinse thoroughly, make a shampoo and apply a lock on the soft detector to verify that all the artificial pigments have been removed. If the color reappears again repeat the application. Dry and apply the new color.
partial correction : If a color looks too dark and you want to lighten the tone, apply the product on damp hair, cover with a plastic shower cap and leave on for 10/15 minutes. When you reach the height of the desired tone and make the shampoo rinse.
box: 150 ml bottle in a box of 2 pcs.


text:
// --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// <copyright file="UnitModel.cs" company="Hukano">
// Copyright (c) Hukano. All rights reserved.
// Licensed under the MIT license. See LICENSE file in the project root for full license information.
// </copyright>
// --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

namespace Sundew.Quantities.Generator;

public class UnitModel
{
    public UnitModel(string identifier, string unit, string name)
    {
        this.Identifier = identifier;
        this.Unit = unit;
        this.Name = name;
    }

    public string Identifier { get; }

    public string Unit { get; }

    public string Name { get; }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Albyn Gallery | an online gallery of spectacular modern artwork.
Welcome to Albyn Gallery – an online gallery of spectacular modern artwork. Albyn Gallery is an online representation of artwork on view in our gallery in Aberdeen, Scotland.
Albyn Gallery specialises in modern art by several living artists and also boasts some classic pieces. We have works by: Bill Mack; Martiros Manoukian; Dorit Levi; Michael Godard; Allison Lefcort and Pino. There are a variety of pieces from Chagall, Erté, Picasso and others.
Please feel free to explore the works for sale, by selecting from the panels to the right of each page (or scroll to the bottom of each page if you're using a smartphone). You can view the works by individual ARTIST or PRICE categories and also by using the TAG CLOUD. You can also visit the artists' own websites from here.
We hope you enjoy roaming around the gallery and look forward to hearing from you. To request further information, to make an offer on an item, or to arrange a private viewing of the art works, you can send us an email or call 07831 193 409.
The gallery owner is a long time supporter of Befriend a Child. Established in 1975, Befriend A Child is Scotland's oldest befriending service for disadvantaged children. It works with social workers, care homes, health visitors, and other charities to support children aged from 5 to 12 and in some cases up to the age of 18. A donation is made from the proceeds of each sale.


There is nothing like living at home by Godrej Properties.
Godrej Properties is a reputed real estate developer active in 12 cities of India with approx. 11.06 million sq. meter land bank. This real estate developer strive to create sustainable value for their investors. Over the years Godrej Properties have built homes that are luxurious and comfortable. Driven by meticulousness, they create living spaces that are well-organized, large and Vaastu Compliant. A home by this group is a work of art and standard for other real estate developer in India. It is their excellent attention to quality and planning pooled with easy & transparent procedures and transactions that make every home an excellent investment. They follow meticulousness in every development.
Stylish, well-organized, large & open, and well-planned, a Godrej Property matches the different tastes of their customers. And loads of consideration goes into every development. They always strive to confirm that every single penny you spend goes that extra mile in presenting you satisfaction & happiness.
Advantageous Location - Comfort and peace of mind are of supreme importance for them. That's why each and every Godrej Property is built on carefully selected locations that assure about peacefulness and every metropolitan comfort.
Reasonability in Price - Their center of attention continues to remain on offering you luxury at a very reasonable price. Therefore, they offer the best facilities & services that make living in a Godrej Properties Home an absolute satisfaction.
Vaastu Compliance - A Vaastu Compliant property connects with positive energy to make living a happy and full of energy experience. And this real estate developer makes sure that all their homes follow the basic principles of Vaastu Shastra.
Amenities - Every home is prepared with the best & up to day amenities that ensure great comfort and lavishness.
Design - Balanced on the pillars of space, comfort, and well-organized design, every home offers supreme living spaces that bring stylish and comfortable luxury.
Safety features - Safety of the residents matters most at Godrej Properties. That's why their every property is outfitted with top-of-the-line security systems that make living an undisturbed practice.


You guys know I am picky about who I let on the blog. You should also know I am totally stoked about the book I am sharing with you today.
My friend and fantastic author Patty--I'm sure she hates it when I call her that--has a cover reveal.


For the best limo service in Irving, Prime Limo is the company to contact. Established in 2011, Primo Limo specializes in limo rentals services in Irving. At the core of its business standards is a fleet of luxurious vehicles that are kept smoke free and clean. The company serves hundreds of clients on a daily basis and offers airport transportation services, limo rental services for weddings, prom dates as well as corporate events. The firm's team of qualified chauffeurs is more than capable of handling any client's transportation needs.
Committed to offering the highest standards of local transportation comfort, DFW Ground Link Transportation is one of the largest limo companies in Texas. The company is present in over ten cities in the state, including Irving. To be able to cater to its vast client base, DFW Ground Link Transportation boasts of vehicles from some of the most reliable and trusted names in the automotive world. Some of the vehicle brands available to clients include Lincolns, BMW, Hummer and more.
2010 marked the birth of Irving Taxi Cab & Limo Service. Upon its formation, the company hit the ground running and in a span of just six years has grown into one of the most reputed Irving limo service providers. Every, Irving Taxi Cab & Limo Service client enjoys prompt and comfortable services. Also, the company customizes its services to meet the specific needs of each of its clients. Thus, the firm's drivers are always available to transport clients to different parties and events at cheap rates.
Taxi Hub Dallas is a taxi service company founded ten years ago by Shakil Ahmed. Present in Dallas, Irving and Fort Worth, Taxi Hub Dallas, offers an unrivaled selection of quality vehicles. The business' fleet of comfortable and top of the line vehicles includes town cars, stretch limos and yellow cabs. Thus, Taxi Hub Dallas can transport clients to wherever they want to go at low prices. Additionally, the company is available 24/7 and covers the entire Irving areas as well as the whole of DFW metropolis.


Diann Uustal wears many caps.
She's a registered nurse specializing in palliative care; a doctor of education who helps families deal with the imminent death of loved ones; one of the world's top medical ethicists; the author of nine books; president of her own company; an in-demand speaker worldwide; a triathlon coach; a world-record holding masters swimmer and a grandmother.
But we're not talking to her for any of those many, worthy reasons. She's here because she's the 2013 winner of the Growing Bolder Inspiration Award, which is handed out every year at the Rowdy Gaines Masters Classic.
Diann survived two horrendous accidents and both times, doctors said she most likely would never walk again. But her recovery has been nothing short of amazing.
We talk to Diann about her incredible comebacks and how she manages to not only compete at such a high level but just live while dealing daily with chronic pain.
She explains how swimming and some extraordinary medical personnel saved her life and why goal setting was crucial to her recovery.


The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC) and Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) call upon all Federal Senators not to pass the legislation of the 'Stronger Futures Northern Territory 2011 Bill'.
The ACBC and CRA are concerned that the Stronger Futures Legislation expands the powers of the current legislation and will be set in place for 10 years.
"We urge the Federal Government to abandon this legislation and develop strategies based on trust and respect which will promote collaboration with the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory in decision-making relating to their future", they said.
"The Northern Territory National Emergency Response has achieved some success and we can learn from these successes. We see this success particularly in housing, employment and education. However, the response is also the source of many problems. The legislation before the Senate extends many aspects of "the intervention" and continues to raise serious human rights concerns", they said.
The ACBC and CRA propose the development of an alternative response to the problems, based on consultation sensitive to Aboriginal culture.
"We need to listen to the Aboriginal people. They are asking for their rights as human beings and citizens of this country to be respected. Deep spiritual and cultural issues must be paramount in any legislation".
"The way forward needs to be principled, promoting self-determination, enabling participation in decision-making and ensuring free, prior and informed consent".
This entry was posted in Press Releases on May 5, 2012 by Mark Wei.


Opel plans to start selling an all-electric compact car no later than by 2017 as the automaker is striving to meet EU emission targets, Automobilwoche reported on Sunday.
The GM division last September announced a price cut for the Ampera of almost 8,000 euros in Europe's biggest car market for the model which can travel between 40-80 kilometers electrically and a further 500 km with a combustion engine range extender.
Opel's new electric model would be launched as part of a small-car offensive that in 2015 may also bring to the market the "City" vehicle, due to cost less than 10,000 euros and rival Volkswagen's Up subcompact, Automobilwoche said.


text:
Ado Bayero CFR, LLD, JP (25 July 1930 – 6 June 2014) was the Emir of Kano from 1963 to 2014.

Early life

Lineage
Ado Bayero was born on 25 July 1930 into the royal family of the Fulani Sullubawa clan that has ruled over the Emirate of Kano since 1819. His father was Abdullahi Bayero and mother Hajiya Hasiya. He was the eleventh child of his father and the second of his mother. At the age of seven, he was sent to live with Maikano Zagi. His father reigned for 27 years. Muhammadu Sanusi I who was Ado Bayero's half brother ruled after their father from 1953 to 1963. Following his dethronement in 1963, Muhammadu Inuwa ascended the throne for three months.

Early life and education
He started his education in Kano studying Islam, after which he attended Kano Middle School (Rumfa College, Kano). He graduated from the School of Arabic Studies in 1947. He then worked as a bank clerk for the Bank of British West Africa until 1949, when he joined the Kano Native Authority. He attended Zaria Clerical College in 1952. In 1954, he won a seat to the Northern regional House of Assembly.

He was head of the Kano Native Authority police division from 1957 until 1962, during which he tried to minimize the practice of briefly detaining individuals and political opponents on the orders of powerful individuals in Kano. He then became the Nigerian Ambassador to Senegal, during this time he enrolled in a French language class.

Reign

Accession
After the death of Emir Muhammadu Inuwa who ruled for three months only, Ado Bayero was crowned the Emir of Kano on October 22, 1963, becoming the 13th Fulani Emir of Kano and the 56th ruler of Kano.

1960s
Bayero became emir during the first republic, at a time when Nigeria was going through rapid social and political changes and regional, sub-regional and ethnic discord was increasing. In his first few years, two pro-Kano political movements gained support among some Kano elites. The Kano People's Party emerged during the reign of Muhammadu Inuwa and supported the deposed Emir Sanusi, but it soon evaporated. The Kano State Movement emerged towards the end of 1965 and favored more economic autonomy for the province.

The death in 1966 of many political agitators from northern Nigeria, and the subsequent establishment of a unitary state, consolidated a united front in the northern region but also resulted in a spate of violence there, including in Kano. Bayero's admirers credit him with bringing calm and stability during this and later crises in Kano.

1970s
The constitutional powers of the emir were whittled down by the military regimes between 1966 and 1979. The Native Authority Police and Prisons Department was abolished, the emir's judicial council was superseded by another body, and local government reforms in 1968, 1972, and 1976 reduced the powers of the emir.

1980s
During the second republic, he witnessed hostilities from the People's Redemption Party led government of Abubakar Rimi. Bayero's Palace plays host to official visits by many government personnel and foreigners, but in 1981 Governor Abubakar Rimi restricted traditional homage paid by village heads to Ado Bayero and excised some domains from his emirate.

In 1984, a travel ban was placed on the emir and his friend Okunade Sijuwade. Although the military are sometimes seen as relying on traditional rulers for support, many military regimes in the past reduced the powers of traditional rulers such as Bayero.

Later years
As emir, he became a patron of Islamic scholarship and embraced Western education as a means to succeed in a modern Nigeria. He was a vocal critic of the terrorist group Boko Haram and strongly opposed their campaign against western education. On 19 January 2013, he survived an assassination attempt blamed on the Islamist group which left two of his sons injured and his driver and bodyguard dead, among others. A prime suspect confessed to have participated in the attack on the Emir's motorcade and so many other co-ordinated attacks in the state which led to the arrest of six others.

Death and succession
On 6 June 2014, after fifty-one years on the throne, Ado Bayero died in his palace Gidan Rumfa. A bitter succession struggle over who'd succeed him emerged within the royal family between the Bayero and Sanusi houses. His eldest son and heir, Sanusi Ado Bayero was considered the natural successor and initial reports announced him as Emir. On 8 June 2014, his grand nephew Sanusi Lamido Sanusi was crowned Emir of Kano. His son, Sanusi Ado in protest decided to leave Kano and in 2015, he was stripped of all his titles, after refusing to pay allegiance to Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi.

Legacy
Bayero was the longest-serving emir in Kano's history. He was seen as one of Nigeria's most prominent and revered Muslim leaders who was a successful businessman and had worked as a banker, police officer, MP and diplomat. Ado Bayero was the 13th Fulani Emir since the Fulani War of Usman dan Fodio, when the Fulani took over the Hausa city-states. He was one of the strongest and most powerful emirs in the history of the Hausa land. He was renowned for his abundant wealth, maintained by means of stock market investments and large-scale agricultural entrepreneurship both at home and abroad.

References

BBC, Nigeria: The Rioting in Kano, The British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, July 13, 1981.
"Alhaji (dr.) Ado Bayero: 40 Years of Service to Humanity", Daily Trust, October 13, 2003.
http://saharareporters.com/news-page/emir-kano-dead

Emirs of Kano
Ambassadors of Nigeria to Senegal
1930 births
2014 deaths
Rumfa College alumni


text:
Q: How to have a cache when there is no connection in my app? I created a simple social app ,i'm using a Mysql database ,what i'm looking for is how to make the app work even without any connection , what i mean is how to have a cache of the data to get the the last update when the connection was here .
Thank you.

A: You have to have a local database. SQLite is probably your best option. It will have to mirror your main database and then allow synch operations when connections are available.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


SEAS-ERA funded project: EMoSEM Executive Summary - Now Available!
One of the leading challenges in marine science and governance is to improve scientific guidance of management measures to mitigate eutrophication nuisances in the EU seas. Too few approaches integrate the eutrophication process in space (continuum river-ocean) and in time (past, present and future status). A strong need remains for (i) knowledge/identification of all the processes that control eutrophication and its consequences, (ii) consistent and harmonized reference levels assigned to each eutrophication-related indicator, (iii) identification of the main rivers directly or indirectly responsible for eutrophication nuisances in specific areas, (iv) an integrated transboundary approach and (v) realistic short term and long term nutrient reduction scenarios. As a step in this direction, the main objective of EMoSEM was to link the eutrophication nuisances in specific marine regions of the North-East Atlantic (NEA) to river anthropogenic inputs, trace back their sources up to the watersheds, then test nutrient reduction options that might be implemented in these watersheds and propose consistent indicators and reference levels to assess Good Environmental Status (GEnS).


Chartbuilder is an open-source tool that helps anyone with data create simple, good-looking charts—no more screenshots from Excel or government PDFs. It began as a tool for the Quartz newsroom, empowering all of our reporters to make their own charts in our house style. In July 2013, we open-sourced the code behind Chartbuilder, so anyone could use and build on the tool. It's now regularly used in newsrooms ranging from FiveThirtyEight to NPR to CNBC, transforming how visual journalism is done and who can do it. Developers, meanwhile, have contributed back to the open-source project, improving Chartbuilder for everyone. It's a shining example of open-source journalism having a real and immediate impact on news production.


Harvest Church is seeking qualified, well educated, spiritually mature individuals to come and be a part of our team. Full-time permanent employees receive a variety of benefits. If you are interested in employment at Harvest, please email a professional copy of your resume, including references and salary requirements to hr@hfcnc.org.