Today's American History lesson.

[JoeB131]

My dad was union and we had to endure occaisonal strikes. One lasting seven months But he supported a family of six on one income, bought a house, sent four kids to college and retired at 60.
Can't find many jobs like that today
Union workers didn't get rich. But they earned a decent living

Maybe. But here was the thing. Those jobs were very expensive to maintain, and it was next to impossible to fire someone, even if they needed firing.

Now, I've been screwed over by enough employers to really wish I had a union, but I've also worked in sectors where you had guys who were union who should have been fired for laziness, incompetence and even outright larceny.

So what's the happy medium?

i really don't know.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing about that... you're full of shit.
It is your ignorant and inaccurate opinion they were fighting to defend slavery. As I pointed out, they didn't even own slaves. It's not up to you to decide what deserves remembrance and remembrance doesn't necessarily mean honor. There are many reasons to remember something, honor is only one.

I agree, we should tear down all those statues and put up statues of tortured slaves. "THIS IS WHAT YOU REDNECKS FOUGHT FOR!!!"

I don't really care that the stupid, inbred rednecks thought they were fighting for. That they were too dumb or too immoral to say, "I don't own any slaves, not my problem", that's on them.

Except FACTS! The abolition movement began with Quaker ministers. Furthermore, it was a Baptist minister (MLK) who championed Civil Rights in the 1960s. It is a Christian worldview that people are equal in the eyes of God. It is a Darwinian worldview they are not equal because of evolution. I'm sorry that's not penetrating your bigoted head.

Except that's not what Darwinan worldview says. First, all humans are the same species, so they aren't any better or worse. Second, natural selection doesn't hold that any adaptation is 'better', merely that they are better adapted to it's environment. Neanderthals did very well during the Ice Age because they were adapted to that. When the Ice age ended, so did they. It's actually a very consistant world view.

Christianity, on the other hand, says slavery is fine, unless it's happening to you, in which case not so much. Slaughtering people who have another religion or happen to be on land you want is fine. Killing people because you don't like the kind of sex they are having is fine.

What is fucked up about Christianity is that no matter what you advocate, you can find a verse in the bible to back you up, no matter how fucked up it is.

God didn't change his mind on slavery or witches or racism, so we changed ours.

What some humans are capable of doing doesn't change what they are. Look at yourself, for instance. You are incapable of reasoned and rational thought. Your views are ignorant and bigoted. Yet, you are still a human being.

Sadly, unable to make a real argument on choice issues, you resort to insults.

Here's the reality. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, SHE WILL FIND A WAY TO NOT BE PREGNANT.

There were just as many abortions happening before Roe as there were after Roe. Don't believe me? Then just take a look at the birth rate numbers for the 1970's. There was NOT a huge drop in 1973. It actually started increasing in 1975.

So what do you think all those women who had unwanted pregnancies did before 1972? They had abortions, and the doctors wrote down something else on the chart. Nobody was ever arrested or prosecuted for it.

 

[Slash]

No, they certainly did not and you've not supported that view in spite of my challenge to do so.

I showed you 8 quotes where they did. That's why the Case was won, the burden of proof was on if the secession when it occured was legal or not. The Court ruled that was rebellion not secession.


Again... because your head is apparently made of granite... The court cannot rule something illegal that was perfectly legal at the time. That would be to RETROACTIVELY change history and courts do not hold such authority, neither do you.

And in the case, when the Supreme Court decided based on their interpretation of the Constitution that the Constitution which was written well before the secession, said that the secession was not legal. NOWHERE DID ANY RULING SAY SECESSION WAS LEGAL. IN FACT THE CONSTITUTION SAID IT WAS NOT. THAT"S WHAT THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON AND THEIR VERDICT.

Just like if you kill someone trying to get in your house and think that's legal, but the court proves you had invited them in and convicts you of murder. What you did was not in fact legal.

Well that's what you keep baselessly claiming but it's just not true. They cannot retroactively rule something illegal that wasn't illegal. Legality requires LAW to be passed and you already admitted no law was passed. The court doesn't pass laws.

They didn't retroactively rule that. They ruled that the secession broke the law of the Constitution. The Court doesn't pass laws. No new laws were passed. They broke the Constitution. The Supreme court even quoted the Constitution. Like you say, they can't retroactively rule something illegal that wasn't illegal. They ruled something illegal that WAS illegal.


In an 1869 ruling AFTER the Civil War! Before the Civil War, this finding did not exist, therefore, you cannot claim it applied. Now... if SCOTUS had ruled in 1859 that states cannot secede, you could argue that secession was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the SCOTUS ruling in 1869 did not rule secession unconstitutional or illegal. You have not proven that argument... you keep presenting it as if it's valid and true, but you cannot support it with any evidence other than your wrongheaded interpretation in a case regarding the validity of bond sales.

The Constitution that they based their ruling on was the law of the land when the Secession occured. Yes they did rule it illegal, it was the entire burden of proof on the case. This was a supreme court case on the legality of the secession that led to the Civil war. It said that those states never left the Union as the Union was perpetual. Therefore they were in rebellion. They said the war was a supression of rebellion.

Again, the Supreme Court can NOT judge retroactively. They can not say "Under this new law, that wasn't in place when you took that action, you are guilty". That did not happen. There was no retroactive implementation of law. They also don't judge on hypotheticals. What they judged on is reality. What they said is those states were in rebellion, and did not secede.

I get you don't like that ruling. But it's as clear of a ruling as you can have. It's the ruling under the powers the Constitution gave the Supreme Court. It was based on the Constitution calling to form "more perfect Union".

You can argue which you have that they were ignorant of that, but ignorance is not an excuse. You could argue that they felt that's taking the interpretation too far, but that's the Court to decide (just like if you argue that killing someone didn't fit the crime of murder, but are convicted of it, your argument is null, it was murder).


This is as basic a tenet of the US as we can have here.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.

The USA had slavery for 89 years.

The USA ended slavery.

The confederacy committed treason and killed more than 50K to keep it.

They lost.
The USA won.

Don't like it?

LEAVE.

[emoji844]


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Boss]

I agree, we should tear down all those statues and put up statues of tortured slaves. "THIS IS WHAT YOU REDNECKS FOUGHT FOR!!!"

I don't really care that the stupid, inbred rednecks thought they were fighting for. That they were too dumb or too immoral to say, "I don't own any slaves, not my problem", that's on them.

No we don't agree because I think the statues should stay. They should be a reminder of where we've come from. We should teach young people to not be offended but be resilient instead. Use the statues as a focal point for a serious conversation about our past. Removing statues because we find them offensive is the wrongheaded view and should be rejected. It's an affront to freedom of expression.

Except FACTS! The abolition movement began with Quaker ministers. Furthermore, it was a Baptist minister (MLK) who championed Civil Rights in the 1960s. It is a Christian worldview that people are equal in the eyes of God. It is a Darwinian worldview they are not equal because of evolution. I'm sorry that's not penetrating your bigoted head.

Except that's not what Darwinan worldview says. [it's exactly what it says] First, all humans are the same species, so they aren't any better or worse. [Darwinism proves it] Second, natural selection doesn't hold that any adaptation is 'better', merely that they are better adapted [ergo: BETTER!] to it's environment. Neanderthals did very well during the Ice Age because they were adapted to that. [ergo: BETTER!] When the Ice age ended, so did they. [ergo: NOT BETTER!] It's actually a very consistant world view. [INDEED!]

Christianity, on the other hand, says slavery is fine, [NO IT DOESN'T] unless it's happening to you, in which case not so much. Slaughtering people who have another religion or happen to be on land you want is fine. Killing people because you don't like the kind of sex they are having is fine.

Go down Moses
Way down in Egypt land
Tell all pharaoes to
Let my people go!

What some humans are capable of doing doesn't change what they are. Look at yourself, for instance. You are incapable of reasoned and rational thought. Your views are ignorant and bigoted. Yet, you are still a human being.

Sadly, unable to make a real argument on choice issues, you resort to insults.

Here's the reality. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, SHE WILL FIND A WAY TO NOT BE PREGNANT.

There were just as many abortions happening before Roe as there were after Roe. Don't believe me? Then just take a look at the birth rate numbers for the 1970's. There was NOT a huge drop in 1973. It actually started increasing in 1975.

So what do you think all those women who had unwanted pregnancies did before 1972? They had abortions, and the doctors wrote down something else on the chart. Nobody was ever arrested or prosecuted for it.

None of this changes what defines a human being.

 

[JoeB131]

No we don't agree because I think the statues should stay. They should be a reminder of where we've come from. We should teach young people to not be offended but be resilient instead. Use the statues as a focal point for a serious conversation about our past. Removing statues because we find them offensive is the wrongheaded view and should be rejected. It's an affront to freedom of expression.

No, we aren't removing them because we are offended. We are removing them because a statue is a mark of honor. These people don't deserve to be honored, or revered. Having a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest in a noble equestrian probe takes away from the fact he murdered black POW's during the war and after the war founded the terrorist KKK. We can have a serious talk about that without giving him honors he doesn't deserve.

None of this changes what defines a human being.

Um, yeah, it actually kind of does.

You see, even in the bad old days when Abortion was illegal, they NEVER, EVER prosecuted women for having them. And even the Anti-Abortion crowd wiffles away from saying they will charge women with murder.

Now, if you guys REALLY AND TRULY BELIEVE That THIS

Is every bit as human as THIS

then you should advocate putting women who have abortions IN PRISON.

You don't. Oh, you all talk a lot of smack about going after the doctors, but the doctors wouldn't be able to perform any abortions if the women didn't walk into their office and say, "I want it gone!!!"

 

[Boss]

I showed you 8 quotes where they did. That's why the Case was won, the burden of proof was on if the secession when it occured was legal or not. The Court ruled that was rebellion not secession.

No, you showed me your interpretation. The case you're talking about is from after the war in 1869 and has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of secession. Those are YOUR interpretations, which are fine, but the issue of constitutionality isn't settled. There is currently a movement in California to secede.

Just like if you kill someone trying to get in your house and think that's legal, but the court proves you had invited them in and convicts you of murder. What you did was not in fact legal.

I have a BETTER analogy... It's like arguing suicide is illegal. You can SAY it is all day long... how do you prosecute that? Truth is, you can't. If someone ATTEMPTS suicide, that's not a crime, they didn't commit suicide. Same with secession... had the South won independence, a US Court ruling is irrelevant.

 

[JoeB131]

Except FACTS! The abolition movement began with Quaker ministers. Furthermore, it was a Baptist minister (MLK) who championed Civil Rights in the 1960s. It is a Christian worldview that people are equal in the eyes of God. It is a Darwinian worldview they are not equal because of evolution. I'm sorry that's not penetrating your bigoted head.

Except that's not what Darwinan worldview says. [it's exactly what it says] First, all humans are the same species, so they aren't any better or worse. [Darwinism proves it] Second, natural selection doesn't hold that any adaptation is 'better', merely that they are better adapted [ergo: BETTER!] to it's environment. Neanderthals did very well during the Ice Age because they were adapted to that. [ergo: BETTER!] When the Ice age ended, so did they. [ergo: NOT BETTER!] It's actually a very consistant world view. [INDEED!]

It's difficult to discuss Science with a religious slug. You are giving a moral value to adaptation, when it has none.

Christianity, on the other hand, says slavery is fine, [NO IT DOESN'T] unless it's happening to you, in which case not so much. Slaughtering people who have another religion or happen to be on land you want is fine. Killing people because you don't like the kind of sex they are having is fine.

Go down Moses
Way down in Egypt land
Tell all pharaoes to
Let my people go!

Except the bible doesn't say that. The bible specifically says that the Hebrews were NOT slaves, that they were merely residents of Egypt who were not allowed to practice their own religion.

Also, total bullshit, there's not one bit of evidence the Hebrews resided in Egypt during the New Kingdom, but let's move on.

The bible does say that Slavery is fine. Let's go with a list, shall we?

(I apologize to everyone else for the length of this list.)

Bible stories that show God's approval of slavery:After the flood, the "just and righteous" Noah (Genesis 6:9, 7:1) got drunk, and lay around naked in his tent. When his son, Ham, saw his father in this condition, Noah cursed not Ham, but Ham's son, Canaan, and all of Canaan's descendants, saying, "A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." This is one of many Bible passages that have been used to justify slavery.

And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. Genesis 9:25-27

God blessed Abraham by giving him lots of slaves ("servants" in the KJV), insisting that all the male slaves be circumscised.And the LORD hath blessed my master [Abraham] greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses. Genesis 24:35
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised. Genesis 17:12-13

When Sarah's slave Hagar flees from Sarah who is mistreating her (with Abraham's blessing), God sends an angel to tell her to go back to her abusive owner.Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. ... And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her. hands. Genesis 16:8-9

Abraham's favorite son Isaac was also a proud slave owner. You can tell how great he was by how many slaves he owned.Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants. Genesis 26:12-14

God cursed the Gibeonites to be slaves of the Jews forever.Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God. ... And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day. Joshua 9:23-27

Rules for slave owners from the Hebrew Scriptureson't let any of your uncircumcised slaves eat the Passover meal.But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. Exodus 12:44

Don't covet your neighbor's slaves. (It's one of the the Ten Commandments.)Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Exodus 20:17

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's. Deuteronomy 5:21

When buying slaves, be sure to follow God's instructions. Espeically if you are a priest, buying a poor brother, or selling your daughter. Although special rules apply for Hebrew slaves, it's always OK to buy foreigners, who can be inherited from one generation to another forever.If thou buy a Hebrew servant.... Exodus 21:2

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee....Deuteronomy 15:12

If the priest buy any soul with his money.... Leviticus 22:11

And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee....Leviticus 25:39

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.... Exodus 21:7

Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever. Leviticus 25:44-46

But don't get caught stealing a slave, or you'll be put to death.He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:16

If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die. Deuteronomy 24:7

It's OK with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death. After all, they are your money. Just make sure that they survive at least a day or two after the beating. But try not to knock out their teeth or eyes. Otherwise you may have to set them free.If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Exodus 21:20-21

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. Exodus 21:26-27

If your ox gores ("pushes" in the KJV) someone's slave, pay the slave owner thirty shekels of silver.If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver. Exodus 21:32

Sell poor thiefs as slaves to pay for their theft.If a thief ... have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Exodus 22:2-3

If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don't punish the man, because she was a slave.And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. Leviticus 19:20

Rules for obtaining slaves during wartime.When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. Deuteronomy 20:10-11

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself. Deuteronomy 20:14

Some of Jesus's parables seem to approve of slavery and beating slaves.

The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke 12:46-47

But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. Luke 17:7-9

The New Testament's epistles approve of slavery and command slaves to obey their masters.

Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 1 Corinthians 7:21-22

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Ephesians 6:5

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Colossians 3:22

Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 4:1

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself. 1 Timothy 6:1-5

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Titus 2:9-10

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Peter 2:18

 

[Boss]

No, we aren't removing them because we are offended. We are removing them because a statue is a mark of honor. These people don't deserve to be honored, or revered. Having a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest in a noble equestrian probe takes away from the fact he murdered black POW's during the war and after the war founded the terrorist KKK. We can have a serious talk about that without giving him honors he doesn't deserve.

I disagree. A statue or monument is NOT a "mark of honor." It can mean different things to different people. They have a Holocaust monument in Germany... is that to HONOR the Holocaust?

Robert E. Lee was OPPOSED to slavery! He never owned any slaves and felt slavery was repugnant. Ironically, the very thing Lee wasn't was a Nationalist!

I don't like Nathan Bedford Forrest, I think he was a deplorable human being... but I could say the same for Sherman who ALSO killed POWs and exploited slaves to clean up the corpses on his murderous march to Savannah. I don't object to their statues because I think they can be used as focal points to educate about our history and past.

Um, yeah, it actually kind of does.

No it doesn't because, BIOLOGY!

Upon conception, a unique living human organism in the state of being exists. Nothing else is required to make it a human being. You can argue viability or "personhood" all you like... doesn't change or alter what already exists.

 

[JoeB131]

I disagree. A statue or monument is NOT a "mark of honor." It can mean different things to different people. They have a Holocaust monument in Germany... is that to HONOR the Holocaust?

No, that was to honor those who died...

Robert E. Lee was OPPOSED to slavery! He never owned any slaves and felt slavery was repugnant. Ironically, the very thing Lee wasn't was a Nationalist!

But he still lead armies dedicated to it's preservation.

I don't like Nathan Bedford Forrest, I think he was a deplorable human being... but I could say the same for Sherman who ALSO killed POWs and exploited slaves to clean up the corpses on his murderous march to Savannah. I don't object to their statues because I think they can be used as focal points to educate about our history and past.

the only Sad thing about Sherman was that he didn't burn every plantation to the ground.

But, no, Forrest was a lot more contemptible than Sherman. Sherman did what he had to do to end the war.

But...

William Tecumseh Sherman - Wikipedia

The damage done by Sherman was almost entirely limited to the destruction of property. Though exact figures are not available, the loss of civilian life appears to have been very small.[97]Consuming supplies, wrecking infrastructure, and undermining morale were Sherman's stated goals, and several of his Southern contemporaries noted this and commented on it. For instance, Alabama-born Major Henry Hitchcock, who served in Sherman's staff, declared that "it is a terrible thing to consume and destroy the sustenance of thousands of people," but if the scorched earth strategy served "to paralyze their husbands and fathers who are fighting ... it is mercy in the end."

 

[JoeB131]

No it doesn't because, BIOLOGY!

Upon conception, a unique living human organism in the state of being exists. Nothing else is required to make it a human being. You can argue viability or "personhood" all you like... doesn't change or alter what already exists.

Dude, if you think Darwinian evolution is a philosophy, then you probably don't understand biology.

The fact is, until you anti-choice slugs advocating throwing women in prison for HAVING abortions, then you don't think they are human beings any more than I do.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No it doesn't because, BIOLOGY!

Upon conception, a unique living human organism in the state of being exists. Nothing else is required to make it a human being. You can argue viability or "personhood" all you like... doesn't change or alter what already exists.

Dude, if you think Darwinian evolution is a philosophy, then you probably don't understand biology.

The fact is, until you anti-choice slugs advocating throwing women in prison for HAVING abortions, then you don't think they are human beings any more than I do.

Your last paragraph -

Don't give them any ideas.

But, if they do, then men should be jailed for masturbation.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Regardless of individual reasons for taking up arms, what was the officially stated cause for secession? I can quote the declarations if you'd like.

I've addressed this argument at least 100 times on this forum. I think I addressed it earlier in this thread. The state official declarations of secession prominently mention slavery because slavery was the issue. It wasn't the principle. That is VERY important.

No, it's not. It's a distinction without a difference. When a proposed principle only has one issue, one concern, then you can't claim a separation of the two.

We have to remember that slavery had not been outlawed, it wasn't illegal to own slaves, and the US's own Supreme Court had repeatedly defended the right to own slaves as property. So you are literally arguing the South declared secession over something that did not yet exist.

No, I'm not. I said it was about slavery, not abolition of slavery. Let's look at what Georgia had to say:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war"

Mississipi, South Carolina, and Texas also state that their cause for secession was hostility by the North towards slavery, lack of enforcement of Article IV section 2, and the election of Lincoln, a Republican, which party they viewed as abolitionist.

Yes, slavery was the prominent issue at hand, but it was NOT the principle on which secession resided. That was Federalism! Whether the US Federal government had authority under the Constitution to take the property (or in this case, render it worthless) of state citizens. MANY people (then and now) believe such issues are a STATE matter and the Constitution clearly states it as such.

Federalism? No. While there were some complaints about the Federal government encroaching, most of the complaints were actually against the Northern States. I'll cite again part of the same passage from Georgia: "numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States" That's not a complaint about Federalism.

Congress had 89 years and countless opportunities to condemn slavery and outlaw it. The SCOTUS also had ample opportunities to condemn slavery and render it unconstitutional. These things did not happen in America. That's NOT the fault of the South or Southerners. Are they complicit? Do they share a part of the burden? Of course! But to attempt to revise history so as to lay the entire blame at their feet is deplorable and dishonest.

When you're addressing me, please respond to MY arguments and what I've actually written, instead of a generalized rant. Oh, and please use my full title of Lord High Grand Exalted One. Thanks.

But in any case....many states had abolished slavery and did not return escaped slaves. Restrictions on new slave states was also a concern. So that the Federal Government did not abolish slavery (and I remind you that in the 72 years before Lincoln, 49 of them were under slave-owning Presidents, and none of the others would have supported abolition). Oh, and where are you getting 89 years of Congress from?

The "reason" was not slavery! The "reason" for secession was in order to form a new nation.

And why did they want a new nation? To continue slavery unmolested.

You cannot absolve the North of the guilt for upholding slavery for 89 years by scapegoating the South. You cannot turn the Union into a bunch of Civil Rights Warriors who were fighting for equality against a racist South. That's a false picture of reality and I can't allow that to go unchallenged.

Then go challenging those who are doing that. I have not. The War was about slavery for the Confederacy...the Union didn't fight the war because of slavery.

If They Own a Man's Work, They Own That Man

Slavery was no worse than pre-union labor. The fact that this is excluded from the discussion shows that the debate is moderated by spoiled ignorant snobs and class-climbing brownnosing traitors. The plutocratic parasites despise, hate, and fear all other White people.

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery was no worse than pre-union labor. The fact that this is excluded from the discussion shows that the debate is moderated by spoiled ignorant snobs and class-climbing brownnosing traitors. The plutocratic parasites despise, hate, and fear all other White people.

Dude, I consider myself reasonably liberal, but you need to chill.

The reason why unions are failing is that most people feel they can be the masters of their fate. Don't like your job? Get a better one.