Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[rightwinger]

Discussion are like this because tards have confused cause and effect.

The cause was the preservation of slavery. The seceding states said so quite plainly.

4 of them said so. The rest didn't comment.

The rest had slaves and wanted to keep them. That is a historical fact that you cannot dispute.

So you presume to tell us why the seceded even though you haven't got a shred of actual evidence?

But they all fought to preserve it

 

[rightwinger]

4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Thread killer

Not really. The drive to make this centered around slavery is just to ignore the overriding fact that those supporting succession do so because they believe in the sovereignty and right of states to do so.

You can support the right without supporting the reasons behind it.

I do assume that you actually support freedom of speech, correct? I would also assume you support the freedom for WBC to go out and say the horrific crap they say under that right, correct? Most here understand that they have that right even if virtually no one here stands by the asinine way they use it. That is the very nature of rights - sometimes they are not used ion the manner that you would like them to be.

They believed in the rights of the states to put others into bondage

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

 

[-S-]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Thread killer

Not really. The drive to make this centered around slavery is just to ignore the overriding fact that those supporting succession do so because they believe in the sovereignty and right of states to do so.

You can support the right without supporting the reasons behind it.

I do assume that you actually support freedom of speech, correct? I would also assume you support the freedom for WBC to go out and say the horrific crap they say under that right, correct? Most here understand that they have that right even if virtually no one here stands by the asinine way they use it. That is the very nature of rights - sometimes they are not used ion the manner that you would like them to be.

They believed in the rights of the states to put others into bondage

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

 

[Syriusly]

Discussion are like this because tards have confused cause and effect.

The cause was the preservation of slavery. The seceding states said so quite plainly.

4 of them said so. The rest didn't comment.

The rest had slaves and wanted to keep them. That is a historical fact that you cannot dispute.

So you presume to tell us why the seceded even though you haven't got a shred of actual evidence?

Hmmm well lets see
South Carolina
Viriginia
Georgia
Mississippi
Texas
Alabama
Virginia

All mention slavery in their secession or causes of secession statements. Other states- well not every state made a 'secession statement' or causes statement- but there are other documents:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.

I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
....
The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. ...
Geo. Williamson Commissioner of the State of Louisiana City of Austin Feby 11th 1861

 

[Syriusly]

No one said it wasn't, Syriously Stupid. The discussion is about support for THE RIGHT of secession, the slavery crap is all coming from you idiot liberals

Actually, Bripat can be quoted as saying there is nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for.

Since the Confederacy fought for the right to own people, i.e. slavery, you understand why it's part of the conversation.

They fought for the right to self-determination. Union troops, on the other hand, fought for hegemony and imperialism. They fought for the right of Northern crony capitalist to impose crushing tariffs on Southern states. The fought to end the voluntary union of the states and the end of states rights. They fought for the draft. They fought for tyranny.

.... Don't forget slavery. They definitely fought for that.

No, not really. Most of them just fought Yankees carpetbaggers who were invading their homeland.

The Confederate States fought to preserve slavery.

Their troops mostly fought to defend their states.

The United States fought to preserve the Union.

Their troops mostly fought for a United States.

 

[Syriusly]

Tariff's?
Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations — the terrible years after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white “sundown towns” and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting — “anything but slavery” explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure,” The Washington Post reported.

These explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

 

[Syriusly]

Discussion are like this because tards have confused cause and effect.

The cause was the preservation of slavery. The seceding states said so quite plainly.

It's not that simple.

It's a deflection since it's irrelevant to the discussion. e

Actually it is pretty much that simple.

If people would stop arguing that the preserving slavery was not one of the reasons, if not the primary reason the Confederacy formed and states seceded, we wouldn't be pointing out that the States very clearly identified slavery as that proximate reason.

No one said it wasn't, Syriously Stupid. The discussion is about support for THE RIGHT of secession, the slavery crap is all coming from you idiot liberals

No- clearly not- unless you are calling yourself an 'idiot liberal'

You keep posting to show states that that didn't include 'slavery' in their secession statements- your slavery crap is right there. You don't want to talk about slavery- don't talk about slavery.

Kaz

OK, let's start with Virginia

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

TRANSCRIPTION
Page 1 of 1
The Virginia Convention Voted For Secession, April 17, 1861

An Ordinance

To repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution.



Kaz



Let's try North Carolina. Oops:

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

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled "The Constitution of the United States."

 

[Skylar]

Discussion are like this because tards have confused cause and effect.

The cause was the preservation of slavery. The seceding states said so quite plainly.

4 of them said so. The rest didn't comment.

The rest had slaves and wanted to keep them. That is a historical fact that you cannot dispute.

So you presume to tell us why the seceded even though you haven't got a shred of actual evidence?

Hmmm well lets see
South Carolina
Viriginia
Georgia
Mississippi
Texas
Alabama
Virginia

All mention slavery in their secession or causes of secession statements. Other states- well not every state made a 'secession statement' or causes statement- but there are other documents:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.

I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
....
The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. ...
Geo. Williamson Commissioner of the State of Louisiana City of Austin Feby 11th 1861

Well there you go. There's nothing more 'American' per Britpat than seeking to 'preserve the blessings of African Slavery'.

 

[Kondor3]

Discussion are like this because tards have confused cause and effect.

The cause was the preservation of slavery. The seceding states said so quite plainly.

4 of them said so. The rest didn't comment.

The rest had slaves and wanted to keep them. That is a historical fact that you cannot dispute.

So you presume to tell us why the seceded even though you haven't got a shred of actual evidence?

Hmmm well lets see
South Carolina
Viriginia
Georgia
Mississippi
Texas
Alabama
Virginia

All mention slavery in their secession or causes of secession statements. Other states- well not every state made a 'secession statement' or causes statement- but there are other documents:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.

I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
....
The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. ...
Geo. Williamson Commissioner of the State of Louisiana City of Austin Feby 11th 1861

Well there you go. There's nothing more 'American' per Britpat than seeking to 'preserve the blessings of African Slavery'.

Not really an American thing.

More like an African Tribal thing.

More like an Arab-Berber-Muslim Slaver thing.

More like a Spanish and Portugese and English thing.

Americans were pikers and johnny-come-latelies compared to those guys.

 

[Skylar]

Tariff's?
Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations — the terrible years after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white “sundown towns” and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting — “anything but slavery” explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure,” The Washington Post reported.

These explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

Then Britpat was just reciting predigested secessionist cud when claiming that the reason for the secession was the high tarriffs.

Sigh. I'll have to fact check every last thing that guy says on the topic. He simply can't be trusted to be accurate.

 

[kaz]

No one said it wasn't, Syriously Stupid. The discussion is about support for THE RIGHT of secession, the slavery crap is all coming from you idiot liberals

Actually, Bripat can be quoted as saying there is nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for.

Since the Confederacy fought for the right to own people, i.e. slavery, you understand why it's part of the conversation.

It's ironic how you showed in your own second sentence that your first sentence was a complete and utter lie

 

[rightwinger]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

Not really. The drive to make this centered around slavery is just to ignore the overriding fact that those supporting succession do so because they believe in the sovereignty and right of states to do so.

You can support the right without supporting the reasons behind it.

I do assume that you actually support freedom of speech, correct? I would also assume you support the freedom for WBC to go out and say the horrific crap they say under that right, correct? Most here understand that they have that right even if virtually no one here stands by the asinine way they use it. That is the very nature of rights - sometimes they are not used ion the manner that you would like them to be.

They believed in the rights of the states to put others into bondage

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

 

[kaz]

..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede...

Can you, honestly, quote me on that? Because I think you have me confused with someone else. All I've ever said is that slavery and the Confederacy are ingrained into each other. I don't believe I ever said anything about a person who supports the right to secede also supports slavery.

You asked, you shall receive. Here is where you said exactly that. You may now proceed to not comprehend what you said, you never do

So you only believe the south had the right to secede? You don't support the Confederacy's cause over the Union's cause?

Because the Confederacy's cause was based in large part on slavery. I'm gonna assume you support the Union over the Confederacy.. unless you actually don't have a problem with slavery..

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

 

[kaz]

No one said it wasn't, Syriously Stupid. The discussion is about support for THE RIGHT of secession, the slavery crap is all coming from you idiot liberals

Actually, Bripat can be quoted as saying there is nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for.

Since the Confederacy fought for the right to own people, i.e. slavery, you understand why it's part of the conversation.

They fought for the right to self-determination. Union troops, on the other hand, fought for hegemony and imperialism. They fought for the right of Northern crony capitalist to impose crushing tariffs on Southern states. The fought to end the voluntary union of the states and the end of states rights. They fought for the draft. They fought for tyranny.

.... Don't forget slavery. They definitely fought for that.

No, not really. Most of them just fought Yankees carpetbaggers who were invading their homeland.

OK, factually, I believe the carpetbaggers were after the war was over

 

[kaz]

4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Thread killer

Not really. The drive to make this centered around slavery is just to ignore the overriding fact that those supporting succession do so because they believe in the sovereignty and right of states to do so.

You can support the right without supporting the reasons behind it.

I do assume that you actually support freedom of speech, correct? I would also assume you support the freedom for WBC to go out and say the horrific crap they say under that right, correct? Most here understand that they have that right even if virtually no one here stands by the asinine way they use it. That is the very nature of rights - sometimes they are not used ion the manner that you would like them to be.

They believed in the rights of the states to put others into bondage

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

Strawman

 

[kaz]

They can't look at it the way sane people do

The word you are looking for does in fact start with "s," but the word is not sane, it's stupid

By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

Of course it was wrong for the sourth to try preserve slavery. What part of that I keep saying slavery is a violation of our right to life, liberty and property do you not understand?

Oh yeah, forgot my own point. The "s" is for stupid

 

[rightwinger]

Not really. The drive to make this centered around slavery is just to ignore the overriding fact that those supporting succession do so because they believe in the sovereignty and right of states to do so.

You can support the right without supporting the reasons behind it.

I do assume that you actually support freedom of speech, correct? I would also assume you support the freedom for WBC to go out and say the horrific crap they say under that right, correct? Most here understand that they have that right even if virtually no one here stands by the asinine way they use it. That is the very nature of rights - sometimes they are not used ion the manner that you would like them to be.

They believed in the rights of the states to put others into bondage

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

Strawman

I don't think that word means what you think it does

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! Now there is no greater love affair than the Left's adoration for all things ISLAM.

With the OP being no exception... how cool is it that somewhere in Islam slaves are being taken, sold and beaten, even as we speak.

LMAO... and here she is crying about Slavery common to two centuries ago.

 

[kaz]

Discussion are like this because tards have confused cause and effect.

The cause was the preservation of slavery. The seceding states said so quite plainly.

It's not that simple.

It's a deflection since it's irrelevant to the discussion. e

Actually it is pretty much that simple.

If people would stop arguing that the preserving slavery was not one of the reasons, if not the primary reason the Confederacy formed and states seceded, we wouldn't be pointing out that the States very clearly identified slavery as that proximate reason.

No one said it wasn't, Syriously Stupid. The discussion is about support for THE RIGHT of secession, the slavery crap is all coming from you idiot liberals

No- clearly not- unless you are calling yourself an 'idiot liberal'

You keep posting to show states that that didn't include 'slavery' in their secession statements- your slavery crap is right there. You don't want to talk about slavery- don't talk about slavery.

Kaz

OK, let's start with Virginia

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

TRANSCRIPTION
Page 1 of 1
The Virginia Convention Voted For Secession, April 17, 1861

An Ordinance

To repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution.



Kaz



Let's try North Carolina. Oops:

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

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled "The Constitution of the United States."

I didn't claim anything, I was responding to your **** buddy's claims that zero States did not reference slavery when they seceded.

I posted Virgina, North Carolina and South Carolina. Virginia I missed one reference. South Carolina, apparently I read the short version.

North Carolina still stands, not seeing a contradiction. Since the claim was and seconded that every one did, I'm winning, Holmes