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

[g5000]

Are you saying the internet lies? No way

I am saying you are a retard. Definitely. That state that YOU chose made a secession declaration which is unequivocal about their seceding because of slavery.

Sorry to make your butt hurt. Not. It was fun.

 

[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.

Lincoln cult propaganda. Quoting some leftwing drone's opinion proves nothing.

As opposed to you citing your own right wing drone opinion? Remember, you've haven't actually provided a scintilla of evidence to back any of your claims regarding high tarriffs from the north and the southern secession.

You simply typed the assertion. In your mind, applying pressure to a keyboard may constitute irrefutable evidence. But outside your little soap bubble, that's an excuse for evidence. Not an example of it.

And in what world is you citing you a better source than an award winning historian who has literally written text books on the history of the south?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Only a willfully blind monkey needs to have it proven to them the Civil War was about slavery.

A profoundly retarded willfully blind monkey.

But, I have proven it to them now since it appears we have a few profoundly retarded willfully blind monkeys around here.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Only a blind monkey would swallow the claim that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I know that's a sacred part of liberal brainwashing, but it's just fiction. When Lincoln sent that armed federal convoy to Fort Sumter, there were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy, and the four Upper South states had recently voted against leaving the Union over slavery. Free your mind.

That there were slave states that did not secede over slavery in no way repudiates that those which did secede did so over slavery.

Logic. Get some. Free your mind.

That slavery was ending all over the western world around this time (without a war) implies that a war was not necessary to abolish slavery.

History. Get some. Free your mind.

 

[kaz]

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

 

[BULLDOG]

So, because you saw a couple people say something you are wondering if that's how all "conservatives" think. well just wow

the not so Modern liberal, Bill Maher called a Republican woman candidate a cxxt. so I assume that is that how all liberals think of women in this country

Certainly not all women. Just the *****.

Oh, so women who think for themselves instead of toeing the accepted line.

Do you think that is what a **** is? I don't

 

[kaz]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

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

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

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

 

[kaz]

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

Let's see, strawman, something you make up and put in someone else's mouth and attack it as if they had said it.

Nope, means exactly what I think it does

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

The South seceded to preserve the right to maintain slavery. That is in no way a Strawman.....it is what is known as a historical fact

I don't think you do think it means what I think it does. But you are an idiot who don't know what it means, so what does that matter?

 

[kaz]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

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

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

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

Begging the question

 

[kaz]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

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

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

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

The Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in 1824. came to the same conclusion;

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."

And since the Supreme Court creates binding precedent upon South Carolina in 1824, this ruling was authoritative.

Begging the question

 

[kaz]

Are you saying the internet lies? No way

I am saying you are a retard. Definitely. That state that YOU chose made a secession declaration which is unequivocal about their seceding because of slavery.

Sorry to make your butt hurt. Not. It was fun.

It's OK guy, stop crying. We're good, OK? God, I hate when chicks turn on the water works

 

[Skylar]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

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

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

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

Begging the question

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, just say so.

 

[-S-]

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

Nice deflection, Kaz.

Not.

You didn't address the part where you claimed that I equated supporting the right of secession with supporting slavery. The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself. Just because you believe his most recent opinion doesn't mean he didn't state the other as well.

But I digress: The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate. NOWHERE did I say that supporting the right to secede is the same as supporting slavery.

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

 

[Skylar]

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

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

The Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in 1824. came to the same conclusion;

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."

And since the Supreme Court creates binding precedent upon South Carolina in 1824, this ruling was authoritative.

Begging the question

Says you. The Supreme Court on the other hand found that the status of sovereign of the states changed when they joined together under the constitution.

Now why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you? Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

Nice deflection, Kaz.

Not.

You didn't address the part where you claimed that I equated supporting the right of secession with supporting slavery. The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself. Just because you believe his most recent opinion doesn't he didn't state the other as well.

But I digress: The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate. NOWHERE did I say that supporting the right to secede is the same as supporting slavery.

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

Making shit up is Kaz's bread and butter. When you want a chuckle, ask me about Kaz and 'British Intelligence'. Or 'black bakers and the KKK'.

Its a hoot.

 

[-S-]

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

Nice deflection, Kaz.

Not.

You didn't address the part where you claimed that I equated supporting the right of secession with supporting slavery. The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself. Just because you believe his most recent opinion doesn't he didn't state the other as well.

But I digress: The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate. NOWHERE did I say that supporting the right to secede is the same as supporting slavery.

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

Making shit up is Kaz's bread and butter. When you want a chuckle, ask me about Kaz and 'British Intelligence'. Or 'black bakers and the KKK'.

Its a hoot.

I might have to PM you on those haha.

I don't understand why he is defending Bripat so defiantly. You and I BOTH know he stated that there was nothing "more American" than what the Confederacy fought for. He puts puts false words in my mouth, and denies the words coming out of his BFF Bripat

 

[Skylar]

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

Nice deflection, Kaz.

Not.

You didn't address the part where you claimed that I equated supporting the right of secession with supporting slavery. The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself. Just because you believe his most recent opinion doesn't he didn't state the other as well.

But I digress: The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate. NOWHERE did I say that supporting the right to secede is the same as supporting slavery.

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

Making shit up is Kaz's bread and butter. When you want a chuckle, ask me about Kaz and 'British Intelligence'. Or 'black bakers and the KKK'.

Its a hoot.

I might have to PM you on those haha.

I don't understand why he is defending Bripat so defiantly. You and I BOTH know he stated that there was nothing "more American" than what the Confederacy fought for. He puts puts false words in my mouth, and denies the words coming out of his BFF Bripat

Its likely the people involved. Kaz is the kind of guy whose ass is slow to heal. So if he gets butt hurt in one thread, don't be surprised to see him pop up in another thread, pouting and defending the silliest shit.

Which leads to more butt hurt. Which leads to more pouting. Which leads to more defense of silly shit.....

Its like the Lion King. But with more quivering lower lips.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

 

[OKTexas]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

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

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

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

 

[Skylar]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

There were literally dozens of treaties outlawing slavery in the Western World starting in the early 1800s. Euroepan countries and their holdings around the world all participated.

The US never did. They didn't particiate in any such treaties. They never even sent envoys to the negotiations. There was zero indication that the US was going to abolish slavery in the 18th century. The fact that a war was fought to defend it demonstrates the absurdity of the 'natural passing' theory of slavery. The south had based their economy on black slavery. They weren't giving it up without a fight.

And they didn't.

 

[Skylar]

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

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.