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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

 

[thanatos144]

Read history. It was there before the confederates threw their tantrum and stayed there by agreement. So it wasn't a invasion.

It was an invasion the minute they were asked to leave and they refused, numskull.

Why should they leave land that was theirs because slavers threw a tantrum?

They should leave for the same reason that we would have to pull our troops out of Germany if the government asked us to leave, numskull. Failure to comply would be an act of war. The U.S. doesn't determine the legitimate uses of property in foreign countries. Any kid in grade school understands that.

Look at you hating on America like a good little democrat . You do Obama and the Pauls proud

bripat9643 is a Democrat?

who knew

All confederates are democrats. Always have been always will be

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Lincoln disagreed. End of story, moron.

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

 

[thanatos144]

Read history. It was there before the confederates threw their tantrum and stayed there by agreement. So it wasn't a invasion.

It was an invasion the minute they were asked to leave and they refused, numskull.

Why should they leave land that was theirs because slavers threw a tantrum?

They should leave for the same reason that we would have to pull our troops out of Germany if the government asked us to leave, numskull. Failure to comply would be an act of war. The U.S. doesn't determine the legitimate uses of property in foreign countries. Any kid in grade school understands that.

Look at you hating on America like a good little democrat . You do Obama and the Pauls proud

You've already admitted you hate half of America. You want to have them killed.

You're a despicable scumbag, so who are you to be accusing me of "hating America?"

Lol half the country are not delusional neo confederates.

 

[-S-]

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

A "state" is nothing more than a collection of people. If the Confederate states weren't "free," than none of the states in the union were free. Northern states had slaves just like southern states. You're applying one standard to the Confederacy while letting Union states off the hook.

You're a hypocrite, in other words. The so-called "irony" only results from you belief that your double standard doesn't exist.

I've never said that the north didn't have slaves you can search through every post I've ever made here and you won't find me saying that.

The entire country was a slave country for years and years. It was wrong, and the entire country was at fault. But eventually some true Americans realized that the slaves were people, too, and should be protected by the Constitution.

I fault the south with not being intellectually quick enough to progress at the same rate as the rest of the country, to the detriment of the the people in their states.

So the entire country had slaves for years and years, including most of the Founding Fathers, but suddenly in 1860 Southerners are vermin who deserve death because they still own slaves?

I've never seen such rank hypocrisy in my life.

I've never said southern slave owners deserved to die

you can search through every post I've ever made here and you won't find me saying that.

If a group of people unknowingly commit a wrong over and over, and then after a while they find out what they're doing is unlawful and should be stopped, wouldn't you have fault with the half of the people that were too stupid to stop?
That's hardly an analogy, because that's exactly what the situation was

This is so simple. Why don't you understand simple rational conversation?

Slavery was legal in the United States, and not everyone believed it was wrong, so your lament is a non sequitur. You can look back at it now and say it was stupid, but at the time it was a matter of opinion. So you justify the slaughter of 850,000 people in 1860 based on modern opinions about slavery.

That's hardly "rational."

Facts are eternal.

A couple facts..

1.) Our country was founded on this belief: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

2.) Black men are 'men'. That is simple science.


So it wasn't a matter of 'opinion'.

It was a matter of 'fact'. It was a fact that the country ignored until few strong Americans spoke up.

The facts were always there. It's the people who refused to live by them even after they came to light that I fault. How unAmerican do you have to be, to know you're doing something unconstitutional, and instead of fixing your ways and abiding by the American values that gives you yourself freedom, ABANDON your country and start your own to continue the evil institution for no other reason than monetary gain. That's why I have no pity for the Confederacy. They knew what they were doing was wrong. They just didn't care. God was on the Union's side.

 

[-S-]

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

How were they equally guilty, after the secession? The north abandoned the practice, the south embraced it.

Wait, let me put this in terms you'll understand, "Saint Michael"..

If two people continuously commit a sin unknowingly, and when they are both told they are sinning, one repents, isn't the one who repented in better standing than the one who continues to sin even after being told?

I feel if we were talking about two gay people sinning, you'd answer a biiit differently...




In other words, you're a biased hack who disgraces the name you stole.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

How were they equally guilty, after the secession? The north abandoned the practice, the south embraced it.

Wait, let me put this in terms you'll understand, "Saint Michael"..

If two people continuously commit a sin unknowingly, and when they are both told they are sinning, one repents, isn't the one who repented in better standing than the one who continues to sin even after being told?

I feel if we were talking about two gay people sinning, you'd answer a biiit differently...




In other words, you're a biased hack who disgraces the name you stole.

Let me dumb it down for you even further. The North never abandoned the practice of slavery in the fact that they enabled it's continuation even after some states abolished the holding of slaves. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy to say slavery is wrong but then to build slave ships and operate an international slave trade with Europe, Africa, and the Carribean and then to pass a fugitive slave law that returns slaves to their masters. The North was entangled in the sin of slavery all the way up to the war, which had NOTHING to do with slavery and everything to do with restoring the status quo. Had the eleven states not seceded or had they been quickly forced back into the union, the same arrangement would have continued, slaves being held in the South and the North profiting nicely from the trade. Lincoln promised repeatedly that he had no intention of ending the practice and only when his war was losing support did he suddenly "evolve" like Obama and decide to make the abolition of slavery the central purpose of the war.

You continue to be an under-educated idiot who has no clue about the real history that governed these events.

 

[bripat9643]

Newsflash Brian: People get killed when you start a war.

Dumbfuck rebels thought they could start one to keep and expand their precious slave trade.

Tough titties. They lost. You refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change one White Supremacist ass-loving thing about it.

Lincoln started the war, asshole. Lincoln ordered Union troops to invade the south, kill their people, rape their women and burn their cities to the ground. Lincoln and his industrialist cronies are the ones who are responsible for all the deaths, and no one else.

I've told you a hundred times now, the South commenced hostilities before the Lincoln ever stepped into office. Fired on Union Ships, seized forts and arsenals and took over Federal building all over the South. Before Lincoln ever set foot in the White House.

Wrong. Evicting trespassers on your territory is not an act of war, numskull. I've told you that at least 100 times.

 

[toxicmedia]

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women

WAR On WOMEN By Republicans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Worldwide War on Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican abortion bill tone-deaf as usual. War on Women Pt. 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The pub s War On Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But but there s no war on women... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Those articles you posted are an example of what I'm talking about.

Just a bunch of Democratic party rhetoric

So answer my question, who are these leftists you are referring to who are not Democrats and don't think that

I'm talking about lefties in America, who are not Democratic Party officials, or pundits on TV

You mean like the people who started those threads?

Our exchange has grown tiresome

 

[bripat9643]

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

How were they equally guilty, after the secession? The north abandoned the practice, the south embraced it.

Wait, let me put this in terms you'll understand, "Saint Michael"..

If two people continuously commit a sin unknowingly, and when they are both told they are sinning, one repents, isn't the one who repented in better standing than the one who continues to sin even after being told?

I feel if we were talking about two gay people sinning, you'd answer a biiit differently...




In other words, you're a biased hack who disgraces the name you stole.

"After the secession" is a non sequitur. You and your cronies are trying to use slavery to condemn secession.

 

[Skylar]

No, it didn't you lying scumbucket.

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

New York lost in its attempt to put in a clause about withdrawing if 33 amendments were not allowed to be considered in a later convention. After being shot down, New York still voted to ratify.

I quoted New York's ratification document. It reserves the right to secede.

Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

I already did, numskull. The text has been quote several times already.

Nope. You never did. You've *told* us that the NY ratification doctrine maintains the right to secede. But when pressed to SHOW us where it is, you give us excuses.

Try again: Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[-S-]

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

How were they equally guilty, after the secession? The north abandoned the practice, the south embraced it.

Wait, let me put this in terms you'll understand, "Saint Michael"..

If two people continuously commit a sin unknowingly, and when they are both told they are sinning, one repents, isn't the one who repented in better standing than the one who continues to sin even after being told?

I feel if we were talking about two gay people sinning, you'd answer a biiit differently...




In other words, you're a biased hack who disgraces the name you stole.

Had the eleven states not seceded or had they been quickly forced back into the union, the same arrangement would have continued, slaves being held in the South and the North profiting nicely from the trade.

Your argument might make sense if it wasn't already a well known fact that the south did not plan to buy off-the-boat slaves in bulk past the year 1860. They were already breeding the slaves themselves like livestock, and as Paperview previously posted in this thread:

I always think these stats are stunning:

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina-- 301,302 ---402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865

Some states more slaves than free persons.

They wasn't a demand for off-the-boat slaves.
Why spend money on new slaves when you can make them for free? The south was all about saving money, hence their desperate ploys to keep slavery legal.



Next time you think about calling somebody uneducated, don't. There's always a chance someone like me will pop in to embarrass you.



"Saint Michael" ..

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

How were they equally guilty, after the secession? The north abandoned the practice, the south embraced it.

Wait, let me put this in terms you'll understand, "Saint Michael"..

If two people continuously commit a sin unknowingly, and when they are both told they are sinning, one repents, isn't the one who repented in better standing than the one who continues to sin even after being told?

I feel if we were talking about two gay people sinning, you'd answer a biiit differently...




In other words, you're a biased hack who disgraces the name you stole.

Had the eleven states not seceded or had they been quickly forced back into the union, the same arrangement would have continued, slaves being held in the South and the North profiting nicely from the trade.

Your argument might make sense if it wasn't already a well known fact that the south did not plan to buy off-the-boat slaves in bulk past the year 1860. They were already breeding the slaves themselves like livestock, and as Paperview previously posted in this thread:

I always think these stats are stunning:

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina-- 301,302 ---402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865

Some states more slaves than free persons.

They wasn't a demand for off-the-boat slaves.
Why spend money on new slaves when you can make them for free? The south was all about saving money, hence their desperate ploys to keep slavery legal.



Next time you think about calling somebody uneducated, don't. There's always a chance someone like me will pop in to embarrass you.



"Saint Michael" ..

Outstanding job at missing the whole point. I couldn't have done better if I tried.

 

[kaz]

WAR On WOMEN By Republicans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Worldwide War on Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican abortion bill tone-deaf as usual. War on Women Pt. 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The pub s War On Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But but there s no war on women... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Those articles you posted are an example of what I'm talking about.

Just a bunch of Democratic party rhetoric

So answer my question, who are these leftists you are referring to who are not Democrats and don't think that

I'm talking about lefties in America, who are not Democratic Party officials, or pundits on TV

You mean like the people who started those threads?

Our exchange has grown tiresome

It always was. What a waste of time you always are. You come in like you are making a point, yet you can't name any leftists who are not Democrats as if there is a difference. Your typical contentless posting

 

[-S-]

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

How were they equally guilty, after the secession? The north abandoned the practice, the south embraced it.

Wait, let me put this in terms you'll understand, "Saint Michael"..

If two people continuously commit a sin unknowingly, and when they are both told they are sinning, one repents, isn't the one who repented in better standing than the one who continues to sin even after being told?

I feel if we were talking about two gay people sinning, you'd answer a biiit differently...




In other words, you're a biased hack who disgraces the name you stole.

Had the eleven states not seceded or had they been quickly forced back into the union, the same arrangement would have continued, slaves being held in the South and the North profiting nicely from the trade.

Your argument might make sense if it wasn't already a well known fact that the south did not plan to buy off-the-boat slaves in bulk past the year 1860. They were already breeding the slaves themselves like livestock, and as Paperview previously posted in this thread:

I always think these stats are stunning:

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina-- 301,302 ---402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865

Some states more slaves than free persons.

They wasn't a demand for off-the-boat slaves.
Why spend money on new slaves when you can make them for free? The south was all about saving money, hence their desperate ploys to keep slavery legal.



Next time you think about calling somebody uneducated, don't. There's always a chance someone like me will pop in to embarrass you.



"Saint Michael" ..

Outstanding job at missing the whole point. I couldn't have done better if I tried.

Mediocre job at deflection. I could do it better, if I ever had a need to.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

How were they equally guilty, after the secession? The north abandoned the practice, the south embraced it.

Wait, let me put this in terms you'll understand, "Saint Michael"..

If two people continuously commit a sin unknowingly, and when they are both told they are sinning, one repents, isn't the one who repented in better standing than the one who continues to sin even after being told?

I feel if we were talking about two gay people sinning, you'd answer a biiit differently...




In other words, you're a biased hack who disgraces the name you stole.

Had the eleven states not seceded or had they been quickly forced back into the union, the same arrangement would have continued, slaves being held in the South and the North profiting nicely from the trade.

Your argument might make sense if it wasn't already a well known fact that the south did not plan to buy off-the-boat slaves in bulk past the year 1860. They were already breeding the slaves themselves like livestock, and as Paperview previously posted in this thread:

I always think these stats are stunning:

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina-- 301,302 ---402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865

Some states more slaves than free persons.

They wasn't a demand for off-the-boat slaves.
Why spend money on new slaves when you can make them for free? The south was all about saving money, hence their desperate ploys to keep slavery legal.



Next time you think about calling somebody uneducated, don't. There's always a chance someone like me will pop in to embarrass you.



"Saint Michael" ..

Outstanding job at missing the whole point. I couldn't have done better if I tried.

Mediocre job at deflection. I could do it better, if I ever had a need to.

Your right, you could do better. Do you want to draw a Biblical analysis that's accurate? Try using the story of God commanding the Israelites to kill each other, brother against brother, in battle because they all shared in the same sin.

At least that would be halfway respectable.

 

[-S-]

How were they equally guilty, after the secession? The north abandoned the practice, the south embraced it.

Wait, let me put this in terms you'll understand, "Saint Michael"..

If two people continuously commit a sin unknowingly, and when they are both told they are sinning, one repents, isn't the one who repented in better standing than the one who continues to sin even after being told?

I feel if we were talking about two gay people sinning, you'd answer a biiit differently...




In other words, you're a biased hack who disgraces the name you stole.

Had the eleven states not seceded or had they been quickly forced back into the union, the same arrangement would have continued, slaves being held in the South and the North profiting nicely from the trade.

Your argument might make sense if it wasn't already a well known fact that the south did not plan to buy off-the-boat slaves in bulk past the year 1860. They were already breeding the slaves themselves like livestock, and as Paperview previously posted in this thread:

I always think these stats are stunning:

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina-- 301,302 ---402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865

Some states more slaves than free persons.

They wasn't a demand for off-the-boat slaves.
Why spend money on new slaves when you can make them for free? The south was all about saving money, hence their desperate ploys to keep slavery legal.



Next time you think about calling somebody uneducated, don't. There's always a chance someone like me will pop in to embarrass you.



"Saint Michael" ..

Outstanding job at missing the whole point. I couldn't have done better if I tried.

Mediocre job at deflection. I could do it better, if I ever had a need to.

Your right, you could do better. Do you want to draw a Biblical analysis that's accurate? Try using the story of God commanding the Israelites to kill each other, brother against brother, in battle because they all shared in the same sin.

At least that would be halfway respectable.

First of all: **You're
(Since you care so much about education, I thought I'd teach you something)


Second of all: Did half the Israelites realize said sin was wrong and try to outlaw it, while the other half created a country to house said sin? If not, then I don't know why you brought it up, because it does not pertain.

Thanks for playing, "Saint Michael".

 

[regent]

At one time slavery was moral, legal and people accepted as normal. Today slavery seems immoral and wrong, Could we be doing something today that one hundred years from now Americans will see as wrong we now see slavery as wrong?

 

[Skylar]

At one time slavery was moral, legal and people accepted as normal. Today slavery seems immoral and wrong, Could we be doing something today that one hundred years from now Americans will see as wrong we now see slavery as wrong?

Almost certainly. We even have several viable candidates; gay marriage if the country goes ultra conservative. Meat if the country goes ultra liberal.

"Yeah, Martin Luther King had some good ideas. But he ate hamburgers. And that kind of moral callousness is inexcusable".

 

[Correll]

This is a quote I just came across from one of our Founding Father's, from South Carolina -- from 1788 - as the ink was still fresh on our new Constitution...some might find it surprising.

"In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."

The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,-

-as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
​

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina

]18 Jan. 1788

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 7, Document 19
Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives
The University of Chicago Press Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives

IF that was his opinion, and he felt so strongly about it, he should have advanced a clause spelling that out clearly in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it clearly state that the Union was forever.