Most Conservatives Still Believe The Civil War Wasn't Over Slavery

[Claudette]

Not many Southerners owned slaves you idiot.

States Rights was the biggest concern.

Ok what right did those states have that the federal government was trying to take from them beyond owning human beings as slaves?

I've asked that question for decades yet not one conservative can answer it honestly or without deflection.

So I invite you to be the first conservative to honestly answer that question without any filibuster or deflection.

Oh slavery was a part of it but the Southern States didn't like the Fed telling them what they could couldn't do.

Slavery was barbaric and I'm glad it was one of the things that was changed because of the civil war but it still wasn't the main reason for that war.

So what was the federal government telling them to do that they didn't want to do?

The answer, the lazy people in the south didn't want to have to actually work for a living. They didn't want to stop owning human beings as slaves.

You can deny it all you want. I'm not here to get you to see reality and truth. However by denying truth you're giving me and others the opportunity to show all of cyberspace just how down right cowardly and dishonest you are. It's fun watching you make a fool of yourself and other posters make fools of you. Keep it up. I can't believe you like showing all of cyberspace how much you like to make a fool of yourself. You're great comic relief. LOL.

LMAO Not as great as you are.

Talk about cowardly, dishonest and a fool. WOW

What questions have you asked me that have not answered?

What lies have I posted?

LOL classic conservative project doesn't work with me.

Not many Southerners owned slaves you idiot.

States Rights was the biggest concern.

Ok what right did those states have that the federal government was trying to take from them beyond owning human beings as slaves?

I've asked that question for decades yet not one conservative can answer it honestly or without deflection.

So I invite you to be the first conservative to honestly answer that question without any filibuster or deflection.

Oh slavery was a part of it but the Southern States didn't like the Fed telling them what they could couldn't do.

Slavery was barbaric and I'm glad it was one of the things that was changed because of the civil war but it still wasn't the main reason for that war.

So what was the federal government telling them to do that they didn't want to do?

The answer, the lazy people in the south didn't want to have to actually work for a living. They didn't want to stop owning human beings as slaves.

You can deny it all you want. I'm not here to get you to see reality and truth. However by denying truth you're giving me and others the opportunity to show all of cyberspace just how down right cowardly and dishonest you are. It's fun watching you make a fool of yourself and other posters make fools of you. Keep it up. I can't believe you like showing all of cyberspace how much you like to make a fool of yourself. You're great comic relief. LOL.

LMAO Not as great as you are.

Talk about cowardly, dishonest and a fool. WOW

What questions have you asked me that have not answered?

What lies have I posted?

LOL classic conservative project doesn't work with me.

LOL Your version of the truth differs from mine. Doesn't mean I'm right and you are wrong. Our opinions differ.

It is what it is

 

[toobfreak]

Civil War still divides Americans So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Amazing to watch a pinhead like you in action. One CNN article and you decide a whole world of conclusions. Did it ever occur to you that a factor in the war was differences in geographics and demographics and those same that existed THEN still exist today? And that is what still "divides" people, attitudes born of culture and not a 160 year old war? And unless you can tell me you are 180 years old, then you actually know no more about the war than anyone else------ it is all just a matter of reading in a book to any of us.

OF COURSE slavery was a central theme------ to those who organized and prompted the war: property owners and companies that actually OWNED and USED slaves. But do you really think those millions of soldiers who fought and died all had slaves or a personal interested vested in slavery? Obviously, slavery was a large part but also an overriding symbol of fundamental and overriding differences between the North and the South, and that much of these factors still exist today, and to watch an idiot like you take so simplistic a view of the Civil War, all out of a need and desire to just find something to attack conservatives with is both funny as well as an bit insulting and embarrassing for you.

In the final analysis, the Civil War was about differences in CULTURE, and slavery was the front-most symbol of those differences, and while we have long since outgrown the desire for or need for slavery, the USA is a broad and diverse place of many cultural differences, and it is the height of absurdity to watch jackasses like you who say they are for "diversity" and "culture" defend every other culture in the country from the gay community to the muslims turn around and stoop to this arcane level of attack against the largely southern Baptist culture largely over religion or centuries-dead practices that ironically all began with what became the Democratic Party, the very party that now supposes to be for the individual's rights.

 

[rightwinger]

A = B = C

The war was about slavery. Period.

Slavery was a symptom. The south was motivated by economics. Slavery was part of economics. You dont grasp root causes

The South was capable of paying its workforce. Cotton was a huge cash cow and plantation owners made fortunes. The workers who planted, maintained the crop, picked the crop and brought it to market received zero compensation.

The Aristocrats and Sweatshop Owners Get Off Scot-Free in This MInd-Controlled Thread

The Africans got room and board, protection from their own predators, medical services, and many other benefits they never got back in the jungle. Most Whites at the time lived in misery, with the Jews and Irish being treated worse than slaves. The most miserable lifestyle in the whole world was that of the Africans who got stuck back in the jungle. That is, if you don't consider selling their fellow Blacks into slavery as being high entertainment.

Your posting style is tedious

Your celebration of slavery is not worth reading

The only one celebrating slavery seems to be you.

No one on this board approved of slavery. The op is about what caused the Civil War.

You think it was slavery. I and others think it was more about State Rights. Slaver was a part of it but not the main part.

Hell the emancipation proclamation wasn't signed till 1863. That should tell anyone smarter than a rock that slavery wasn't the major cause of the civil war. If it had been that bill would have been signed three years earlier.

Articles of Secession were filed in Dec 1861- May 1862
They listed slavery as their primary grievance

 

[OKTexas]

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity. All the continuous states. Those states willingly joined our union. That means the constitution doesn't allow any part of this nation to leave the union.

Show me.

If you read this whole thread you were already shown. As I said in my post you replied to.

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity.

You might want to read the whole thread to get the answer. Again.

I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.

That wasn't and isn't in the Constitution. The articles of confederation were replace by the Constitution.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It was Federal Property much like Gitmo is

S Carolina had no right to it. Attacking a US Govt Fort was an act of war
They paid a price

Wouldn't refusing to evacuate the territory of a sovereign state after 3 months of demands to do so also be an act of war?

The Union only had a right to that fort by way of South Carolina being part of the Union.

The reality is that the union troops could have evacuated the fort and no shots would have been fired. Regardless of who was right or wrong over the ownership of said fort, Union troops had 3 months to leave peacefully. South Carolina did not have to fire on them, but at the same time, they didn't have to stay.

Saying that South Carolina started the war without provocation is simply false. Three months of occupying a fort in South Carolina territory is all sorts of provocation. Don't lie to yourself.

 

[there4eyeM]

If it wasn`t treason can we call the firing on Ft. Sumter southern terrorism? Choose one or the other or you can choose both.

Sumter was no longer within the US, the US had no right to maintain a garrison there.


.

It was Federal property not state property

S Carolina had no right to it

Sure they did, it was part of the area that was withdrawn from the union.


.

It was Federal Property much like Gitmo is

S Carolina had no right to it. Attacking a US Govt Fort was an act of war
They paid a price

Maintaining a garrison of foreign soil and attempting to reinforce them was an act of war.


.

It would have been an act of war had it been foreign soil. In the case the act of war was firing on Federal troops on Federal property.
The war is over. Saying that the victory was there before the war is absurd.
It isn't a case of might making right, it is a case of wrong being wrong. The South was emphatically on the wrong side of history.
It is only surprising that the war lasted so long.

 

[there4eyeM]

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity. All the continuous states. Those states willingly joined our union. That means the constitution doesn't allow any part of this nation to leave the union.

Show me.

If you read this whole thread you were already shown. As I said in my post you replied to.

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity.

You might want to read the whole thread to get the answer. Again.

I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.

That wasn't and isn't in the Constitution. The articles of confederation were replace by the Constitution.


.

The Union wasn't.

 

[g5000]

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity. All the continuous states. Those states willingly joined our union. That means the constitution doesn't allow any part of this nation to leave the union.

Show me.

If you read this whole thread you were already shown. As I said in my post you replied to.

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity.

You might want to read the whole thread to get the answer. Again.

I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.

That wasn't and isn't in the Constitution. The articles of confederation were replace by the Constitution.


.

That states were formed as a "perpetual union" in the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution's preamble states it was created to form a "more perfect union", meaning the perpetual union was still in effect.

Article I makes it even more clear that the states are not permitted to join a confederation.

The argument that states were allowed to secede is just plain wishful thinking with no basis in fact.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity. All the continuous states. Those states willingly joined our union. That means the constitution doesn't allow any part of this nation to leave the union.

Show me.

If you read this whole thread you were already shown. As I said in my post you replied to.

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity.

You might want to read the whole thread to get the answer. Again.

I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.

I have been through this thread, and I have read the entire constitution multiple times.

NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the Union is perpetual. NOWHERE!!!!

 

[Claudette]

It was Federal property not state property

S Carolina had no right to it

Sure they did, it was part of the area that was withdrawn from the union.


.

Winger seems to forget that the whole South with the exception of West Virginia withdrew from the Union.

They have no rights to Federal property

Well anything in the south belonged to the south. Once they seceded it belong to them.

And they did secede.

No it didn’t

Ft Sumter was built and maintained by We the People of the United States

The Confederacy had no rights to it

Ft. Sumter is off the coast of South Carolina. A South Carolina that seceded from the union and claimed everything for the State. All the men manning the Fort had to do was leave. There wouldn't have been a shot fired.

As for as South Carolinians were concerned Sumter belonged to the State of South Carolina.

 

[OKTexas]

A = B = C

The war was about slavery. Period.

Slavery was a symptom. The south was motivated by economics. Slavery was part of economics. You dont grasp root causes

The South was capable of paying its workforce. Cotton was a huge cash cow and plantation owners made fortunes. The workers who planted, maintained the crop, picked the crop and brought it to market received zero compensation.

The Aristocrats and Sweatshop Owners Get Off Scot-Free in This MInd-Controlled Thread

The Africans got room and board, protection from their own predators, medical services, and many other benefits they never got back in the jungle. Most Whites at the time lived in misery, with the Jews and Irish being treated worse than slaves. The most miserable lifestyle in the whole world was that of the Africans who got stuck back in the jungle. That is, if you don't consider selling their fellow Blacks into slavery as being high entertainment.

Your posting style is tedious

Your celebration of slavery is not worth reading

The only one celebrating slavery seems to be you.

No one on this board approved of slavery. It was barbaric and everyone on this board knows it. The op is about what caused the Civil War.

You think it was slavery. I and others think it was more about State Rights. Slavery was a part of it but not the main part. We have a difference of opinion. Period.

Hell the emancipation proclamation wasn't signed till 1863. That should tell anyone smarter than a rock that slavery wasn't the major cause of the civil war. If it had been that bill would have been signed three years earlier.

It wasn't a bill, it was an illegal proclamation made by Lincoln. Slavery wasn't officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment.


.

 

[Syriusly]

The North started the Civil War, not the South. ...

Wrong.

Remember when the troops of the United States rowed over to the Battery at Charleston and fired the cannon there at Ft. Sumter to start the war?

 

[Claudette]

Slavery was a symptom. The south was motivated by economics. Slavery was part of economics. You dont grasp root causes

The South was capable of paying its workforce. Cotton was a huge cash cow and plantation owners made fortunes. The workers who planted, maintained the crop, picked the crop and brought it to market received zero compensation.

The Aristocrats and Sweatshop Owners Get Off Scot-Free in This MInd-Controlled Thread

The Africans got room and board, protection from their own predators, medical services, and many other benefits they never got back in the jungle. Most Whites at the time lived in misery, with the Jews and Irish being treated worse than slaves. The most miserable lifestyle in the whole world was that of the Africans who got stuck back in the jungle. That is, if you don't consider selling their fellow Blacks into slavery as being high entertainment.

Your posting style is tedious

Your celebration of slavery is not worth reading

The only one celebrating slavery seems to be you.

No one on this board approved of slavery. It was barbaric and everyone on this board knows it. The op is about what caused the Civil War.

You think it was slavery. I and others think it was more about State Rights. Slavery was a part of it but not the main part. We have a difference of opinion. Period.

Hell the emancipation proclamation wasn't signed till 1863. That should tell anyone smarter than a rock that slavery wasn't the major cause of the civil war. If it had been that bill would have been signed three years earlier.

It wasn't a bill, it was an illegal proclamation made by Lincoln. Slavery wasn't officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment.


.

Thanks. I thought it was an official document like a bill.

It was a start though.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure they did, it was part of the area that was withdrawn from the union.


.

Winger seems to forget that the whole South with the exception of West Virginia withdrew from the Union.

They have no rights to Federal property

Well anything in the south belonged to the south. Once they seceded it belong to them.

And they did secede.

No it didn’t

Ft Sumter was built and maintained by We the People of the United States

The Confederacy had no rights to it

Ft. Sumter is off the coast of South Carolina. A South Carolina that seceded from the union and claimed everything for the State. All the men manning the Fort had to do was leave. There wouldn't have been a shot fired.

As for as South Carolinians were concerned Sumter belonged to the State of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter is not off the coast of South Carolina- it is within the harbor of Charleston.

Fort Sumter was a U.S. Army post built by the United States to defend the United States- South Carolina had no right to attack American troops there.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That states were formed as a "perpetual union" in the Ariticles of Confederation.

Not the same as the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution's preamble states it was created to form a "more perfect" union, meaning the perpetual union was still in effect.

Because they left out the "perpetual" part, we can only assume that they intended to do so, as part of making it "more perfect." Furthermore, "forming" a more perfect union implies that it is a different union than the less perfect one they are replacing.

Article I makes it even more clear that the states are not permitted to join a confederation.

So, they could seceded and be independent, as long as they didn't join a confederation?

 

[Thinker101]

Not many Southerners owned slaves you idiot.

States Rights was the biggest concern.

Ok what right did those states have that the federal government was trying to take from them beyond owning human beings as slaves?

I've asked that question for decades yet not one conservative can answer it honestly or without deflection.

So I invite you to be the first conservative to honestly answer that question without any filibuster or deflection.

Oh slavery was a part of it but the Southern States didn't like the Fed telling them what they could couldn't do.

Slavery was barbaric and I'm glad it was one of the things that was changed because of the civil war but it still wasn't the main reason for that war.

So what was the federal government telling them to do that they didn't want to do?

The answer, the lazy people in the south didn't want to have to actually work for a living. They didn't want to stop owning human beings as slaves.

You can deny it all you want. I'm not here to get you to see reality and truth. However by denying truth you're giving me and others the opportunity to show all of cyberspace just how down right cowardly and dishonest you are. It's fun watching you make a fool of yourself and other posters make fools of you. Keep it up. I can't believe you like showing all of cyberspace how much you like to make a fool of yourself. You're great comic relief. LOL.

LOL...they didn't want to work for a living? Is that your version of the truth? Bringing that forward, evidently Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, and Howard Shultz are too fricken lazy to work for a living.

Oh really?

Then why were all those slaves doing all the work while the masters didn't?

You have no fircken clue. Granted slaves worked in the fields, they were also given room and board.
How about posing that question to some of the names I mentioned. When's the last time Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos looked at a line of code, let alone write one....dumbass.

 

[rightwinger]

It was Federal Property much like Gitmo is

S Carolina had no right to it. Attacking a US Govt Fort was an act of war
They paid a price

Wouldn't refusing to evacuate the territory of a sovereign state after 3 months of demands to do so also be an act of war?

The Union only had a right to that fort by way of South Carolina being part of the Union.

The reality is that the union troops could have evacuated the fort and no shots would have been fired. Regardless of who was right or wrong over the ownership of said fort, Union troops had 3 months to leave peacefully. South Carolina did not have to fire on them, but at the same time, they didn't have to stay.

Saying that South Carolina started the war without provocation is simply false. Three months of occupying a fort in South Carolina territory is all sorts of provocation. Don't lie to yourself.

It was US Property

They are under no obligation to surrender it. Attacking a US Fort is an act of war. Stupid move on their part

 

[Syriusly]

Slavery was a symptom. The south was motivated by economics. Slavery was part of economics. You dont grasp root causes

The South was capable of paying its workforce. Cotton was a huge cash cow and plantation owners made fortunes. The workers who planted, maintained the crop, picked the crop and brought it to market received zero compensation.

The Aristocrats and Sweatshop Owners Get Off Scot-Free in This MInd-Controlled Thread

The Africans got room and board, protection from their own predators, medical services, and many other benefits they never got back in the jungle. Most Whites at the time lived in misery, with the Jews and Irish being treated worse than slaves. The most miserable lifestyle in the whole world was that of the Africans who got stuck back in the jungle. That is, if you don't consider selling their fellow Blacks into slavery as being high entertainment.

Your posting style is tedious

Your celebration of slavery is not worth reading

The only one celebrating slavery seems to be you.

No one on this board approved of slavery. It was barbaric and everyone on this board knows it. The op is about what caused the Civil War.

You think it was slavery. I and others think it was more about State Rights. Slavery was a part of it but not the main part. We have a difference of opinion. Period.

Hell the emancipation proclamation wasn't signed till 1863. That should tell anyone smarter than a rock that slavery wasn't the major cause of the civil war. If it had been that bill would have been signed three years earlier.

It wasn't a bill, it was an illegal proclamation made by Lincoln. Slavery wasn't officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment.


.

True the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't made until 1863- but illegal?

Never was declared so- and Lincoln carefully worded it to be within his authority as the Commander in Chief-

Just the lovers of the Rebel Slave states are pissed off that Lincoln told their slaves that they would be freed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Union wasn't.

The terms of the contract were. We can only assume that the "perpetual" part was intentionally omitted.

 

[TNHarley]

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity. All the continuous states. Those states willingly joined our union. That means the constitution doesn't allow any part of this nation to leave the union.

Show me.

If you read this whole thread you were already shown. As I said in my post you replied to.

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity.

You might want to read the whole thread to get the answer. Again.

I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.

That wasn't and isn't in the Constitution. The articles of confederation were replace by the Constitution.


.

The Union wasn't.

The law of the land was. Thats why i keep laughing at you guys when you mention it. IT IS IRRELEVANT.