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

[Biff_Poindexter]

.
It was not at the forefront, it was an issue which leads to other issues. It also wasn't the only problem cited. You only view it as being at the forefront because you see race in everything.

Tell that to Louisiana:
As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

It's like they saw race in everything -- Slavery was such a sub-issue -- why would they even include in such a forefront way?? Hmmmm

The main reason the government is able to rule over the states today is because nobody stopped Lincoln, or Woodrow Wilson, or FDR when the opportunity was there. These are not petty issues, the states have not recovered, and likely never will.

So in other words....too bad the South lost??

Sure, slaves would have been further subjected to countless decades of more murder, rape, torture and oppression -- but hey, at least we taught those Feds a lesson.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

Like many of the defenders of the Confederacy you keep bringing up this fallacy.

The United States did not enter the war to end slavery.
But the Confederate Slave states left the Union to perpetuate slavery- and to defend their "rights" to perpetuate slavery and own human property- attacked troops of the United States Army.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's funny how the very same dipshits who attack Lincoln in this topic are the same dipshits who take credit for Lincoln being a Republican when they are screaming that Confederates were Democrats in other topics.

Positively schizophrenic.

Proof?

Stick around. At least once a week, some dipshit rants about Democrats and Confederates and LBJ and the KKK, ignoring the fact the racists were far right wing Christian terrorists.

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.

Secession preceded the war, you can pretend otherwise, but you would be wrong.


.

Secession was due to Slavery, you can pretend otherwise, but you would be wrong.

And Secession- and South Carolina's decision to fire on American troops- was the cause of the war.

And yes- the Confederate slave states were on the wrong side of history.

No.they where on the right side of history, pots legal now in many states and they almost beat the North.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the commander in chief to unilaterally write laws. Slavery was legal, he had no authority to declare it otherwise, by proclamation.


.

 

[Syriusly]

Civil War still divides Americans

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

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

That is what the guys who won the war wrote. Honestly, raw materials and natural resources is what the war was over. Lincoln did not like black people anyway. He wanted them equal, just not around him. He needed a reason to force the south to stay in the union.

Once again.

The war happened because the Confederate Slave States seceded to protect their ownership of human property.

No- Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to keep them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Staying on US Government property owned by the people of the US is not hostile

Again, not a settled issue.

One side believed they were right because you can't leave the union.

The other side believed they were because foreign troops occupied their territory.

Or, are you AGAIN going to hold one side to a different standard because you are bigoted?

Oh it is pretty straight forward.

Who were the troops at Fort Sumter?

Troops of the United States Army

You know- these guys- but 150 years earlier.

View attachment 198330

Tell us more about why you think it was appropriate to fire on the American Army?

State rights?

 

[Syriusly]

It's funny how the very same dipshits who attack Lincoln in this topic are the same dipshits who take credit for Lincoln being a Republican when they are screaming that Confederates were Democrats in other topics.

Positively schizophrenic.

Proof?

Stick around. At least once a week, some dipshit rants about Democrats and Confederates and LBJ and the KKK, ignoring the fact the racists were far right wing Christian terrorists.

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.

Secession preceded the war, you can pretend otherwise, but you would be wrong.


.

Secession was due to Slavery, you can pretend otherwise, but you would be wrong.

And Secession- and South Carolina's decision to fire on American troops- was the cause of the war.

And yes- the Confederate slave states were on the wrong side of history.

No.they where on the right side of history, pots legal now in many states and they almost beat the North.

When did the legal pot states almost beat the North?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Staying on US Government property owned by the people of the US is not hostile

Again, not a settled issue.

One side believed they were right because you can't leave the union.

The other side believed they were because foreign troops occupied their territory.

Or, are you AGAIN going to hold one side to a different standard because you are bigoted?

Oh it is pretty straight forward.

Who were the troops at Fort Sumter?

Troops of the United States Army

You know- these guys- but 150 years earlier.

View attachment 198330

Tell us more about why you think it was appropriate to fire on the American Army?

Oh, Jesus.

At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, the issue of whether South Carolina could secede from the Union was still unresolved.

Can we all agree on that?

Or do you also insist on holding South Carolina to today's standards?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

A contract without a term of service is perpetual
My marriage contract says nothing about perpetual

Because you have the right to terminate it.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Civil War still divides Americans

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

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

That is what the guys who won the war wrote. Honestly, raw materials and natural resources is what the war was over. Lincoln did not like black people anyway. He wanted them equal, just not around him. He needed a reason to force the south to stay in the union.

Once again.

The war happened because the Confederate Slave States seceded to protect their ownership of human property.

No- Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to keep them.

Bullshit it was all about states rights .

 

[Syriusly]

Staying on US Government property owned by the people of the US is not hostile

Again, not a settled issue.

One side believed they were right because you can't leave the union.

The other side believed they were because foreign troops occupied their territory.

Or, are you AGAIN going to hold one side to a different standard because you are bigoted?

Oh it is pretty straight forward.

Who were the troops at Fort Sumter?

Troops of the United States Army

You know- these guys- but 150 years earlier.

View attachment 198330

Tell us more about why you think it was appropriate to fire on the American Army?

State rights?

So when the Iraqi Army fired on the American Army it was appropriate and when we fired back- we were the aggressors?

 

[Syriusly]

Civil War still divides Americans

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

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

That is what the guys who won the war wrote. Honestly, raw materials and natural resources is what the war was over. Lincoln did not like black people anyway. He wanted them equal, just not around him. He needed a reason to force the south to stay in the union.

Once again.

The war happened because the Confederate Slave States seceded to protect their ownership of human property.

No- Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to keep them.

Bullshit it was all about states rights .

The state's 'rights' to keep the ownership of human property legal.

Read the Confederate Constitution.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Staying on US Government property owned by the people of the US is not hostile

Again, not a settled issue.

One side believed they were right because you can't leave the union.

The other side believed they were because foreign troops occupied their territory.

Or, are you AGAIN going to hold one side to a different standard because you are bigoted?

Oh it is pretty straight forward.

Who were the troops at Fort Sumter?

Troops of the United States Army

You know- these guys- but 150 years earlier.

View attachment 198330

Tell us more about why you think it was appropriate to fire on the American Army?

State rights?

So when the Iraqi Army fired on the American Army it was appropriate and when we fired back- we were the aggressors?

So this is one of the 57 states Obama was talking about ..iraq?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

A contract without a term of service is perpetual
My marriage contract says nothing about perpetual

Because you have the right to terminate it.


.

Actually that is not a 'right'- which is why divorce was illegal in many states for much of our history.

 

[Syriusly]

Staying on US Government property owned by the people of the US is not hostile

Again, not a settled issue.

One side believed they were right because you can't leave the union.

The other side believed they were because foreign troops occupied their territory.

Or, are you AGAIN going to hold one side to a different standard because you are bigoted?

Oh it is pretty straight forward.

Who were the troops at Fort Sumter?

Troops of the United States Army

You know- these guys- but 150 years earlier.

View attachment 198330

Tell us more about why you think it was appropriate to fire on the American Army?

State rights?

So when the Iraqi Army fired on the American Army it was appropriate and when we fired back- we were the aggressors?

So this is one of the 57 states Obama was talking about ..iraq?

No it is the one that the Canadians burned down the White House that Trump was talking about.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Civil War still divides Americans

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

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

That is what the guys who won the war wrote. Honestly, raw materials and natural resources is what the war was over. Lincoln did not like black people anyway. He wanted them equal, just not around him. He needed a reason to force the south to stay in the union.

Once again.

The war happened because the Confederate Slave States seceded to protect their ownership of human property.

No- Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to keep them.

Bullshit it was all about states rights .

The state's 'rights' to keep the ownership of human property legal.

Read the Confederate Constitution.

To ******* think the civil war was all about slavery is childish and juvenile.

It was way more then that

 

[buckeye45_73]

Civil War still divides Americans

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

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

That is what the guys who won the war wrote. Honestly, raw materials and natural resources is what the war was over. Lincoln did not like black people anyway. He wanted them equal, just not around him. He needed a reason to force the south to stay in the union.

Once again.

The war happened because the Confederate Slave States seceded to protect their ownership of human property.

No- Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to keep them.

Bullshit it was all about states rights .

The state's 'rights' to keep the ownership of human property legal.

Read the Confederate Constitution.

Noone is disputing that...sure if slavery didn't exist...there wouldn't have been a civil war
But states rights was the legal reason to do it.....

you do know that the northeast almost succeeded around the time of the war of 1812 over the issues of impressment and tarrifs with Britain.......that was a states rights issue and would have created a civil war as well.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again, not a settled issue.

One side believed they were right because you can't leave the union.

The other side believed they were because foreign troops occupied their territory.

Or, are you AGAIN going to hold one side to a different standard because you are bigoted?

Oh it is pretty straight forward.

Who were the troops at Fort Sumter?

Troops of the United States Army

You know- these guys- but 150 years earlier.

View attachment 198330

Tell us more about why you think it was appropriate to fire on the American Army?

State rights?

So when the Iraqi Army fired on the American Army it was appropriate and when we fired back- we were the aggressors?

So this is one of the 57 states Obama was talking about ..iraq?

No it is the one that the Canadians burned down the White House that Trump was talking about.

They helped burn down the white house to say no they didn't, well you have to pick up a history book, written by real historians..

Their is no denying that fact.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

A contract without a term of service is perpetual
My marriage contract says nothing about perpetual

Because you have the right to terminate it.


.

Actually that is not a 'right'- which is why divorce was illegal in many states for much of our history.

I seriously doubt his marriage contract is that old. There ya go again, conflating todays standards with the past.


.

 

[gipper]

"Perpetual Union".

Indisputable. But of course the sore losers try anyway.

Nothing is perpetual in the entire universe but the statist believes the US Government is perpetual, and he will kill you if you wish to leave peacefully.