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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, what happened was you slavery apologists reflexively started making excuses for slave-holding states..and opine about how you wish the South won...

Give me some examples. I didn't see anyone defending or making excuses for slavery, you pea-brained jackass.

**** you and your lost cause confederate revisionism..

I stated at least 3 times that I hate the confederacy, and even "****" the confederacy. You believe that arguing from a position of logic, in this situation, automatically makes one a slavery/confederacy lover. You are demonstrably a simpleton.

And most conservatives didn't believe the world was spherical until science came and fucked it up -- Science -- another thing next to history, that conservatives are often on the wrong side of

I am not a conservative. Let's get that clear.

But, nice effort lashing out after being exposed as a ******* dumbass. I understand your need to vent.

 

[gipper]

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

Slavery wasn't at the forefront until Lincoln attempted to free Southern Slaves, specifically, as a war measure to further cripple the southern forces. The secession was because of several things, one of the biggest being John Adam's Tariff of Abominations, which caused the South's economy to decline further. Other reasons include an expanding government, as the south believed, rightfully, that Federal Law shouldn't trump State Laws, as the States were originally intended to legislate for themselves, and to be able to opt out of the Federal Government's Nation-wide laws. Lincoln's wanting to free the slaves fell under this category because it's an example of the government eroding state rights through its expanding power.

So, in other words, it had been coming for quite some time, and was about waning agriculture vs expanding industry, and the rapidly expanding government becoming more powerful than the states, due to Presidents, like Lincoln, stomping all over State rights. The US will likely never recover from Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lincoln. The South just wanted to opt out.

I don't know why you guys want it to be about slaves, the south was leftist anyway, seems like you're attempting to further ruin your own image.

Slavery was at the forefront when southern states used it as a justification for secession

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.

Which is probably why it was cited among the reasons that the leftists left the union and formed the Confederacy.

It was THE issue and the reason they wanted to secede before Lincoln took office

They may have had some petty other grievances ......none of which warranted an immediate secession

Not all the Confederate states seceded before Lincoln took office. Why did Virginia secede?

He has no f-ing idea.

 

[Syriusly]

Allowing slavery was a concession the Southern States insisted on

Slavery was legal in all thirteen states in 1776. Try again.

Constitution was ratified in 1788. The continuation of slavery was a concession made to the south

The stain of slavery and racial discrimination is something the south pushed upon us for almost 200 years

The question, in this case, was when was the United States formed, which is 1776, not when was the Constitution ratified. In other words, the United States seceded from the British Empire and formed a slave state.

If in 1776 slavery was legal in all thirteen states how do you figure it was the south alone "pushing" slavery upon "us" for almost 200 years? The math doesn't add up. 1865-1776 doesn't equal 200.

The British Empire was a slave state in 1776. They abolished slavery in 1833.

The United States in 1861, after all the southern states seceded, was still a slave state.

Yes it was- and was until after the war. Oh and not all the southern states seceded.

"Fun" fact- slavery ended in the United States because of the Southern Slave States that tried to secede to protect their slavery.

It was not their intention to end slavery- but their actions to protect their slavery ownership- resulted in them losing them all.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

Which is probably why it was cited among the reasons that the leftists left the union and formed the Confederacy.

It was THE issue and the reason they wanted to secede before Lincoln took office

They may have had some petty other grievances ......none of which warranted an immediate secession

No, it was A issue, just because you view the expansion of government, tariffs on your main resource, and the erosion of state rights, as petty issues, it does not make them so, and as a matter of fact, the South's economy happens to have been a VERY large issue, right up next to the erosion of their rights, and those two together formed the primary issue, Slavery was a SUB-issue.t.

Not according to the Confederate states.

Hardly a mention about tariffs.

And the South's economy? That was largely built around slavery- and the single largest capital in the South- so when you say that the South was trying to protect their economy- you are saying that the South was trying to protect their right to own human property to advance their economy.

The Tariff of Abominations had been in place for decades, mentioning it at the point would have been a waste of time, and even if they had cited it as a reason, it wouldn't have mattered due to the fact that they were already opting out. They cited the most recent slight against them, and then chose to opt out..

Wow- so you really believe that the reason the South seceded- is just what you imagine it to be- rather than the actual words in which they declared the reasons that they seceded.

I am guessing you voted for Trump.

I added citations and quotes, as well as a link to the actual document text, which you ignored, because I had proven you wrong. Since you neglected to counter any of my points and citations, I'll accept your admission of defeat.

 

[ATL]

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about secession.

Slavery was a part of the war, but not the bottom line.

Slavery was the ONLY issue. Period.

You all have been parroting a host of bullshit memes. I have provided solid evidence destroying those memes.

These are the memes of sore losers whose pride can't accept the facts, and who harbor secret desires to return to those days. "Make America Great Again".

Thats bullshit. For the south it was about economics. No one sat there and said they wanted slaves. They wanted agriculture. Slaves were a tool not an end for them.

And slavery had nothing to do with the north going to war at all

LoL, yea, it was strictly about slavery, more clearly, negro chattel slavery. Which is why so many historical documents from the confederacy mentioned negro slavery, their opposition to freeing them and giving them equal rights, and their willingness to fight the union over it.

History will not be changed because your ideology is found to be ******* racist.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me re-paste the title of my post while you explain to me why you keep typing all these words that don't disprove my point..

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

Ok, continue.

You would have done just as well to make the title:

"Most conservatives believe the world is spherical."

Because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, the cause of the WAR was secession. Slavery was the underlying issue, but no shots would have been fired had no one tried to stop states from leaving the union.

You have proved yourself to be a simpleton, incapable of acknowledging nuance. Congratulations.

No, what happened was you slavery apologists reflexively started making excuses for slave-holding states..and opine about how you wish the South won...

**** you and your lost cause confederate revisionism..

And most conservatives didn't believe the world was spherical until science came and fucked it up -- Science -- another thing next to history, that conservatives are often on the wrong side of

There it is again...slavery apologist is anyone who opposes Lincoln’s War. !

Since there was no 'Lincoln's war' only those who oppose Lincoln's actions- and Lincoln's actions resulted in the end of slavery in the United States......if you oppose Lincoln's actions- you are indeed attacking the ending of slavery.

 

[bendog]

Ah always wanted a black lab named Bobby Lee.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

still unresolved' by who?

South Carolina didn't consider it unresolved.

Nor did the United States.

One side believed they could secede, and the other side believed they couldn't secede. In what world does that equate to being resolved?

Are you pretending to be dumb?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yes, it was. Rhode Island was the last state to ratify the Constitution, and in between the time the Articles went out of effect and their ratification of the Constitution they were an independent nation. It’s not as if all the states were immediately bound to the Constitution at the same moment. There have been two separate governments called the United States in history.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Then how was Rhode Island independent of the Union before ratifying the Constitution if it was the same Union? This is an absurd comment.

 

[Syriusly]

It was THE issue and the reason they wanted to secede before Lincoln took office

They may have had some petty other grievances ......none of which warranted an immediate secession

No, it was A issue, just because you view the expansion of government, tariffs on your main resource, and the erosion of state rights, as petty issues, it does not make them so, and as a matter of fact, the South's economy happens to have been a VERY large issue, right up next to the erosion of their rights, and those two together formed the primary issue, Slavery was a SUB-issue.t.

Not according to the Confederate states.

Hardly a mention about tariffs.

And the South's economy? That was largely built around slavery- and the single largest capital in the South- so when you say that the South was trying to protect their economy- you are saying that the South was trying to protect their right to own human property to advance their economy.

The Tariff of Abominations had been in place for decades, mentioning it at the point would have been a waste of time, and even if they had cited it as a reason, it wouldn't have mattered due to the fact that they were already opting out. They cited the most recent slight against them, and then chose to opt out..

Wow- so you really believe that the reason the South seceded- is just what you imagine it to be- rather than the actual words in which they declared the reasons that they seceded.

I am guessing you voted for Trump.

I added citations and quotes, as well as a link to the actual document text, which you ignored, because I had proven you wrong. Since you neglected to counter any of my points and citations, I'll accept your admission of defeat.

You provided a citation- and I am glad to quote from it
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
And note it doesn't mention tariffs that I can find- but every one of them references slavery at least once- most multiple times.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississipi
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. T

South Carolina
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Texas:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confedera

Virginia

and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

 

[Syriusly]

Not the same as the U.S. Constitution.

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.

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.


.

Great post they love to compare today's standards to years ago.. they can't comprehend and some idiot keeps posting libtards founded this country

Liberals founded this country. I don't know any libtards- then or now. The very concept of individual liberty was an liberal idea at the time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Slavery was legal in all thirteen states in 1776. Try again.

Constitution was ratified in 1788. The continuation of slavery was a concession made to the south

The stain of slavery and racial discrimination is something the south pushed upon us for almost 200 years

The question, in this case, was when was the United States formed, which is 1776, not when was the Constitution ratified. In other words, the United States seceded from the British Empire and formed a slave state.

If in 1776 slavery was legal in all thirteen states how do you figure it was the south alone "pushing" slavery upon "us" for almost 200 years? The math doesn't add up. 1865-1776 doesn't equal 200.

The British Empire was a slave state in 1776. They abolished slavery in 1833.

The United States in 1861, after all the southern states seceded, was still a slave state.

Yes it was- and was until after the war. Oh and not all the southern states seceded.

"Fun" fact- slavery ended in the United States because of the Southern Slave States that tried to secede to protect their slavery.

It was not their intention to end slavery- but their actions to protect their slavery ownership- resulted in them losing them all.

I think it’s probably correct to say that the Civil War did end slavery sooner than it otherwise would have ended. That strikes me as a fair comment.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Actually, once you leave the confines of egg-headed "academia" on our campuses and go out and talk to real people, you find that many, many people understand that the Civil War was not "fought over slavery."

You do realize that in March 1865, the Confederacy began a gradual emancipation program, right? Slaves who volunteered to serve in the Confederate army were guaranteed their freedom as a reward for their service, and Robert E. Lee publicly stated that the families of those slaves should eventually be freed as part of the program.

Confederate Emancipation | Abbeville Institute

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let me re-paste the title of my post while you explain to me why you keep typing all these words that don't disprove my point..

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

Ok, continue.

You would have done just as well to make the title:

"Most conservatives believe the world is spherical."

Because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, the cause of the WAR was secession. Slavery was the underlying issue, but no shots would have been fired had no one tried to stop states from leaving the union.

You have proved yourself to be a simpleton, incapable of acknowledging nuance. Congratulations.

No, what happened was you slavery apologists reflexively started making excuses for slave-holding states..and opine about how you wish the South won...

**** you and your lost cause confederate revisionism..

And most conservatives didn't believe the world was spherical until science came and fucked it up -- Science -- another thing next to history, that conservatives are often on the wrong side of

There it is again...slavery apologist is anyone who opposes Lincoln’s War. !

Since there was no 'Lincoln's war' only those who oppose Lincoln's actions- and Lincoln's actions resulted in the end of slavery in the United States......if you oppose Lincoln's actions- you are indeed attacking the ending of slavery.

And this is certainly not correct.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Slavery wasn't at the forefront until Lincoln attempted to free Southern Slaves, specifically, as a war measure to further cripple the southern forces. The secession was because of several things, one of the biggest being John Adam's Tariff of Abominations, which caused the South's economy to decline further. Other reasons include an expanding government, as the south believed, rightfully, that Federal Law shouldn't trump State Laws, as the States were originally intended to legislate for themselves, and to be able to opt out of the Federal Government's Nation-wide laws. Lincoln's wanting to free the slaves fell under this category because it's an example of the government eroding state rights through its expanding power.

So, in other words, it had been coming for quite some time, and was about waning agriculture vs expanding industry, and the rapidly expanding government becoming more powerful than the states, due to Presidents, like Lincoln, stomping all over State rights. The US will likely never recover from Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lincoln. The South just wanted to opt out.

I don't know why you guys want it to be about slaves, the south was leftist anyway, seems like you're attempting to further ruin your own image.

Slavery was at the forefront when southern states used it as a justification for secession

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.

Which is probably why it was cited among the reasons that the leftists left the union and formed the Confederacy.

It was THE issue and the reason they wanted to secede before Lincoln took office

They may have had some petty other grievances ......none of which warranted an immediate secession

No, it was A issue, just because you view the expansion of government, tariffs on your main resource, and the erosion of state rights, as petty issues, it does not make them so, and as a matter of fact, the South's economy happens to have been a VERY large issue, right up next to the erosion of their rights, and those two together formed the primary issue, Slavery was a SUB-issue. 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.

Your view of the government as an entity which should be allowed to handle any and all issues is short-sighted, even as the main problem with this view is apparent and staring you right in the face this very moment.

Tariffs could have been resolved in Congress
Slavery was why they secededed upon Lincoln’s election

A large FEDERAL Government led us to becoming the predominant global power we are

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

For the South it was about 'economics'- the economics of slavery.

Most of the South's capital was invested in slaves. Most fo their production was produced with slaves.

AND- slaves themselves were a commodity to them- a commodity that they 'farmed' just as much as any proud owner of a herd of cattle does- and that was what they were to the South- a very valuable herd of humans.

Slavery is not why the north fought. But slavery is why the South tried to secede- and they fought do defend their secession attempt.

I would only disagree with the bold part. What they were to white people (North and South). That seems to be the hang up in these discussions many times. All white people, North and South, (with the exception of very few) viewed blacks as lesser humans.

Otherwise, I don't disagree.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, it was A issue, just because you view the expansion of government, tariffs on your main resource, and the erosion of state rights, as petty issues, it does not make them so, and as a matter of fact, the South's economy happens to have been a VERY large issue, right up next to the erosion of their rights, and those two together formed the primary issue, Slavery was a SUB-issue.t.

Not according to the Confederate states.

Hardly a mention about tariffs.

And the South's economy? That was largely built around slavery- and the single largest capital in the South- so when you say that the South was trying to protect their economy- you are saying that the South was trying to protect their right to own human property to advance their economy.

The Tariff of Abominations had been in place for decades, mentioning it at the point would have been a waste of time, and even if they had cited it as a reason, it wouldn't have mattered due to the fact that they were already opting out. They cited the most recent slight against them, and then chose to opt out..

Wow- so you really believe that the reason the South seceded- is just what you imagine it to be- rather than the actual words in which they declared the reasons that they seceded.

I am guessing you voted for Trump.

I added citations and quotes, as well as a link to the actual document text, which you ignored, because I had proven you wrong. Since you neglected to counter any of my points and citations, I'll accept your admission of defeat.

You provided a citation- and I am glad to quote from it
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
And note it doesn't mention tariffs that I can find- but every one of them references slavery at least once- most multiple times.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississipi
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. T

South Carolina
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Texas:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confedera

Virginia

and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Virginia references only that they’re the slaveholding states, a statement of fact. It does not say that they’re seceding over fears of slavery ending.

 

[rightwinger]

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 --

Nobody claims that the "Civil" War was not about slavery but that slavery was but one issue among many that together were and are referred to as states rights. At bottom it is the issue of weather the State or federal government has final authority over what rights citizens have and what laws they will live by. Each state has it's own Constitution and laws. At the time some states had Constitutions and laws that allowed slavery while some didn't. The basic issue was which had authority and that has remained in conflict related to such issues as gay marriage, abortion, public land use, etc.

The US Constitution has authority

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Liberals founded this country. I don't know any libtards- then or now. The very concept of individual liberty was an liberal idea at the time.

Correct. Liberals founded this country.

Liberals are not leftists.

Leftists have bastardized the term liberal and misappropriated it.

I am a liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal.