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

[The Sage of Main Street]

My southern ideology? I was born in the north and still live here. I’ve said multiple times I couldn’t care less about the Confederacy or south rising again. Perhaps you should be more careful in putting words in people’s mouth.

Just because you live or grew in the north, doesn’t mean you cannot be a confederacy sympathizer. I know people that live in Illinois that loves the confederacy.

Literally just told you I’m not and there’s no greater on the subject of my views than me.

Sure seems strange to spend so much effort defending it then....if it walks like a duck....

It seems strange to you that a person would have an interest in a historical subject and view events differently from you?

Sure, can't wait to see your arguments for nazis and how Hitler was just mistaken.

Goody Goody Godwin Drops

The race card is a Joker.

 

[OKTexas]

Catch a Whigger by the Toe

That slur indicates a typical Bell Curve denier's contradiction in attitude.

Whigger is a slur against white people, white boys who appropriate black culture by wearing their pants in the Afrocentric "sagging" mode.

Maybe its in bad taste, but whites should not appropriate African American cultural norms.

ROFLMFAO That bit of Afrocentric "sagging", as you call it, comes from the JAIL CULTURE where belts are confiscated. It's a thug thing, nothing more or less.


.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Secession was about slavery. The Civil War wasnt about slavery. The Civil War was about secession.

Exactly. We have Lincoln's own words to back this up.

No you don't. You think you do because you're taking his letter to Horace Greeley out of context.

It's Real Americans Against the Born Rich. Blacks Are Irrelevant.

Greeley also said, "We can always hire half the poor to kill the other half." Once again, that proves that the Abolitionists were vicious plutocratic snobs.

 

[MarcATL]

Seeing how butthurt these racist democrat defenders are -- Now I wonder if they are mad that the South lost

I am thinking so

Of course they're mad the South lost, hence the "The South will RISE again!!" rhetoric most of them engage in.

 

[MarcATL]

Biff buddy...oh never mind

I see you won't take the bait to walk in your truth -- good on you..

I'll catch you on the "Welfare" post -- that usually brings the racism right out of ******

Around these parts you don't really have to do anything to bring the racism out of some of these whities, it flows freely...from their very pores it seems.

 

[rightwinger]

If not for slavery, there would not have been a Civil War

If not for Lincoln there would not have been a Civil War. The "If not for..." argument is plausible on the surface level, but upon any actual consideration it falls apart.

Possibly not in 1861
But it would have just kicked the can down the road

The south was not going to voluntarily give up their slaves

 

[rightwinger]

Seeing how butthurt these racist democrat defenders are -- Now I wonder if they are mad that the South lost

I am thinking so

Of course they're mad the South lost, hence the "The South will RISE again!!" rhetoric most of them engage in.

The reason they fly the confederate flag

 

[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

Every Liberal Is Motivated by a Secret Desire to Be Raped by Some Sweaty Beast

Your celebration of the unevolved races' crime, mooching, laziness, and Low IQs shows that your ilk belongs in the jungle in order to celebrate your Death Wish decadence, instead of preaching it to us.

Yet, our society prefers them to you

You are the one lurking in the shadows

 

[MarcATL]

No, if Lincoln gave the states their states rights that they have been asking for -- except for their right to maintain slaves -- would those states stayed in the union or succeed -- if your answer is that they would have succeeded -- then that tells me that the Civil War was over slavery -- compromises were tried in the past and they failed -- because those states wanted slave labor -- not only did they want that - they made it clear that they felt blacks were meant by God to be subservient to whites -- they were wrong -- they lost -- they don't deserve passionate defenses from conservatives whose main default is to say "democrats want slavery"

By simply observing and reading threads here on USMB, it quickly becomes evident that many of them STILL feel that way.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Any serious student of the Civil War knows that the Southern economic complaints referred to the tariff, unless they specified otherwise. The Florida declaration complained that some federal legislation favored the North at the expense of the South:

"The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital. Such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead, as it has done, to a grinding and degrading despotism."

The Texas declaration likewise complained that unfair federal legislation was enriching the North at the expense of the Southern states:

"They [the Northern states] have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance."

Everyone knew this was referring to the tariff.

The Georgia declaration complained about federal protectionism and subsidies for Northern business interests:

"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 [about $8.5 million in today’s dollars] is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually [about $34 million today] for the support of these objects. These interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually [about $119 million today], throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and have clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors."

Eleven years earlier, Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina discussed some of the South’s concerns about Northern political and economic domination in a famous speech in the U.S. Senate in 1850:

"Had this destruction [of the balance between the Northern and Southern states] been the operation of time without the interference of government, the South would have had no reason to complain; but such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislation of this government, which was appointed as the common agent of all and charged with the protection of the interests and security of all.

"The legislation by which it has been effected may be classed under three heads: The first is that series of acts by which the South has been excluded from the common territory belonging to all the States as members of the federal Union--which have had the effect of extending vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and restricting within narrow limits the portion left the South. The next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North. And the last is a system of political measures by which the original character of the government has been radically changed. . . .

"I have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty with Mexico. The North is making the most strenuous efforts to appropriate the whole to herself, by excluding the South from every foot of it. If she should succeed, it will add to that from which the South has already been excluded 526,078 square miles, and would increase the whole which the North has appropriated to herself to 1,764,023, not including the portion that she may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. To sum up the whole, the United States, since they declared their independence, have acquired 2,373,046 square miles of territory, from which the North will have excluded the South, if she should succeed in monopolizing the newly-acquired Territories, about three-fourths of the whole, leaving to the South but about one-fourth. Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equilibrium between the two sections in the government.

"The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the government. It is well known that the government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed in the North, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her. If to this be added that many of the duties were imposed, not for revenue but for protection--that is, intended to put money, not in the Treasury, but directly into the pocket of the manufacturers--some conception may be formed of the immense amount which in the long course of sixty years has been transferred from South to North. (Calhoun, speech to the U.S. Senate on the Henry Clay compromise measures, March 4, 1850)"

The South’s long-standing opposition to the federal tariff was a factor that led to secession. The South’s concern over the tariff was nothing new. South Carolina and the federal government nearly went to war over the tariff in 1832-1833. In the session of Congress before Lincoln’s inauguration, the House of Representatives passed a huge increase in the tariff, over the loud objections of Southern congressmen. Naturally, this alarmed Southern statesmen at all levels, since the South was usually hit hardest by the tariff. One only has to read the many speeches that Southern representatives gave against the 1860-1861 tariff increase, i.e., the Morrill Tariff, to see how seriously they took this issue. Moreover, in the congressional debates from the previous four decades, one can find dozens of Southern speeches against the tariff. Opposition to the tariff led some Southern leaders to talk of secession over thirty years before the Civil War occurred (Walter Brian Cisco, Taking A Stand: Portraits from the Southern Secession Movement, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania: White Mane Books, 2000, pp. 1-44). Scholars who argue that Southern statesmen didn’t really care about the tariff and that this was merely a “smoke screen” are ignoring a massive body of historical evidence.

The South had valid complaints about the tariff. Adams discusses the effects of the tariff on the Southern states:

"The high tariff in the North compelled the Southern states to pay tribute to the North, either in taxes to fatten Republican coffers or in the inflated prices that had to be paid for Northern goods. Besides being unfair, this violated the uniformity command of the Constitution by having the South pay an undue proportion of the national revenue, which was expended more in the North than in the South. . . ." (When In the Course of Human Events, p. 26)

Economist Frank Taussig, one of the foremost authorities on the tariff, acknowledged that the tariff fell “with particular weight” on the South:

"The Southern members, who were almost to a man supporters of Jackson, were opposed unconditionally not only to an increase of duties, but to the high range which the tariff had already reached. They were convinced, and in the main justly convinced, that the taxes levied by the tariff fell with particular weight on the slave States. . . ." (The Tariff History of the United States, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910, p. 54, emphasis added)

Steven Weisman, in his study of the role that taxation has played in American history, notes that Northern economic exploitation of the South, particularly in the form of the tariff, was a major concern to Southerners:

"The tariff would effectively raise prices on clothing, farm equipment and many other everyday necessities. Farmers in the South . . . squeezed by these high prices and struggling to sell their own farm products abroad, protested the high tariff. . . .

These were some of the factors that thrust Lincoln to the threshold of the most violent and transforming presidency in American history. . . .

"South Carolina went first. The state’s grievances had been long-standing and not simply focused on slavery. Its major complaint went to the heart of the nation’s finances–tariffs. A generation earlier, South Carolina had provoked a states’ rights crisis over its doctrine that states could "nullify" or override, the national tariff system. The nullification fight in 1832 was actually a tax revolt. It pitted the state’s spokesman, Vice President John C. Calhoun, against President Andrew Jackson. Because tariffs rewarded manufacturers but punished farmers with higher prices on everything they needed–clothing, farm equipment and even essential food products like salt and meats–Calhoun argued that the tariff system was discriminatory and unconstitutional. Calhoun’s anti-tariff battle was a rebellion against a system seen throughout the South as protecting the producers of the North. . . .

"The new [Confederate] president, Jefferson Davis, had been a hero of the Mexican War, a former Secretary of War to President Franklin Pierce, and a respected champion of the South as senator from Mississippi. He was a vigorous exponent of the view that the war was, at its core, not a fight to preserve slavery but a struggle to overthrow an exploitative economic system headquartered in the North.

"There was a great deal of evidence to support Davis’s view of the South as the nation’s stepchild. . . . The South had to import two-thirds of its clothing and manufactured goods from outside the region, and southerners paid artificially high prices because of the high tariffs. The South even had to import food. . . .

"From the perspective of the South, the North’s economy rested on a kind of state capitalism of trade barriers, government-sponsored railroads, coddling of trusts, suppression of labor and public investment in canals, roads and other infrastructures. Southern slave owners sought . . . to secure free trade, overseas markets and cheaper imports. Southern resentment of the tariff system propelled the Democratic Party to define itself as the main challenger to the primacy of the industrialist and capitalist overlords of the system." (The Great Tax Wars: Lincoln to Wilson--The Fierce Battles Over Money and Power that Transformed the Nation, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002, pp. 21-22, 52)

Weisman notes that even when New York merchants initially issued a resolution of support for the South’s right to leave in peace, Southerners suspected that the merchants’ support was based on their desire to maintain a commercial relationship that exploited the South:

"As South Carolina and other states seceded, New York’s merchants issued a resolution of solidarity with the South and the right of its states to break away. . . . Southerners were cynical about the support, knowing that it derived from a commercial relationship that primarily benefited New York and exploited the South." (The Great Tax Wars, p. 76)

Weisman also points out that the Confederate Constitution’s prohibition against protective tariffs and government favoritism toward particular businesses was based on the South’s desire to avoid the Union practice of favoring certain industries. Under the Confederate Constitution, says Weisman,

"State legislatures were given the right to overrule . . . [officials of the national Confederate government] on certain issues, and taxes and tariffs “designed to promote or foster any branch of industry” were barred, as were public expenditures to benefit a particular section of the populace. These clauses were a residue of the South’s desire to avoid the Union practice of showering largesse on certain industries." (The Great Tax Wars, p. 65)

Jeffrey R. Hummel, a professor of economics and history, notes the negative impact of the tariff on the Southern states and concedes that Southern complaints about the tariff were justified:

"Despite a steady decline in import duties, tariffs fell disproportionately on Southerners, reducing their income from cotton production by at least 10 percent just before the Civil War. . . .

"At least with respect to the tariff’s adverse impact, Southerners were not only absolutely correct but displayed a sophisticated understanding of economics. . . . The tariff was inefficient; it not only redistributed wealth from farmers and planters to manufacturers and laborers but overall made the country poorer." (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War, Chicago: Open Court, 1996, pp. 39-40, 73)

Economists Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund explain why the tariff was such an important issue to the South:

"The South was basically an agrarian economy. This input-producing region’s major crops were tobacco, rice, and cotton, with much of the latter intended for export or for the textile mills of the North. Southerners had to earn their revenue to buy finished goods from the North and from abroad through the export of raw materials. Since tariffs on finished goods, such as textiles and luxuries, and on capital goods, such as machinery, raised the prices paid by Southerners, they believed correctly that the “terms of trade” were set against them by high protectionist tariffs. Thus, from the earliest days of the nation, the tariff issue was paramount to Southerners." (Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 2004, p. 16)

Civil War scholar Webb Garrison, a former associate dean of Emory University, discusses the South’s long-standing problem with the tariff, the history of the tariff, and the fact that most Southerners believed their cost of living would go down if the South were independent:

"Long before Charlestonians began taking over forts, the U.S. Customs Service and the tariff system had angered the South. Tariffs on imported goods served to protect the industrialized North and boosted the cost of manufactured goods in the agricultural South.

"Such sectional differences had surfaced while the United States was still in its infancy. Congress had imposed an 8 percent tariff on imports in 1789, but by 1816 the rate had jumped to 25 percent and continued to rise. A ceiling was reached in 1828 when the so-called tariff of abominations boosted the cost of imported goods 45 percent. . . .

"When the seceded states merged to form the Confederate States of America, most of the southern population believed their cost of living would decline because tariffs would no longer be collected." (Lincoln’s Little War, Nashville, Tennessee: Rutledge Hill Press, 1997, p. 27)

Historians William and Bruce Catton summarized the economic case that Southern leaders put forth in favor of secession:

"On the economic front, long-standing Southern grievances against Northern financial and commercial exploitation, Northern high-tariff policies, Northern monopoly of the coastwise trade, and similar items, were contrasted to the bright future that awaited an independent South, secure and prosperous on a foundation of cotton, free trade, and an inexhaustible European market with no Northern middlemen to siphon off the profits." (Two Roads to Sumter: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and the March to Civil War, Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004, reprint of original edition, p. 251)

For much more documentation, see:

The Tariff and Secession

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Liberalism

Those quotes are exactly what the Great Virginian, Patrick Henry, would have written, or Thomas Jefferson. Both opposed the Constitution, which enabled this monopoly over the government and caused the Civil War by doing so. Only the brainwashed bootlickers of today's oligarchy believe it didn't.

By the way, who's your avatar?

 

[ATL]

so your position is that secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, but slavery didn't cause the war?

Had Lincoln declared that the war was to end slavery, it would have been so. Neither he, nor anyone else, said "we are going to war to end slavery."

THEREFORE, slavery did not cause the war.

Had slave states remained in the Union, there would have been no war.

THUS, secession caused the war. Not slavery.

Can you connect the dots?

Yea, Lincoln knew he couldn't say he was fighting for the end of slavery, because there was still too many people on the fence about it. He did the same thing Trump did to win, instead of talking about building a wall, he said he didn't care to end slavery.

Good God...that is so incorrect. Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves. He NEVER wanted to free the slaves. He didn't give a shit about the slaves. In his first inaugural, he stated clearly and unambiguously that he would ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if that would keep the south in the Union. Why have you failed to read it? He was the worst kind of white supremacist, even in his day. He intended to deport all blacks after the war.

Lincoln was no saint. Rather...he was the opposite.

How many slaves did he deport? Who signed the emancipation proclamation?

Lincoln said what he needed to in order to not be seen as a radical and get elected. Trump said he was going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, where is the wall?

 

[Syriusly]

so your position is that secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, but slavery didn't cause the war?

Had Lincoln declared that the war was to end slavery, it would have been so. Neither he, nor anyone else, said "we are going to war to end slavery."

THEREFORE, slavery did not cause the war.

Had slave states remained in the Union, there would have been no war.

THUS, secession caused the war. Not slavery.

Can you connect the dots?

Yea, Lincoln knew he couldn't say he was fighting for the end of slavery, because there was still too many people on the fence about it. He did the same thing Trump did to win, instead of talking about building a wall, he said he didn't care to end slavery.

Good God...that is so incorrect. Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves. He NEVER wanted to free the slaves. He didn't give a shit about the slaves. In his first inaugural, he stated clearly and unambiguously that he would ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if that would keep the south in the Union. Why have you failed to read it? He was the worst kind of white supremacist, even in his day. He intended to deport all blacks after the war.

Lincoln was no saint. Rather...he was the opposite.

How many slaves did he deport? Who signed the emancipation proclamation?

Lincoln said what he needed to in order to not be seen as a radical and get elected. Trump said he was going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, where is the wall?

Yep that is the tell of the anti-Lincolnites- rather than content themselves with the facts they resort to lies in order to malign Lincoln.

Lets take a few of them:

• He intended to deport all blacks after the war- nowhere did Lincoln state or indicate any plan to 'deport' former slaves- Lincoln- like many abolitionists of the time- believed that the former slaves would want to leave the United States and proposed voluntary colonization elsewhere- flat out lie.
• He was the worst kind of white supremacist, even in his day- Isn't it odd- that you consider Lincoln to be 'the worst kind of racist'- not the men who owned black slaves- or the men who hung black slaves- or the men who went to war to enshrine their 'right' to own black slaves? Lincoln was the kind of 'white supremacist who had consistently been opposed to the institution of slavery- and ultimately made the decisions that ended slavery in America. That is who you target as the 'worst kind of white supremacist'. By our standards Lincoln was a racist- no doubt- but virtually everyone- even abolitionists- were racists by today's standards. By 1860's standards Lincoln was a moderate.
• Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves. He NEVER wanted to free the slaves. Lincoln get elected with that intention- or begin the war with that intention- yet he was always opposed to slavery. And he did intentionally sign the Emancipation Proclamation- no one forced him to- because he believed that by 1863- that was the best course for the United States.

You know who didn't want to free the slaves?

The Confederate Slave states that tried to flee the United States to maintain their ownership of human property.

You know really were the 'worst kind of racists' of the day- the ones who fought a war to preserve their right to own black slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You're a aoxk of g5000

I have no idea what you think you are saying- but obviously the facts seem to irritate your defense of the Confederacy and their attempt to preserve slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

Only Wage Slavery Is Regressive

Enslaving savages protects evolved human progress

Is that like saving wild Tigers from hunger by caging them?

A statist, folks. This is what they look like.

I think more accurately- a lunatic.

I ignore all of his idiotic posts.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I think the difference is the EP wasn't a "law" of the United States. It was a military order effective in occupied war territory (the Confederacy had by definition left the United States).

The EP did not "declare slavery illegal". It only declared that those who had been slaves in certain occupied territory were freed of their status. Actually abolition of Slavery was effected by the 13th Amendment in December of 1865, at which time none of the seceded states had been readmitted yet.

Don't let the facts intrude on this Confederate love fest.

The Emancipation Proclamation is an odd document to watch the contards twist themselves into pretzels about.

You have the one side who proudly lie that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave- and that is of course false- but they make the lie to diminish the importance of it.

Then you have the other group which proclaims the EP was illegal- deftly ignoring the actual wording of the EP and the legal argument behind it.

And then you have those who make both claims- because of course they want to argue that a) Lincoln did nothing to free any slaves- and it was illegal for him to to it!

 

[BluesLegend]

Biff buddy...oh never mind

I see you won't take the bait to walk in your truth -- good on you..

I'll catch you on the "Welfare" post -- that usually brings the racism right out of ******

Around these parts you don't really have to do anything to bring the racism out of some of these whities, it flows freely...from their very pores it seems.

Link to my non existent racist post or you moronic hack.

 

[Mike Dwight]

hahahaha! haha! hahaaha! Syriusly said, "confederate love fest", that's me, I'm so happy. I mean really who are these People, where are they from, who is doing this now days? The confederacy was fine to EVERYBODY, not one person heres Nazis and said oh no mentioning Nazis meant Nazis are back, so that's one single way confederates are like Nazis, and, people are from the place, and, its got a lot of culture to it, and the reason they ban the Nazi flag in Germany is probably complicated. Confederates still got mystique, no thanks to 12 years a slave, and every black person already thinkgs you're a confederate, its not fun hiding, what, so you're just hiding then?

Some war measure Emancipation Proclomation is CHEAP. We got something American nobody in the world has and its natural-born citizenship, run over here and drop off a baby its American because it makes Abraham Lincoln feel better, guys, world. Give us your tired huddled Liberte, equalite, fraternite statues, yearning to breathe in New York.

 

[Syriusly]

It is despicable

Would have been better to just abandon slavery like other nations did

I don't disagree, but do you really believe there would never have been a war? Do you honestly believe that no state would attempt to leave the union, as they had threatened prior to 1860?

The entire western world ended slavery without a shot fired, with one notable exception. Something Lincoln Cultists never consider.

My thinking is if not for Dishonest Abe, we too would have ended slavery without a shot fired.

Something the Confederate cultists never consider is as the rest of the Western world was ending slavery and emancipating their slaves- the Confederates sought to prevent that by trying to permanently protect their legal slavery by leaving the United States- and then going to war to protect their state's 'rights' to own slaves.

My thinking if it were not for the racist Confederates who tried to ensure their ownership of slaves- that in the United States slavery would have ended- eventually- like maybe after another generation or two or three of black slaves in America.

Or there might still be black slaves sweeping the streets of Atlanta.

 

[Syriusly]

hahahaha! haha! hahaaha! Syriusly said, "confederate love fest", that's me, I'm so happy. I mean really who are these People, where are they from, who is doing this now days? The confederacy was fine to EVERYBODY, not one person heres Nazis and said oh no mentioning Nazis meant Nazis are back, so that's one single way confederates are like Nazis, and, people are from the place, and, its got a lot of culture to it, and the reason they ban the Nazi flag in Germany is probably complicated. Confederates still got mystique, no thanks to 12 years a slave, and every black person already thinkgs you're a confederate, its not fun hiding, what, so you're just hiding then?

Some war measure Emancipation Proclomation is CHEAP. We got something American nobody in the world has and its natural-born citizenship, run over here and drop off a baby its American because it makes Abraham Lincoln feel better, guys, world. Give us your tired huddled Liberte, equalite, fraternite statues, yearning to breathe in New York.

LOL- that was funny Mikey.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don’t see any studies supporting the ops conclusion.

Nor do I see why it matters now if he had any