Were the Confederates traitors

[rightwinger]

True.

But they were not crime-ridden hellholes.

Those towns allowed terrorism against their black residents

 

[Seymour Flops]

Those towns allowed terrorism against their black residents

Democrats on the town councils actually participated in those terrorist crimes, not just allowed them.

Is your point that Democrats have been evil for a long time?

I think you forgot which side you are trying to support.

 

[Zincwarrior]

True.

But they were not crime-ridden hellholes.

No but they would kill darkies that got out of line.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Democrats on the town councils actually participated in those terrorist crimes, not just allowed them.

Is your point that Democrats have been evil for a long time?

I think you forgot which side you are trying to support.

Now those Dems are MAGAs.

 

[Quantrill]

The South was an Evil Empire

An empire built on slavery of its citizens.
An economy built on free labor
A nation with 40 percent of its people in bondage
A nation that bred humans for profit

They deserved what they got

That economic empire built on slavery was a product of the North and South, primarily by the North. The North got rich in slavery.

From: (Complicity, Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, Ballantine Books, 2006)

"At the same time that the North was selling food and other supplies to the sugar plantations that blanketed the islands of the Caribbean, thousands of acres of Connecticut, New York, and tiny Rhode Island held plantations that used slave labor." p. (xxviii)

"In the century before Congress finally banned the importation of slaves, Rhode Island was America's leader in the transatlantic trade, launching nearly 1,000 voyages to Africa and carrying at least 100,000 captives back across the Atlantic. The captains and crews of these ships were often the verteran seamen of America New Englanders." p. (xxviii)

"In the decades before the Civi War, New York City's bustling seaport became the hub of an enormously lucrative illegal slave trade. Manhattan shipyards built ships to carry captive Africans, the vessels often outfitted with crates of shackles and with the huge wate tanks needed for their human cargo. A conservative estimate is that during the illegal trade's peak years, 1859 and 1860, at least two slave ships--each built to hold between 600 and 1,000 slaves--left lower Manhattan every month." p. (xxviii)

My how the North profited from slavery.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The South’s protections under our Constitution was the right to vote, to elect representatives to Congress and the President.
The remedy to your grievances is not secession but to have your voices heard in Congress and convince others that your position was right.

In this case, the South’s position was the expansion of slavery. They saw the handwriting on the wall that new states were not going to allow slavery.
Rather than work within the Constitution, they chose secession to form an Evil Empire.

The expansion of slavery should have never been a problem with the North. Slavery was legal. Just as the Northernor could go to the territories with his property, the Southernor should have been free to do also.

Instead, the North was constntly trying to keep slavery from expanding. That was illegal according to the Constitution. Yes, the South saw the handwriting on the wall, the Northern States were denying it's right and protection under the Constitution.

The South didn't need to work with the Constitution. The Constitution was already on their side. The North couldn't work with the Constitution, as it was against what they wanted. So they just denied the South it's rights under the Constitution.

Quantrill

 

[Zincwarrior]

What exactly is the point of this thread? They tried to secede so rich people could keep slaves. They lost. That was 160 years ago.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats on the town councils actually participated in those terrorist crimes, not just allowed them.

Is your point that Democrats have been evil for a long time?

I think you forgot which side you are trying to support.

Nice try

But slavery except slavery existed for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed. It was a peculiar institution of the South
Democrats in the north did not support segregation

 

[rightwinger]

The expansion of slavery should have never been a problem with the North. Slavery was legal. Just as the Northernor could go to the territories with his property, the Southernor should have been free to do also.

Instead, the North was constntly trying to keep slavery from expanding. That was illegal according to the Constitution. Yes, the South saw the handwriting on the wall, the Northern States were denying it's right and protection under the Constitution.

The South didn't need to work with the Constitution. The Constitution was already on their side. The North couldn't work with the Constitution, as it was against what they wanted. So they just denied the South it's rights under the Constitution.

Quantrill

There is nothing in the Constitution protecting slavery or the expansion thereof. Just that 3/5 count in terms of allocating congressional seats
New states wanted no part of slavery and the south realized there congressional influence was waning.

So they created a Confederacy to preserve slavery

 

[Quantrill]

What exactly is the point of this thread? They tried to secede so rich people could keep slaves. They lost. That was 160 years ago.

Are you aware you're in the 'History' section. History means it has occured in the past. It's a study of things in the past. Your simple statment of that time period is typical of most Americans. Woefully lacking.

Quantrill

 

[Zincwarrior]

Are you aware you're in the 'History' section. History means it has occured in the past. It's a study of things in the past. Your simple statment of that time period is typical of most Americans. Woefully lacking.

Quantrill

Quatrill was a mass murderer.

 

[rightwinger]

That economic empire built on slavery was a product of the North and South, primarily by the North. The North got rich in slavery.

More Lost Cause propaganda trying to blame the north for slavery.
Nothing in the Constitution prevented plantation owners from paying their workers….they just preferred slavery.

At our founding, many Northern States wanted to end slavery. But Southern States insisted on it. As it was, most thought the institution of slavery would go away on its own.
But then came the Cotton Gin and slavery became big business

 

[Quantrill]

There is nothing in the Constitution protecting slavery or the expansion thereof. Just that 3/5 count in terms of allocating congressional seats
New states wanted no part of slavery and the south realized there congressional influence was waning.

So they created a Confederacy to preserve slavery

As far as the Constitution protecting slavery, Article IV, Sec. 2, Clause 3. Expansion of slavery didn't matter.

Wrong again. The Northern States wanted no slavery in the territories. They wanted to make sure the Southernor couldn't take his slaves into the territory and have a vote, as to whether or not the 'new' state would be slave or free. Your's is twisted logic.

The Confederacy was created because the South seceded. The South seceded because it's legal right and protection of slavery was not being honored by the North.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

More Lost Cause propaganda trying to blame the north for slavery.
Nothing in the Constitution prevented plantation owners from paying their workers….they just preferred slavery.

At our founding, many Northern States wanted to end slavery. But Southern States insisted on it. As it was, most thought the institution of slavery would go away on its own.
But then came the Cotton Gin and slavery became big business

No, the book I quoted from 'Complicity' is not a product of 'Lost Cause propaganda'. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it's propaganda.

Nothing in the Constitution prevented slavery.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Oh, so they aren't really Americans?

Puerto Rico is not a state.

 

[Quantrill]

Quatrill was a mass murderer.

Was he?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

The expansion of slavery should have never been a problem with the North. Slavery was legal. Just as the Northernor could go to the territories with his property, the Southernor should have been free to do also.

Instead, the North was constntly trying to keep slavery from expanding. That was illegal according to the Constitution. Yes, the South saw the handwriting on the wall, the Northern States were denying it's right and protection under the Constitution.

The South didn't need to work with the Constitution. The Constitution was already on their side. The North couldn't work with the Constitution, as it was against what they wanted. So they just denied the South it's rights under the Constitution.

Quantrill

Off topic.

 

[Unkotare]

...

The Confederacy was created ...

It never existed.

 

[Quantrill]

Off topic.

No, on topic, just over your head.

Quantrill

 

[rightwinger]

No, the book I quoted from 'Complicity' is not a product of 'Lost Cause propaganda'. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it's propaganda.

Nothing in the Constitution prevented slavery.

Quantrill

Nope, does now