Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

[cnm]

On April 12–14, 1861, Fort Sumter was the property of the sovereign nation of South Carolina, a sovereign state of the Confederate states.

Which as a sovereign state had ceded all the right, title and claim of Fort Sumter to the United States by an act of the Legislature of South Carolina. Unless you argue South Carolina was not sovereign and so had no right to cede all the right, title and claim.

But really you are just employing the standard tactic of rightard revisionists, redefining words because that is the only way you are able to make an argument in the face of written evidence.

 

[Boss]

In 1861 the negro wasn't even considered human, except by (perhaps) libtards.

Oh no... it was actually people the Libtards tend to hate the most these days! It was Quaker ministers, Congregationalists, Christians... religious people who began the abolition movement.

Most abolitionists viewed slavery as a moral issue of humanity, very similar to how we would today view the abuse of dogs or horses. It had nothing to do with thinking they were "equal" in any way to white people. That was a very rare viewpoint in 1861. And it certainly wasn't upheld by US law.

 

[there4eyeM]

Repeating over and over the lie that the Perpetual Union had somehow evaporated does not constitute a valid argument.

 

[Boss]

Fundamentally, it was about Confederation over Federation... and it was about MONEY.

Yes, property in the form of black people.

As determined by US Law and SCOTUS for 87 years.

...did you have a point?

 

[Bobby1250]

Slavery cannot be extracted from the economy of the South. If the confrontation was over money, it was also inherently over slavery. That blacks were held to be less than human does not mean blacks were less than human, just that ignorance can, for a time, dominate.

In 1861: as of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, negro's were indeed considered to be less than human. It doesn't matter what your idealism is or what your wishful thinking entails.

LEGALLY speaking; negro's were of the same status as my hound dog.

 

[Bobby1250]

Repeating over and over the lie that the Perpetual Union had somehow evaporated does not constituted a valid argument.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but copying what I say only marks you as a dodo bird. Maybe a parrot.

Are you black by chance? I might stipulate to you being a mynah bird.

 

[there4eyeM]

Ignorance can, for a time, dominate.

 

[cnm]

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Oh, who can be bothered with this Gish Gallop? Where revisionists demonstrate they can shovel bullshit faster than it can be cleared away? Must be time for another wall of text to be ignored...

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Avalon Project ​

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.

[...] Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. ​

 

[Bobby1250]

On April 12–14, 1861, Fort Sumter was the property of the sovereign nation of South Carolina, a sovereign state of the Confederate states.

Which as a sovereign state had ceded all the right, title and claim of Fort Sumter to the United States by an act of the Legislature of South Carolina. Unless you argue South Carolina was not sovereign and so had no right to cede all the right, title and claim.

But really you are just employing the standard tactic of rightard revisionists, redefining words because that is the only way you are able to make an argument in the face of written evidence.

Project much?

I have already stated that as of 1861; when South Carolina seceded from the Union; that was when it became a sovereign state. Forget what happened in 1836. That no longer had any application in 1861 after secession and had become null and void.

Re-Post:
In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery--so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

Secession was about MONEY. Deal with it!

 

[cnm]

But anyway, Shirley the answer to the OP has been demonstrated in this thread. The Confederacy is resented because it lives in a make believe world where its refusal to adapt to reality holds back the rest of the US.

 

[Bobby1250]

QUOTE from cnm:
Oh, who can be bothered with this Gish Gallop? Where revisionists demonstrate they can shovel bullshit faster than it can be cleared away? Must be time for another wall of text to be ignored...

( Bobby's note: You sure like to name call while you are projecting. Like I said before....You can make up any lie and repeat it over and over, but no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it does not make it a fact.)

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Avalon Project ​

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.

[...] Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. ​

Interesting change of subject for yet another strawman argument. Btw? Do you always use the marxist 25 Rules of Disinformation for "debates" You have been and are using Rule #4, #5, & 17.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

The 25 Rules of Disinformation

 

[cnm]

As determined by US Law and SCOTUS for 87 years.

...did you have a point?

Only the one that has been made incessantly here, that the Confederacy wanted to maintain and expand slavery and the institution of the black man as property while the North wanted the practice to expire naturally.

 

[cnm]

The 25 Rules of Disinformation

Rightard revisionists need only a couple. Deny and shovel bullshit faster than it can be cleared.

 

[Bobby1250]

But anyway, Shirley the answer to the OP has been demonstrated in this thread. The Confederacy is resented because it lives in a make believe world where its refusal to adapt to reality holds back the rest of the US.

Are you postulating the "Confederacy" still exists today?

 

[Bobby1250]

The 25 Rules of Disinformation

Rightard revisionists need only a couple. Deny and shovel bullshit faster than it can be cleared.

Still projecting, I see. Since you like the pejorative labels "Rightard" and/or "revisionist", suppose I return your gesture and accuse you of shilling? Of being a hasbarat?

Fair is fair, right?

Which do you prefer? Shill or hasbarat?

 

[Bobby1250]

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Oh, who can be bothered with this Gish Gallop? Where revisionists demonstrate they can shovel bullshit faster than it can be cleared away? Must be time for another wall of text to be ignored...

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Avalon Project ​

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.

[...] Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. ​

You DO realize you shot yourself in the foot by posting that, right?

According to ... Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union ... S.C. nullified the 1836 treaty by seceding.

Ooops.

 

[cnm]

No. Where does it say that?

 

[cnm]

Are you postulating the "Confederacy" still exists today?

In the imagination of much of the South, yes, as symbolised by the use of the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

 

[ChrisL]

The point here for me is that many, MANY men from the south died during the Civil War, and they died fighting under that flag. Now, whether you agree with the reason for their fighting the war or not, that doesn't change the fact that these men died during a war, and I think it is pretty bad that we would just associate this flag with slavery. Most of the men who fought and died in that war did not even own slaves. Only the rich people, plantation owners and the like, owned slaves. The regular man from the south did not.

 

[paperview]

That the Confederacy attacked the United States is not in doubt. That the United States may have fought a war to protect the union does not prevent the Confederacy having gone to war to assert, expand and maintain the inferiority and bondage of the black man.

How come none of the revisionists are quoting secession documents or speeches? Because such evidence blows their manufactured history out of the water.

ORLY?

There is no doubt the North started the ... wait for it..... "War of Northern Aggression" !!!

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.

Why do you keep spamming sick, perverted history from the pen of White Supremacist nutjob, Chuck Baldwin?

For those that don't know who Bobby is cutting and pasting from ...

Chuck Baldwin, a 35-year Florida “guns and God” pastor and a leader in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, moved his apocalyptic mission to Montana in 2010, forming a new church in a burgeoning center for antigovernment and white supremacist extremists. Baldwin’s arrival in the Flathead Valley, where his Liberty Fellowship is drawing an array of radical-right congregants, followed years of activity on the far right."

Chuck Baldwin Southern Poverty Law Center

A Gathering of Eagles Extremists Look to Montana Southern Poverty Law Center

"For 35 years Baldwin, a fundamentalist Christian, had lived and preached in Pensacola, Florida, railing in a syndicated column in recent years about U.N. gun control conspiracy theories, tyranny-minded globalists and FEMA internment camps."