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

[paperview]

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.

The Lost Causers are truly...a lost cause.

 

[Boss]

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.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that you are now running from the fact that owning black people as property was the idea of the United States and not the Confederacy. Of course the CSA wanted to maintain what had been law of the land and upheld by the SCOTUS for 87 years. You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything. You've also shown no evidence the North collectively wanted the practice to expire naturally. These are emotions you are applying with a broad brush to an entire group.... Like BIGOTS generally want to do.

 

[paperview]

You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything.
...

You
have
*got*
to
be
kidding
me.

Geeze, they only made it clear their plan was to expand slavery a gazillion times. What do you think all that shit going on about wnating territories to be admitted as slave states?

Bleeding Kansas,....Nebraska, Missouri,...

do you know the details of how California became a state?

After the CSA seceded, they even claimed New Mexico territory as theirs.



Map of the states and territories claimed by the Confederate States of America

....all that -- ? and you don't think they had plans to expand it?

Shall we talk about heir plans for Cuba, Mexico, Central America?

 

[paperview]

"Slaveholders were not modest about the perceived virtues of their way of life. In the years leading up to the Civil War, calls for expansion into the tropics reached a fever pitch, and slaveholders marveled at the possibility of spreading a new empire into central America:

Looking into the possibilities of the future, regarding the magnificent country of tropical America, which lies in the path of our destiny on this continent, we may see an empire as powerful and gorgeous as ever was pictured in our dreams of history. What is that empire? It is an empire founded on military ideas; representing the noble peculiarities of Southern civilization; including within its limits the isthmuses of America and the regenerated West Indies; having control of the two dominant staples of the world's commerce—cotton and sugar; possessing the highways of the world's commerce; surpassing all empires of the age in the strength of its geographical position; and, in short, combining elements of strength, prosperity, and glory, such as never before in the modern ages have been placed within the reach of a single government. What a splendid vision of empire!

How sublime in its associations! How noble and inspiriting the idea, that upon the strange theatre of tropical America, once, if we may believe the dimmer facts of history, crowned with magnificent empires and flashing cities and great temples, now covered with mute ruins, and trampled over by half-savages, the destiny of Southern civilization is to be consummated in a glory brighter even than that of old, the glory of an empire, controlling the commerce of the world, impregnable in its position, and representing in its internal structure the most harmonious of all the systems of modern civilization.

Edward Pollard, the journalist who wrote that book, titled it Black Diamonds Gathered In The Darkey Homes Of The South. Perhaps even this is too subtle. In 1858, Mississippi Senator Albert Gallatin Brown was clearer:

I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it. If the worm-eaten throne of Spain is willing to give it for a fair equivalent, well—if not, we must take it. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican Stats; and I want them all for the same reason—for the planting and spreading of slavery.

And a footing in Central America will powerfully aid us in acquiring those other states. It will render them less valuable to the other powers of the earth, and thereby diminish competition with us. Yes, I want these countries for the spread of slavery. I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth, and rebellious and wicked as the Yankees have been, I would even extend it to them.

I would not force it upon them, as I would not force religion upon them, but I would preach it to them, as I would preach the gospel. They are a stiff-necked and rebellious race, and I have little hope that they will receive the blessing, and I would therefore prepare for its spread to other more favored lands.

Thus in 1861, when the Civil War began, the Union did not face a peaceful Southern society wanting to be left alone. It faced an an aggressive power, a Genosha, an entire society based on the bondage of a third of its residents, with dreams of expanding its fields of the bondage further South."

The Confederate Cause in the Words of Its Leaders - The Atlantic

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Lost Causers are truly...a lost cause.

It was not a lost cause. The south could have and should have won. They were outmanned and outgunned yes, but so was north vietnam in the vietnam war. The south had a much smaller task than the north. The north wanted to conquer the south while the south had no such plans on the north.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

More namecalling from the left. That's all they ever have.

 

[paperview]

The Lost Causers are truly...a lost cause.

It was not a lost cause.

Lost Cause, The - Encyclopedia Virginia

Confronting Slavery and Revealing the "Lost Cause"

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that you are now running from the fact that owning black people as property was the idea of the United States and not the Confederacy. Of course the CSA wanted to maintain what had been law of the land and upheld by the SCOTUS for 87 years. You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything. You've also shown no evidence the North collectively wanted the practice to expire naturally. These are emotions you are applying with a broad brush to an entire group.... Like BIGOTS generally want to do.

You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything. You've also shown no evidence the North collectively wanted the practice to expire naturally.

The very fact that you seem to not know anything about this shows clearly that you are not only ill equipped to even be discussing this but that your understanding of history is sorely lacking.

From the moment new territories were added, the question of slave or free was the first and main argument regarding their future.

1820- The Missouri compromise
Missouri Compromise - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com

1848- The Wilmot Proviso
Wilmot Proviso - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com

1848- The formation of " The Free Soil Party"
Free-Soil Party The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

1850- The compromise of 1850
RACE - History - Expansion of Slavery in the U.S.

1854- The Kansas- Nebraska act
The Kansas-Nebraska Act ushistory.org

1854- The formation of the Republican party whose platform was hostile toward slavery.
The Republican Party Founded History Today

This 1854 map shows slave states (grey), free states (red), and U.S. territories (green) with Kansas at the center. The map represents the territorial compromise of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. A federal law passed on May 30, 1854, the act provided the framework for organizing territorial governments for what would later became the states of Kansas and Nebraska and provided that each territory would decide whether to allow slavery or not by popular vote, overturning the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
>Image Credits

If that isn't enough........

From the Constitution of the Confederacy:
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 3.
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States March 11 1861


Congratulations. You've failed 8th grade. Again, no doubt.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it was about slavery. The confederacy wanted to secede from the union - willing to fight against their own country, fellow citizens, even family - in order preserve what they percieved as their right to keep slaves.

Hey moron, can't you read??? How can it be about slavery when both sides practiced slavery???? Think, you miserable america-hating wretch.

Hey moron, if you read the constitution of the confederacy, you will see that it WAS about slavery. If you read the speech given by the vice-president of the confederacy, you will see it WAS about slavery. Try to educate yourself before you spout your bullshit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Go figure.

Poll Majority sees Confederate flag as Southern pride - CNNPolitics.com

"Among whites, there's a sharp divide by education, and those with more formal education are less apt to see the flag as a symbol of pride. Among whites with a college degree, 51% say it's a symbol of pride, 41% one of racism. Among those whites who do not have a college degree, 73% say it's a sign of Southern pride, 18% racism."

 

[Bobby1250]

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.

You're funny. Tell us? Have you been able to get your GED yet?

 

[Boss]

Geeze, they only made it clear their plan was to expand slavery a gazillion times. What do you think all that shit going on about wnating territories to be admitted as slave states?

Bleeding Kansas,....Nebraska, Missouri,...

All of this happened in the United States Congress... BEFORE the CSA existed.

 

[Bobby1250]

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."

Oh this is a funny one. Unable to face the fact that I am right and have the sources to back it up, you simply discount my source because they are on what the cultural marxist SPLC, the, Edomite/Khazars, who call themselves "Jews", who pretend to be Semites and the descendants of the Biblical Hebrews for political and financial gain, deem to be a 'white supremacist' .

I've heard this argument many a time. Simply because an FBI statistic for example, is posted on a KKK or white power web site, that suddenly makes it false.

That is patently ridiculous.

If you can't stand the heat, marxist lover, get out of the kitchen.

Since I posted the link everytime, everyone SHOULD already know what I have been quoting from.. I'm sure you are racist enough to call Mr. Baldwin names but what counts is...is he right? Or, is he wrong.

That is the only thing that matters.

And FYI, he is not wrong. The War of Northern Aggression started because of money the North was extorting from the South.

 

[Boss]

Map of the states and territories claimed by the Confederate States of America

....all that -- ? and you don't think they had plans to expand it?

Well... Again (for the retarded)... IF cotton, tobacco and sugar cane grew in Santa Fe or Tuscon, I might agree with you... but they can't grow there, so there would have been no need for slave labor there. People didn't own hundreds of slaves just because they could.

No.. the CONFEDERACY didn't have plans to expand it. That's the point I am trying to make to you and you don't seem to want to understand. The very nature of Confederate government means they couldn't have wanted to do that. The power of whether or not slavery existed was left to the states to decide for themselves. Their Constitution specifically addressed this in no uncertain terms.

So you can show me maps or colorful language of the time from politicians who were racists appealing to their racist constituencies... and it doesn't "prove" anything as fact. White people were racist back then, across the board... 98% of them... didn't matter if they were abolitionists or not. You want to try and imagine a North that was devoid of racism and fighting for the freedom of blacks... that was not the case.

None of you want to discuss the 30~40 years following the Civil War, after the mean old CSA racists were defeated... In places like Milwaukee, Wisconsin where white gangs rode through black neighborhoods killing every black person they saw.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wow!
SMH.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This shows very clearly how the south felt about the western territories and whether or not slavery should be expanded. I gave you multiple examples of how this debate played out politically in the first half of the 19th century.

"A New Free State. These antislavery Californians quickly seized the initiative and in October 1849, with the Taylor administration’s blessing, met in convention and applied for admission to the Union as a free state. Southern senators, who had long counted on their control of the Senate as a check to antislavery policies, were livid. “For the first time, we are about permanently to destroy the balance of power between the sections,” seethed first-term Mississippi senator Jefferson Davis. He added that if California was admitted as the sixteenth free state, the fifteen states of the South would be reduced to permanent minority status within the Union. This was unacceptable to most Southerners, who feared that slavery confined to the South would quickly suffocate. The South, more and more of its representatives were saying, would either have to concede victory to the Free Soilers or leave the Union."

The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 FREE The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 information Encyclopedia.com Find The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 research

 

[Boss]

This shows very clearly how the south felt about the western territories and whether or not slavery should be expanded. I gave you multiple examples of how this debate played out politically in the first half of the 19th century.

"A New Free State. These antislavery Californians quickly seized the initiative and in October 1849, with the Taylor administration’s blessing, met in convention and applied for admission to the Union as a free state. Southern senators, who had long counted on their control of the Senate as a check to antislavery policies, were livid. “For the first time, we are about permanently to destroy the balance of power between the sections,” seethed first-term Mississippi senator Jefferson Davis. He added that if California was admitted as the sixteenth free state, the fifteen states of the South would be reduced to permanent minority status within the Union. This was unacceptable to most Southerners, who feared that slavery confined to the South would quickly suffocate. The South, more and more of its representatives were saying, would either have to concede victory to the Free Soilers or leave the Union."

The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 FREE The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 information Encyclopedia.com Find The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 research

Look... You are trying to debate with me on an argument that was made in the Congress of the United States, not the Confederate States of America! But you are trying to apply this argument to the CSA which didn't even exist at the time.

It's like arguing that some Colonial agreement reached with England before the Revolution was somehow indicative of our founding as a nation. It has no bearing, it was a different time and a different debate.

The main point is... The Confederacy was established AS a Confederacy! There is something very distinctive about that word and you need to acknowledge that. The very nature of a confederation is that of "states rights" and no central authority. How can you make the argument that the "confederacy wanted to expand..." or do anything for that matter? The very nature of their governmental structure left such powers to the member states and NOT the Confederate government.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that you are now running from the fact that owning black people as property was the idea of the United States and not the Confederacy. Of course the CSA wanted to maintain what had been law of the land and upheld by the SCOTUS for 87 years. You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything. You've also shown no evidence the North collectively wanted the practice to expire naturally. These are emotions you are applying with a broad brush to an entire group.... Like BIGOTS generally want to do.

You should be embarrassed to admit you dont know what you are talking about but yet you seem proud of that fact! The entire reason the losers wanted to secede had to do with the argument of expanding slavery.

 

[Asclepias]

None of you want to discuss the 30~40 years following the Civil War, after the mean old CSA racists were defeated... In places like Milwaukee, Wisconsin where white gangs rode through black neighborhoods killing every black person they saw.

Why would anyone want to discuss something thats off topic? The question is in regard to slavery being a reason people mock the losers that supported it in the south.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This shows very clearly how the south felt about the western territories and whether or not slavery should be expanded. I gave you multiple examples of how this debate played out politically in the first half of the 19th century.

"A New Free State. These antislavery Californians quickly seized the initiative and in October 1849, with the Taylor administration’s blessing, met in convention and applied for admission to the Union as a free state. Southern senators, who had long counted on their control of the Senate as a check to antislavery policies, were livid. “For the first time, we are about permanently to destroy the balance of power between the sections,” seethed first-term Mississippi senator Jefferson Davis. He added that if California was admitted as the sixteenth free state, the fifteen states of the South would be reduced to permanent minority status within the Union. This was unacceptable to most Southerners, who feared that slavery confined to the South would quickly suffocate. The South, more and more of its representatives were saying, would either have to concede victory to the Free Soilers or leave the Union."

The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 FREE The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 information Encyclopedia.com Find The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 research

Look... You are trying to debate with me on an argument that was made in the Congress of the United States, not the Confederate States of America! But you are trying to apply this argument to the CSA which didn't even exist at the time.

It's like arguing that some Colonial agreement reached with England before the Revolution was somehow indicative of our founding as a nation. It has no bearing, it was a different time and a different debate.

The main point is... The Confederacy was established AS a Confederacy! There is something very distinctive about that word and you need to acknowledge that. The very nature of a confederation is that of "states rights" and no central authority. How can you make the argument that the "confederacy wanted to expand..." or do anything for that matter? The very nature of their governmental structure left such powers to the member states and NOT the Confederate government.

The example I gave included the sentiments of the man who later became the president of the confederacy.


I suppose he changed his mind. LOL