# Today's American History lesson.



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.

The USA had slavery for 89 years.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
> 
> The USA had slavery for 89 years.



The USA struggled with slavery for everyone of those 89 years.  

The CSA killed hundredsof thousands of people to preserve it.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
> ...



Wrong.  The CSA killed over 300,000 Union soldiers because their land was invaded by a Tyrant warmonger who got his in the end also. Sic Semper Tyrannis


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...


Some fought to preserve slavery. That much is clear. But there were other reasons. Hek, my state joined the union_ initially_. Then here comes the tyrant and shits on our rule of law and sends people out to rape, murder and rob, jail people for opinions etc.


----------



## task0778 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
> 
> The USA had slavery for 89 years.



And slavery has existed around the world for thousands of years.  Some say it still does in some Islamic countries.   Societies and governments are comprised of people, with all their faults.   America is not and has not been the exception to that, and we still have a ways to go to achieve true social equality.   As does every other society and gov't around the planet.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Wrong.  The CSA killed over 300,000 Union soldiers because their land was invaded by a Tyrant warmonger who got his in the end also. Sic Semper Tyrannis



Yes he did invade, after the Confederacy spent about a day bombing a US fort.   I would hope that if North Korea nuked Guam, we would fight back as well.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

task0778 said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
> ...


There are millions of slaves in africa right now.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Some fought to preserve slavery. That much is clear. But there were other reasons. Hek, my state joined the union_ initially_. Then here comes the tyrant and shits on our rule of law and sends people out to rape, murder and rob, jail people for opinions etc.
> ...


TN


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What state?


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.  The CSA killed over 300,000 Union soldiers because their land was invaded by a Tyrant warmonger who got his in the end also. Sic Semper Tyrannis
> ...



Wrong. Secession was legal.  Fort Sumter was therefore the property of the State of SC.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



I thought they got upset when Lincoln called for volunteers for the Union Army after the attack on Fort Sumter and that changed an already divided state to flip.  

I mean when Governor Harris at the time called the General Assembly into a special session to talk of the reasons for secession he said his reasons...

 “The attempt of the Northern people to confine slavery within the limits of the present Southern States" and "to put slavery on the path of ultimate extinction" were the reasons.  He didn't mention any of the reasons you came up with.  In fact I can't find any speeches at the time calling for secession for the reasons you have.  I mean tyrant sure, tyrant that he opposed slavery with federal powers.  SHitting on the rule of law sure.  You can find speeches where Lincoln not supporting the fugitive slave act or expansion of slavery.   You can speak to the leaders being upset Lincoln didn't respond to Tennessee creating their own state amendment protecting slavery.  

Harris talked about “depriving the fanatical majorities of the North of the power to invade our rights or impair the security or value of our property.”   with Property being slaves.  

Didn't the Eastern half of Tennessee try to rejoin the union and the leaders in the state instituted martial law to prevent them from doing so?   That's the only military rule I see imposed.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Lincoln the Tyrant in my State... Maryland was getting ready to vote for secession. 

Lincoln ordered the arrest of thousands Marylander's for the crime of 'suspected Southern sympathies'.

Lincoln ordered the arrest of US Congressman Henry May representing Maryland. 

Lincoln also had arrested...

Most of the Maryland State Legislature 

Most of the Baltimore city council 

The police commissioner of Baltimore 

The mayor of Baltimore 

Thousands of prominent Maryland citizens. 

These people were arrested and held in Military prisons, without trial, some of them for years.

This trashing of the Constitution upset many Marylanders. One of them was named Booth.

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> [QUO
> 
> Wrong.  The CSA killed over 300,000 Union soldiers because their land was invaded by a Tyrant warmonger who got his in the end also. Sic Semper Tyrannis



yup.  A bunch of traitors killed brave Americans...and you are whining because we aren't keeping their statues...


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Lincoln the Tyrant in my State... Maryland was getting ready to vote for secession.
> 
> Lincoln ordered the arrest of thousands Marylander's for the crime of 'suspected Southern sympathies'.
> 
> ...



Yup. Lincoln did a great job stomping racist traitors into the dirt.  We need to follow his fine example today.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Slash said:
> ...


We could have taken all the islands in the Caribbean, making them into slaves states in return for the South keeping out of the West.  That's what President Monroe wanted to do,way back in the 1820s, but the plutocracy refused to fund a Navy.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> We could have taken all the islands in the Caribbean, making them into slaves states in return for the South keeping out of the West.  That's what President Monroe wanted to do,way back in the 1820s, but the plutocracy refused to fund a Navy.



Lots of presidents have talked about that as a way to avert war.  When Lincoln received a letter from the Governor of Alabama that freeing the slaves would allow the slaves to think they were people, and then the citizens of his state would be forced to lynch and kill them all and he didn't want that on his conscience, even Lincoln looked at the voluntary relocation of slaves.  

Monroe's movement talk wasn't ALL slaves remember.  He talked about the idea of using an island much like Australia was used.  Remember he had slave revolts against him.  He felt that the best way to perpetuate slavery in the US was to move the dissenters to a penal colony.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Slash said:
> ...


you sound like a victim of wiki lol.
The Union tried taking over trade routes, farm land and all kinds of shit. I read, i cant remember who said it, that how we could we (TN) stand by while the Union tramples on our constitution and lands and kill our brothers?
I have also heard many stories by ear around here. 
The governor was an asshole who only cared about the economy. What he said, nobody really cared about it. Not enough, anyways.. As the first vote, when he said that, got shot down. Hell, i think he said that before Lincoln even got inaugurated..
I also believe after the march to the sea was when a surge of tennesseeans started joining the confederate army. Sherman didnt want to end confederate soldiers, he wanted to end southerners. I am sure that quote is out there floating somewhere..
The time frame for request for troops was nothing more than a coincidence for some. Of course, that is an agreed conclusion as the union won the war. Whoever wins the wars, writes the history.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Lincoln the Tyrant in my State... Maryland was getting ready to vote for secession.
> ...


so you would support trump trashing the constitution to get his agenda across?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...




Wrong


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Slash said:
> ...


Can you point to the law or where in the constitution that said secession was illegal?


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong
> ...



Texas Vs. White, US Supreme Court Ruled unilateral secession and the secession of 1860/1861 was illegal.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


That was AFTER the fact.  Principle of legality


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> so you would support trump trashing the constitution to get his agenda across?



Depends on the situation.  

Remember the people Lincoln jailed were trying to get their states to join the confederacy AFTER the war had begun.   If Trump was to find that the governor of NY was planning on marching his people down to attack Washington DC in support of North Korea and join their army AFTER they'd already bombed our base in Guam, I'd hope Trump put that governor in jail and all who were trying to turn traitor against the USA in a time of war.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...


Texas v. White | law case


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


That case was after the fact. There was NOTHING in current case law, written law or the constitution that made it illegal. Principle of legality my man.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> That was AFTER the fact.  Principle of legality




Yes I am with you that our ability to get pre-cog's like the movie Minority Report is well behind where it should be.

But until we are there we will have to hold court after offenses occur.  You won't be able to take your neighbor to court and get a guilty verdict for him stealing your bike until AFTER the the event occurs.

But luckily the constitution gives the supreme court the power to decide the law of the land.  Their interpretation said it was illegal.  That's really all there is to it.  Now whether you like it or not is a personal preference, but short of overthrowing the government and creating a new higher court, that's where it stands.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...




Read the court's decision.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


I have. I have read the dissenting opinions as well. 
I never really cared what the SC says anyways. Everyone knows they are nothing but activists. Hell, even one of the dissenting opinions in texas vs white was only because of bonds...
The constitution isnt broad. And the words are there in basic english.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> ....
> I never really cared what the SC says anyways......




Well, there you go. They are the highest law in the nation, and you are an irrelevant nobody. Secession was illegal.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> I have. I have read the dissenting opinions as well.
> I never really cared what the SC says anyways. Everyone knows they are nothing but activists. Hell, even one of the dissenting opinions in texas vs white was only because of bonds...
> The constitution isnt broad. And the words are there in basic english.



While it is interesting that you don't care what the Constitution says (and the powers it gives the Supreme Court), that doesn't mean much of anything.  You asked if it was legal, not how much you liked it being illegal.  .


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


Not at the time. You can scream and shout all you want. But it is what it is. There was no case law, written law or specifics in the COTUS. Just like with internment, ACA and so many other bullshit opinions, they grasped at straws.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > I have. I have read the dissenting opinions as well.
> ...


And im saying it was. You cant make up new laws to prosecute on crimes already committed. Basically, thats what you guys are saying.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

If secession was illegal, then we are an illegal nation and belong to Great Britain. Our country was born of secession.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Not at the time. You can scream and shout all you want. But it is what it is. There was no case law, written law or specifics in the COTUS. Just like with internment, ACA and so many other bullshit opinions, they grasped at straws.



Nobodies screaming.  Just saying that according to the US Constitution secession was illegal.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> so you would support trump trashing the constitution to get his agenda across?



Well, no, Trump's a moron the American people didn't vote for...


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> If secession was illegal, then we are an illegal nation and belong to Great Britain. Our country was born of secession.



That's kind of retarded.  While not a fan of the American Revolution in general, (Seriously, we'd be so much better off if we stayed part of the crown), the Congress tried negotiating with Parliament many times.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> If secession was illegal, then we are an illegal nation and belong to Great Britain. Our country was born of secession.



You do realize the constitution didn't exist then right?   If another rule comes along that voids the Constitution, that secession could be validated at that time.  But as long as this is the USA, that secession was illegal.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Not at the time. You can scream and shout all you want. But it is what it is. There was no case law, written law or specifics in the COTUS. Just like with internment, ACA and so many other bullshit opinions, they grasped at straws.
> ...


Show me where it says it cause thats not what you guys are saying. You are relying on a third party. 
If you need some help in reading, I can attach a link to hooked on phonics for you so we can get to the bottom of this. 
I say its not in the COTUS. Show me where it says states dont have the right to secession.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > so you would support trump trashing the constitution to get his agenda across?
> ...


nice consistency


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> UOTE="Scamp, post: 17945138, member: 63644"]Lincoln the Tyrant in my State... Maryland was getting ready to vote[Q for secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Lincoln did a great job stomping racist traitors into the dirt.  We need to follow his fine example today.





Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Not at the time. You can scream and shout all you want. But it is what it is. There was no case law, written law or specifics in the COTUS. Just like with internment, ACA and so many other bullshit opinions, they grasped at straws.
> ...



There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession at that time. The 10th Amendment said that anything not specified in the Constitution was left up to the States or the people. You know, States rights. The Confederate states voted to secede.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Lincoln's war is what was illegal and unconstitutional. 

 Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports.This an act of war. Only Congress can do that. That's a  Violation of the US Constitution.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Show me where it says it cause thats not what you guys are saying. You are relying on a third party.
> If you need some help in reading, I can attach a link to hooked on phonics for you so we can get to the bottom of this.
> I say its not in the COTUS. Show me where it says states dont have the right to secession.



No, the power of the supreme court is laid right out there in the Constitution.   Unless you want to rip out the pages of the US Constitution that say the Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving the Constitution then the Constitution says that the secession of the 1860's was illegal.   

This isn't up for debate.  You don't get to grab a marker and cross out all the parts of the US constitution you don't like.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Lincoln called for the states to come up with 75,000 soldiers to invade the Southern Confederacy. Cant do that, only Congress can call for troops. Violation of the Constitution.

What a Tyrant. And Warmonger.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession at that time. The 10th Amendment said that anything not specified in the Constitution was left up to the States or the people. You know, States rights. The Confederate states voted to secede.



Yes and the Supreme Court said those states entered an indissoluble relation according to the constitution.   You may disagree with that interpretation which is fine.  But the Constitution says that it is only up to what the Supreme Court to make that decision.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Lincoln called for the states to come up with 75,000 soldiers to invade the Southern Confederacy. Cant do that, only Congress can call for troops. Violation of the Constitution.
> 
> What a Tyrant. And Warmonger.


 
Yeah, he can ask.   Remember he asked for volunteers AFTER Fort Sumter was attacked.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

US Constitution Article lll...Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them.

Lincoln committed treason. Unless you consider the Confederacy a sovereign nation.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports.This an act of war. Only Congress can do that. That's a  Violation of the US Constitution.




No it wasn't the Constitution says that secession was illegal.   You may not LIKE that interpretation.  But the CONSTITUTION gives the Supreme Court the power to make that call.  Unless you want to overthrow the government and burn the Constitution and create your own laws as you like them, that's the law of the land.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

April 25 1861, When it looks as though Maryland may secede from the Union, Lincoln sends a letter to General Winfield Scott giving him permission to bombard Maryland's Cities.

This war criminal Lincoln couldn't wait to bombard innocent civilians. We call that Terrorism these days.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> US Constitution Article lll...Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them.
> 
> Lincoln committed treason. Unless you consider the Confederacy a sovereign nation.



Actually Lincoln is tasked with defending the US against enemies foreign and domestic.   When Ft Sumter was fired upon, war was declared.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation.

This is a direct violation of the US Constitution and the US Supreme Courts decision on the matter.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Lincoln ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him.

Can you imagine that?


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Lincoln ordered hundreds of Northern newspapers who dared to speak out against him to be shut down. And their owners and editors were arrested for disloyalty.

This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that Lincoln swore to uphold.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Chief Justice of the US Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that Lincoln had violated the US Constitution when he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Maryland.

After hearing this Lincoln signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested.

Lincoln should have been hanged. Instead he was shot. Sic Semper Tyrannis.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession at that time. The 10th Amendment said that anything not specified in the Constitution was left up to the States or the people. You know, States rights. The Confederate states voted to secede.



And we stomped their asses into the ground for doing so...  

The mistake was after the war, not having a Nuremberg style tribunal for all the leaders and throwing them all a necktie party.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Show me where it says it cause thats not what you guys are saying. You are relying on a third party.
> If you need some help in reading, I can attach a link to hooked on phonics for you so we can get to the bottom of this.
> I say its not in the COTUS. Show me where it says states dont have the right to secession.



What Third party?  The Constitution says in matters where the State is a party in a court case, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction as to law and fact.    The fact is the the secession was illegal. 


Again you can whine and cry that you don't like the verdict.  You can whine and cry that the constitution was wrong in giving those powers.  But that's the law.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Show me where it says it cause thats not what you guys are saying. You are relying on a third party.
> ...


I understand that. But that is kinda what you are doing isnt it? The Constitution is a RESTRICTION for the federal government. You need to understand that. Thats why it wasnt broad. 
SHOW ME where the Constitution says secession is illegal.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons.

This is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

"'Maryland my Maryland' was published calling Lincoln a tyrant and a despot and a vandal." It should be noted that this later became Maryland's official State song, and still is today.

The very first time Union troops showed their face in Maryland they were attacked by the fine citizens of Baltimore, this is usually considered first blood in the Civil War. Baltimore riot of 1861 - Wikipedia


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> I understand that. But that is kinda what you are doing isnt it? The Constitution is a RESTRICTION for the federal government. You need to understand that. Thats why it wasnt broad.
> SHOW ME where the Constitution says secession is illegal.



You asked the legality of it.  The Supreme Court Ruled that it was illegal.  The constitution says that they are the final judge on the matter.   End of Story.   It was Illegal.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that. But that is kinda what you are doing isnt it? The Constitution is a RESTRICTION for the federal government. You need to understand that. Thats why it wasnt broad.
> ...



Texas V White was after the War was over. Not applicable.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Texas V White was after the War was over. Not applicable.




You love Minority Report too?   The movie where the courts determine guilt BEFORE the action takes place.   I never thought you'd believe that was real though. 

I mean you are actually saying that something happened, THEN AFTER the action the court made a judgement on the legality of that action?

Again that is completely irrelevant.  The only relevant part was the secession of 1860/1861 was illegal.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

After the War the Union was upset. They had lost over 300,000 soldiers and their beloved Tyrant war criminal president had been terminated. They wanted revenge. Several Confederate leaders were arrested or indicted for treason. But guess what? Secession was legal so the best lawyers the US had could not prove treason. The Confederate leaders were released.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

I apologize, I will be off here for a while. I have a class to teach to people from the North about ethics and morals and virtue. It is very frustrating work.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> After the War the Union was upset. They had lost over 300,000 soldiers and their beloved Tyrant war criminal president had been terminated. They wanted revenge. Several Confederate leaders were arrested or indicted for treason. But guess what? Secession was legal so the best lawyers the US had could not prove treason. The Confederate leaders were released.



Interesting take.   I've seen the court documents for Jefferson Davis', but that had nothing to do with the legality of secession but rather Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.  Saying that states and people in rebellion had no protections from the constitution.  That also meant that using treason as outlined in the Constitution would be difficult.  I didn't see anything about the secession being legal as a part of it though.  Plenty about Andrew Johnson wanting to end the hostilities and move on.  Plenty on the difficulties that may present themselves getting a verdict in the South against Southerners in a trial.   Nothing on legality of secession being a reason.   Source?



Only asking for a source because you brought up quite a few dubious claims.  One for example was Roger B Taney.   The only source on that ever happening was the word of one person.   In fact nobody has ever been able to find any record of the arrest warrant you bring up.   If we went off of that low of a level of proof to buy into claims, Trump's raped a couple dozen women by now.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...




Yes at the time.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Irrational.


No law was created by the ruling. It was interpreting existing law, our most fundamental law at that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons.
> 
> This is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.



Only if you are a bizarre freak who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about guns.  

But anyway, we get it.  You don't like Lincoln because he bitch-slapped the slave states.  

Except slave states DESERVED TO BE BITCH SLAPPED.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> After the War the Union was upset. They had lost over 300,000 soldiers and their beloved Tyrant war criminal president had been terminated. They wanted revenge. Several Confederate leaders were arrested or indicted for treason. But guess what? Secession was legal so the best lawyers the US had could not prove treason. The Confederate leaders were released.



Yup, they should have hung the treasonous racist bastards.  But instead, LIncoln decided to be magnanimous in victory.  He shouldn't have been.  

The Civil war was a case where we won the war but are still losing the peace.  

Compared to World War II, where we took out the Nazi and Japanese leaders, had a war crime trial for them and hanged their sorry asses. And they had a valid argument that they were agents of a legitimate government, unlike the inbreds  of the South.


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Yup, they should have hung the treasonous racist bastards.  But instead, LIncoln decided to be magnanimous in victory.  He shouldn't have been.
> 
> The Civil war was a case where we won the war but are still losing the peace.
> 
> Compared to World War II, where we took out the Nazi and Japanese leaders, had a war crime trial for them and hanged their sorry asses. And they had a valid argument that they were agents of a legitimate government, unlike the inbreds  of the South.



Actually I think Lincoln was more on the side of charging them with treason.   It was more when he died that President Johnson figured it would do a lot more bad than good.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Slash said:


> Actually I think Lincoln was more on the side of charging them with treason. It was more when he died that President Johnson figured it would do a lot more bad than good.



Actually, it was the worst decision he made.  Treason without consequence.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> I apologize, I will be off here for a while. I have a class to teach to people from the North about ethics and morals and virtue. It is very frustrating work.



People who tried to destroy the greatest country in the world because they wanted a few rich people to keep owning slaves know nothing about ethics or morals or virtue.  Neither do people who apologize for them today.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Aug 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize, I will be off here for a while. I have a class to teach to people from the North about ethics and morals and virtue. It is very frustrating work.
> ...



Boy, you is one ignint sumbich.

"
I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all."

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."


^Who said that, hmm?


----------



## Slash (Aug 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Boy, you is one ignint sumbich.
> 
> "
> I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all."
> ...




I'll go with Lincoln.  Either making campaign promises where he was trying to appear more moderate for votes when being called a black republican and other lies made up that weren't true or before the battle of Antietam when the rebellion was at his doorstep and he was living between slave states that had yet to secede, trying to appease them that the war wasn't truly about him being an abolitionist where he'd wake up the next day in the heart of the Confederacy.    Of course his actions 100000% countered those statements.   OJ Simpson said he lives a peaceful life.  I'll take him on his actions over his words as well.  

Was I right? 




Who said "I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off.”

I mean Trump said he was for the assault weapons ban that he'd reinstitute waterboarding (he hasn't and won't).  But those are words on a campaign trail.  We go with actions.   And Lincoln definitely acted in opposition of those two statements.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 16, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> ^Who said that, hmm?



who cares... I'm sure you are taking it out of context.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...



That sounds like what a racist White supremacist or Nazi would say. But Abe Lincoln said that in his Senatorial election debate. 
Many Blacks consider Lincoln as their White hero. The great emancipator. That's just funny. They don't know the real Lincoln. He was no fan of Blacks.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



He saw freeing southern blacks as a tool to weaken the South.

It really didn't work that way, however, the march to the sea was effective. I've heard old black women in GA talk about that. Bad bad bad.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



ISIS has nothing on Gen Sherman. We call that Terrorism now days. You know waging war upon civilians.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Aug 16, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...



I'm sure there's a special place in hell for him.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > ^Who said that, hmm?
> ...



JoeB131, Thanks for proving to everyone that some people are clueless about American history.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 16, 2017)

People can argue about the Civil War. But the truth is...

We all lost when Imperial subjugation (the Union cause) won the War over States Rights (the Confederate cause).


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > We could have taken all the islands in the Caribbean, making them into slaves states in return for the South keeping out of the West.  That's what President Monroe wanted to do,way back in the 1820s, but the plutocracy refused to fund a Navy.
> ...


_*Two Years Before the Mast*_

Whites in Northern sweatshops suffered as much as Blacks in the South did.  The failure to equate the two, similar to denying that Antifa is the Left's Nazis, shows that the required political platforms only indicate plutocratic supremacy over reasoning things out.  

Contrary to what we are led to expect, 97% of the Abolitionists hated the rising labor movement.  Here are some quotes from those spoiled guillotine-fodder snobs:

"We can always hire half the poor to kill the other half."

"If a worker can't live on bread and water, he has no right to live."


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> _*Two Years Before the Mast*_
> 
> Whites in Northern sweatshops suffered as much as Blacks in the South did.



Hmmm.  

States had laws that made it illegal to teach slaves to read (fear of rebellion)
Slaves had ZERO protections under the Constitution, unless they broke a law and could be charged under it
Rape and sexual abuse was legal against Slaves
Beating, branding and mutilation were acceptable options if a slaves performance wasn't up to par at work.
Slaves were paid 0$ on a contract that was in perpetuity
Slaves were forced to give up their religion and cultures.
Castration was an acceptable punishment for poor work performance or attempting to leave work by slaves
Slaves were forbidden to leave their owners property without permission
States had laws that called for the death penalty if a slave was to leave where he worked without permission
A slave could be given the death penalty if he defended himself against an attack by a white person
Slaves had zero legal right to their own children, their child was property of their owner
Rape to breed slaves was acceptable
Families could be broken up and sold 


I love that book.   Sea Wolf by Jack London is another that is similar and quite good.   But I'm going to disagree with his sentiment.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...


*The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes*

The defective Constitution caused the Civil War by providing no legal means to secede.  But preaching pundits hired by those who fear direct democracy have succesfully brainwashed us to worship it as much as Fundamentalists worship the Bible.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > _*Two Years Before the Mast*_
> ...


Denying the equivalence is a sign of snobbery.  Whites on ships and in sweatshops suffered just as much, only in different ways.  Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to get confirmation of that.  Besides, honest people would reform their own section first or forfeit any moral authority if they don't.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
> 
> The USA had slavery for 89 years.


More history
The Americas had slavery for 250 years

Slavery was forced on the country when the nation was formed

While the rest of the world gave up on slavery without a fight..... it cost us 600,000 lives

Even then we insisted on second class citizenship for another hundred years


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Denying the equivalence is a sign of snobbery.  Whites on ships and in sweatshops suffered just as much, only in different ways.  Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to get confirmation of that.  Besides, honest people would reform their own section first or forfeit any moral authority if they don't.



Nope, not at all.   Denying the difference without facts would be though.  I am just showing facts.  I've shown you some of the slave specific struggles.   Now show me how whites on ships/sweatshops suffered just as much.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 17, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Ok. In the Preamble: "in order to form a more perfect union."  More perfect than what? A "perpetual union."  Since the original union was perpetual, then the "more perfect union" must also be perpetual. 
*Article I, Section 10:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.*
...
*No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.*

This would include treaties, alliances, and confederation among the states.

*Article IV Section. 3.*
*New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.*

So we have provisions for new states, so that was clearly allowed, with restrictions.  No provisions are made for leaving the Union. IF that were allowed, then we would expect there to be such provisions.

Your turn.  What in the Constitution do you think allows for voluntary exit from the Union?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > That was AFTER the fact.  Principle of legality
> ...


*SCROTUS Interpreted the Constitution As Giving It the Right to Interpret the Constitution*

By parroting the ruling class's lie about judicial supremacy, you get a sense of power watching nine "Justices" overrule the will of 100 million voters.  Then you tell us the scare story that eliminating those nine positions will overthrow the government!


----------



## IsaacNewton (Aug 17, 2017)

Most of the Northern States ended slavery by 1787. The United States banned the import of slaves into the US in 1808. 

It was the South that continued the debauchery until the Civil War. 

Slavery Timeline


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > If secession was illegal, then we are an illegal nation and belong to Great Britain. Our country was born of secession.
> ...


You're begging the question. When the patriots violated the laws of their sovereign, it was the same as violating a constitution.  So it is the American Way to refuse to recognize any supreme body of laws. That's for meek weaklings, yet Constitutionazis think they are really tough guys.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> You're begging the question. When the patriots violated the laws of their sovereign, it was the same as violating a constitution.  So it is the American Way to refuse to recognize any supreme body of laws. That's for meek weaklings, yet Constitutionazis think they are really tough guys.



Yes we did.  I mean anyone here can legally denounce their Citizenship of the USA and then say that body of laws doesn't apply to them.  Or overthrow the government of the USA and burn it.  But the American way is the US Constitution as long as that is the document that governs this nation.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Denying the equivalence is a sign of snobbery.  Whites on ships and in sweatshops suffered just as much, only in different ways.  Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to get confirmation of that.  Besides, honest people would reform their own section first or forfeit any moral authority if they don't.
> ...


*Lincoln Married a Richgirl; That's All We Need to Know About Him*

You Social-Justice Warlords obviously don't care about White people, so you close your hollow souls to any sympathy.   After all, since Whites are "racist," you can convince yourselves that they deserved harsh treatment anyway--Reconstruction in advance.  Another talking point in your self-convincing self-delusion was, "If the working class pulled themselves into the middle class without any outside help, they must have never had it very bad in the first place."


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Lincoln Married a Richgirl; That's All We Need to Know About Him*
> 
> You Social-Justice Warlords obviously don't care about White people, so you close your hollow souls to any sympathy.   After all, since Whites are "racist," you can convince yourselves that they deserved harsh treatment anyway--Reconstruction in advance.  Another talking point in your self-convincing self-delusion was, "If the working class pulled themselves into the middle class without any outside help, they must have never had it very bad in the first place."



Nope.  I don't believe any of what you are accusing.   Are you saying though that rather than debate with fact you'd just like to name call and create lies about someone?   If so, just be honest about it.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > You're begging the question. When the patriots violated the laws of their sovereign, it was the same as violating a constitution.  So it is the American Way to refuse to recognize any supreme body of laws. That's for meek weaklings, yet Constitutionazis think they are really tough guys.
> ...


*Weewee on the People*

Your bossy type's Constitution empowers an oligarchy, which drums into us the lie that it empowers us.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Weewee on the People*
> 
> Your bossy type's Constitution emprumman oligarchy, which drums into us the lie that it empowers us.



No idea what that was, but guessing it wasn't facts to back up your claim.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > *Lincoln Married a Richgirl; That's All We Need to Know About Him*
> ...


You push lies that unfortunately are accepted by both captive sides.  There is nothing wrong with Ad Hominem; exposing someone's bossy and irrationally conceited character means he'll use every true fallacy in the book and pretend that anyone who defies his will is not debating with acceptable facts. I mentioned "The Jungle," which contains all the facts you need.  Character is more important than debate magic.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> You push lies that unfortunately are accepted by both captive sides.  There is nothing wrong with Ad Hominem; exposing someone's bossy and irrationally conceited character means he'll use every true fallacy in the book and pretend that anyone who defies his will is not debating with acceptable facts. I mentioned "The Jungle," which contains all the facts you need.  Character is more important than debate magic.



Didn't push a lie.  You made a statement.  Just asking you to back it up with fact.  Nothing more.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


So did Washington


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > *Weewee on the People*
> ...


Just because you claim you don't understand, that doesn't mean we have to take your word for it.  It's easy to figure out that the typo means "empower."  Or, if you admit you understand it, you could get kudos from your Aunt Tifa  USMB brotherhood by saying, "It empowers an oligarchy of wise stewards; democracy empowers deplorable Little People."


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Just because you claim you don't understand, that doesn't mean we have to take your word for it.  It's easy to figure out that the typo means "empower."  Or, if you admit you understand it, you could get kudos from your Aunt Tifa  USMB brotherhood by saying, "It empowers an oligarchy of wise stewards; democracy empowers deplorable Little People."



Ok.  This is my 7th post of me asking you simply to back your position with fact.   And you can't do that.   Got it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> That sounds like what a racist White supremacist or Nazi would say. But Abe Lincoln said that in his Senatorial election debate.
> Many Blacks consider Lincoln as their White hero. The great emancipator. That's just funny. They don't know the real Lincoln. He was no fan of Blacks.



I suspect his attitude was the same as people of the day... but the fact that he DID emancipate them and end slavery says it all about what a Great American he was. 



Scamp said:


> People can argue about the Civil War. But the truth is...
> 
> We all lost when Imperial subjugation (the Union cause) won the War over States Rights (the Confederate cause).



No we didn't.  I am PROUD to be an American.  I am completely indifferent to being an Illinoisan.  Sometimes a little embarrassed by what goes on in Springfield. 



Scamp said:


> JoeB131, Thanks for proving to everyone that some people are clueless about American history.



I've got a degree in history, thanks... unlike you having one from a university that teaches about Talking Snakes in Science Class.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Show me where it says it cause thats not what you guys are saying. You are relying on a third party.
> ...


Where are your facts?  If this were true, your precious SCROTUS would have been vetoing legislation since 1789 and never would have even had to claim that right in Marbury v Madison.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > That sounds like what a racist White supremacist or Nazi would say. But Abe Lincoln said that in his Senatorial election debate.
> ...


He emancipated some.  The initial Proclamation was issued in September 1862, but Lincoln did not name the actual places it would affect until 1 January 1863, where it was specified that the Proclamation only applied to "*Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.*"

Note that Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were not covered under the Proclamation, which also exempted all areas under Union Control.

It did serve a purpose, cleared up the legal status in the North of many former slaves, and had a propaganda effect, but Lincoln can hardly be credited with actually freeing any slaves except those in Washington DC (he signed the legislation passed by Congress) in 1862.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Where are your facts?  If this were true, your precious SCROTUS would have been vetoing legislation since 1789 and never would have even had to claim that right in Marbury v Madison.




Wow you've spent so long avoiding you completely lost it didn't you?  

First off, you made the comment that "
Whites in Northern sweatshops suffered as much as Blacks in the South did." not me, so you should be the one providing facts to back up YOUR statement.  

And also post 82 was where I provided mine.  



So, for the 9th time now.  Your facts to back up your post?


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

pinqy said:


> Note that Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were not covered under the Proclamation, which also exempted all areas under Union Control.



Yes, contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not a king.   Since he was President, he had NO ability to create an Amendment, the only Constitutional way to free the slaves by the Federal Government.   He decided that states in rebellion were not protected by the constitution and therefore felt that gave him the power to avoid amendments and was able to free the slaves in any state in rebellion.  It also freed any slaves that the Union had come across as they advanced into the South, removing any murkiness as to their future.  

Now after the Civil War, Lincoln knew that his emancipation proclamation wouldn't stand up when they got around to challenging it in court (states no longer in rebellion, his proclamation is no longer constitutional).   So he started what many consider to be some of the toughest (or dirtiest) politics to gain the slaves their freedom with the 13th Amendment.   While a President has no actual voting influence on any amendment, his influence in getting it passed was so large that to this day he is the only President to have his signature on any Amendment.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you claim you don't understand, that doesn't mean we have to take your word for it.  It's easy to figure out that the typo means "empower."  Or, if you admit you understand it, you could get kudos from your Aunt Tifa  USMB brotherhood by saying, "It empowers an oligarchy of wise stewards; democracy empowers deplorable Little People."
> ...


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...




Guessing you weren't defending your position with fact in there were you?


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

"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."
 ...Lincoln's first Inaugural Address.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

The designated opposition to your clique is ignorant and hypocritical.  But you are trained to only deal with their limited talklng points, because they belong to the same social class that you do.  You and they are nothing without your Daddy's Money.  You know that; that's why you desperately have to be so overdefensive in your bossiness,  conceit and rule-making.

Originality is the only crime punished on the elitist-owned Internet.  It is met with, "I never heard of that, even from the other side.  So it must be so stupid that I don't have to say why.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp 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."
> ...Lincoln's first Inaugural Address.



Smart thing to say.  He was living stuck between slave states.   The Secession was ongoing.   He could have said the real cause.  That would have been nice for you wouldn't it?   Granted then he would be waking up the next day in the Confederacy.    

Of course we all saw that in his ACTIONS he definitely interfered with the institution of Slavery where it exists.   

But I guess we aren't people of action anymore.  Just run to your safe space because words are all that matters now huh?


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> The designated opposition to your clique is ignorant and hypocritical.  But you are trained to only deal with their limited talklng points, because they belong to the same social class that you do.  You and they are nothing without your Daddy's Money.  You know that; that's why you desperately have to be so overdefensive in your bossiness,  conceit and rule-making.
> 
> Originality is the only crime punished on the elitist-owned Internet.  It is met with, "I never heard of that, even from the other side.  So it must be so stupid that I don't have to say why.



Not saying it's stupid.   Just asking you for proof.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Slash said:
> ...


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Not PC factoids, no.  Thanks for clearing that up.  

To answer your original factoids:  Uncooperative Blackss deserved all that. Slavery saved them from savagery.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> To answer your original factoids:  Uncooperative Blackss deserved all that. Slavery saved them from savagery.




There's that white supremacy that you had hiding.   Ok, not based on fact, based on your racism.   Thanks.  Done.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Imagine for a moment, if you will-- 

The EPA issues a statement in conjunction with the White House, announcing their new bold policy to ban the internal combustion engine. Effective Jan. 1, 2018, all cars, trucks, tractors and farm equipment will be rendered obsolete. If your business has invested millions in equipment, we're sorry, that's just going to be the policy and you'll have to live with it. Obviously, you can't sell your assets because they are now worthless. 

Of course, the 4th Amendment says government cannot seize your property without due cause. But they aren't technically seizing it, just making it worthless. Still, in the spirit of the constitution, is this policy appropriate? I think many would argue that it's not appropriate and the Federal government has no such authority to take this action. 

This is the primary basis on which the Southern states argued. It was legal to own slaves and the court had determined slaves were legitimate property. Modern sensibilities were not the law of the land in 1860. Whether you think slavery was deplorable and reprehensible is irrelevant to the argument because it was a legal and upheld institution which had existed for 89 years. In short, the South had a very valid legal point. 

All the secession documents mention slavery because slavery was the key issue but it wasn't the prevailing principle. That's the part modern day people will often fail to understand. The principle was about Federal authority to essentially render your property worthless. Some may be appalled that we're talking about humans being property but that had been established the Federal government's highest court. The CSA did not make those rulings. 

Now let's imagine the EPA internal combustion ban was challenged in court and SCOTUS ruled they couldn't do this because it would violate the Constitution.  That states were free to decide on their own if they wanted to ban internal combustion engines and Congress could enact legislation to do so or amend the Constitution. And let's assume there are several states where environmentalists had been successful in passing IC-Free laws. Now we have some IC-Free states but internal combustion engines are still legal and still remain property in states where they are allowed. A political leader comes along who is sympathetic to the "IC-Free" movement. His idea is to add a bunch more IC-Free states to the Union, thereby gaining congressional votes to pass nationwide legislation or maybe even a Constitutional amendment. 

This is what the South was facing. And it wasn't really about the moral aspects of owning slaves. Only about 2% of the Southern population owned any significant number of slaves. But slavery provided the labor which drove Southern economies.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

The South was better at Capitalism. They took existing US law and turned it into a billion dollar per year enterprise. The North having slaves for all those 89 years could not do that.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The South was better at Capitalism. They took existing US law and turned it into a billion dollar enterprise. The North having slaves for all those 89 years could not do that.



What do you mean 89 years. 
Vermont found time in the first year of the Revolutionary War to ban slavery
Pennsylvania, 1780; Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 1783; Connecticut and Rhode Island, 1784; New York, 1799; and New Jersey, 1804.   The Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in the Northwest Territory (what becomes the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) in 1787. 

New York and New Jersey were the only states in the North that didn't ban slavery BEFORE George Washington was president of the US.

And you define the owning of other human beings as a good business move and nothing more?   Wow, let the racism flow there big boy...


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > The South was better at Capitalism. They took existing US law and turned it into a billion dollar enterprise. The North having slaves for all those 89 years could not do that.
> ...



I would argue that if cotton, tobacco or sugar cane grew in those states, slavery would've never been banned.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > The South was better at Capitalism. They took existing US law and turned it into a billion dollar enterprise. The North having slaves for all those 89 years could not do that.
> ...


Wrong about New Jersey. They still had slavery all during the Civil War. And when it came time for NJ to vote for ratification of the 13th Amendment...they voted NO. 
NJ only had a small number of slaves but they sure as hell did not want to free them. Somewhere along the way they changed the name of their slaves to "servants for life". Made them feel better.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that if cotton, tobacco or sugar cane grew in those states, slavery would've never been banned.
> ...


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Wrong about New Jersey. They still had slavery all during the Civil War. And when it came time for NJ to vote for ratification of the 13th Amendment...they voted NO.
> NJ only had a small number of slaves but they sure as hell did not want to free them. Somewhere along the way they changed the name of their slaves to "servants for life". Made them feel better.



Yes I believe it was 16 slaves wasn't it that the 13th amendment freed in New Jersey.   4 million in the slave states.  Good point.   Doesn't show how those 16 were in any way the equal to the nearly 4 million in the South in terms of financial gain which is the point you are trying to make.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Don't forget that 6 Union States and the Union Capital, Washington DC  had slavery during the Civil War.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Don't forget that 6 Union States and the Union Capital, Washington DC  had slavery during the Civil War.



Yes they were slave states that chose not to secede.  Please don't confuse them with Northern States.  People from Kentucky are not Northerners.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Other Northern States namely Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana freed their slaves and then immediately passed anti-black immigration laws to keep freed slaves  out of their states


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Actually I believe "Border States" was the term coined since they were not Northern States, but didn't secede with the South and the rest of the slave states either.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Other Northern States namely Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana freed their slaves and then immediately passed anti-black immigration laws to keep freed slaves  out of their states



Ok.  Not sure what this has to do with you saying they had slaves for 89 years but only the South made money off of it.  You seem to be changing topics here now.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> I would argue that if cotton, tobacco or sugar cane grew in those states, slavery would've never been banned.


Nailed it. Money was more impotent to Yankees than the morality of slavery.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Other Northern States namely Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana freed their slaves and then immediately passed anti-black immigration laws to keep freed slaves  out of their states
> ...


Not a single slave ever came to the US on a Confederate ship it was USA ships and of course European ships that brought them here...Money beat ethics.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp 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."
> ...Lincoln's first Inaugural Address.



We call that talking the crazies off the ledge.  The problem was, the Inbreds were determined to jump. 

Of course, when you are stupid from centuries of inbreeding, you tend to not get that sort of thing.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Why does someone like Slash condemn the 4 years of Confederate slavery, but make excuses for 89 years of USA slavery? Double standards?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Not a single slave ever came to the US on a Confederate ship it was USA ships and of course European ships that brought them here...Money beat ethics.



Yes, because by the time there were "Confederate Ships", there were nice blockades keeping them in port.  Of course, the problem by 1861 wasn't slave ships. The Royal Navy had done a pretty good job stamping out the slave trade. 

The problem was all the inbred fucks wanted to keep having slavery when it was considered wrong in the civilized world.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Nailed it. Money was more impotent to Yankees than the morality of slavery.



What do you mean.  Are you saying taking banning slavery cost money?   Care to explain that reasoning?   Slaves were used in many different facets in the south than just working in the fields.   

And what are you basing your belief they wouldn't have done away with slaves on?   A LOT of the states that banned slavery had heavy agriculture.   They just chose to do it without slaves.  By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats. 

Just a difference in choice.  South did it with slaves.  North did it with technology.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Why does someone like Slash condemn the 4 years of Confederate slavery, but make excuses for 89 years of USA slavery? Double standards?




Nope, choosing to allow slavery in the US to appease the south was an issue from the start.   One our founding fathers said would be the rock that the nation splits on some day.   

Choosing to turn traitor for the perpetuity of slavery and war with the US and try to overthrow the US Government to protect slavery is much much worse to me as an American.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

I many cases when Northern states ended slavery, instead of freeing their slaves, Northern slave owners sold them to Southern states. Money trumps ethics and morals again.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> I many cases when Northern states ended slavery, instead of freeing thier slaves, Northern slave owners sold them to Southern states. Money trumps ethics and morals again.



Some did.  Most didn't  Sure.   They did not however form their rebellion in the interest of protecting slavery and become enemies of the USA over it though.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Is anyone saying that they dont understand why someone would want to continue a legal enterprise that was making billions?


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Ok. Not sure what this has to do with you saying they had slaves for 89 years but only the South made money off of it. You seem to be changing topics here now.




This is incorrect as well. Northern textile industries profited significantly from Southern cotton. Shipping merchants in the North couldn't have survived without Southern agriculture. In 1860, the Top 3 US exports were cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. Number 4 was textiles produced with cotton.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

During the 200 years of slavery in the North they just couldn't make the money. Couldn't grow the big money crops because of climate. They tried to teach slaves to work in the factories of the industrialised north. Failed that.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...


New Jersey banned new slaves in 1804. But like several other states, those who were slaves before the ban remained slaves for life. By the Civil War there were maybe a dozen slaves left in the state.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Yankees had no problem using their ships to take those slave crops to Europe and sell them. It was all about Money.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The South was better at Capitalism. They took existing US law and turned it into a billion dollar per year enterprise. The North having slaves for all those 89 years could not do that.



Um, dude, the South were a bunch of rich white assholes getting rich off slave labor and using the poor dumb white trash as cannon fodder. 

The only sad thing about the Civil War was that it didn't remove enough of you people from the Gene Pool.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Other Northern States namely Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana freed their slaves and then immediately passed anti-black immigration laws to keep freed slaves out of their states



Guy, you can try all day to put lipstick on this pig, but the reality is- the South was wrong.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Nailed it. Money was more impotent to Yankees than the morality of slavery.
> ...



Corn, wheat, and oats are nothing compared to cotton and tobacco when it came to money. The South only grew enough of that to feed their animals. They grew the big money crops. Better at Capitalism.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> During the 200 years of slavery in the North they just couldn't make the money. Couldn't grow the big money crops because of climate. *They tried to teach slaves to work in the factories of the industrialised north. Failed that*.



How Scamp sees black people, no doubt.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, dude, the South were a bunch of rich white assholes getting rich off slave labor...



That'a simply an ignorant bigoted viewpoint. Only 2% of the Southern population owned plantations. Only about 12% of Southerners owned any slaves at all. The other 88% didn't own slaves and most didn't know anyone who did. As for who was profiting from slave labor-- EVERYONE was! That's what made it such a huge problem to get rid of.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
> 
> The USA had slavery for 89 years.


The con-federacy lasted 4 years, started a war, and got their asses kicked.   The end.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> That'a simply an ignorant bigoted viewpoint. Only 2% of the Southern population owned plantations. Only about 12% of Southerners owned any slaves at all. The other 88% didn't own slaves and most didn't know anyone who did. As for who was profiting from slave labor-- EVERYONE was! That's what made it such a huge problem to get rid of.



Oh, wait, are you going to try to claim there were these magical parts of the South where they didn't know what slavery was. 

Yes, a lot of the 88% didn't own slaves, but the last thing they wanted was the slaves to be free and compete with them for jobs and women. (You know, because they work harder and have bigger... well, anyway.) So these poor dumb inbred whites were happy to fight to keep slavery, because they probably were horrified at the thought of being at the bottom rung of society. 

Come to think of it, kind of why a lot of you dumb inbred southerners vote Republican today.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Corn, wheat, and oats are nothing compared to cotton and tobacco when it came to money. The South only grew enough of that to feed their animals. They grew the big money crops. Better at Capitalism.




If your point is that the people that built this country had flaws.   No crap.  What they did not do was abandon this country.   They did not wage war against this country.   They did not try to overthrow this country.   They did not try to ruin this country and they did not try to do those things for the purpose of protecting slavery.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

All the South wanted was Independence from the North. The US has a long history of getting involved in wars where a country wanted Independence from their neighboring country. 

We all lost when Imperial subjugation won the war over States rights.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > That'a simply an ignorant bigoted viewpoint. Only 2% of the Southern population owned plantations. Only about 12% of Southerners owned any slaves at all. The other 88% didn't own slaves and most didn't know anyone who did. As for who was profiting from slave labor-- EVERYONE was! That's what made it such a huge problem to get rid of.
> ...



No... 88% didn't own any slaves and most of them didn't know anyone who did. The truth of the matter is, MANY Southerners were abolitionists... who do you think ran the Underground Railroad? Most poor white people in the South would've welcomed the opportunity to compete for jobs. (I'm going to disregard your flagrant racist stereotype.)

What the Southern Confederate was fighting for was their homeland. Wealthy plantation owners used a loophole called "proxy service" to avoid having to go and fight or their sons having to do so. To the extent any plantation owners were involved in the Confederacy it was as Generals or Colonels to which they were appointed. Most of the men who died fighting for the CSA didn't own slaves or know anyone who did. 

I know a lot about this because it's my family history. Most poor white people in the South were worse off than the slaves. At least the slaves had roofs over their heads and food in their bellies.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Maybe some of you are ok with the President in Washington telling your State what they must do. Like allowing male sexual deviants to use the ladies bathroom.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> All the South wanted was Independence from the North. The US has a long history of getting involved in wars where a country wanted Independence from their neighboring country.
> 
> We all lost when Imperial subjugation won the war over States rights.



And of course they wanted the dozens and dozens of banks, weapon caches, military hardware, bases, ships, mints, and other federal property.  All of that was taken.   

If Washington state came along and said "we are leaving the US, gonna take these Nuclear subs, all the money the federal government has here, a few aircraft carriers, and anything else we want from you, I'd hope we would stand up to that as well.   Especially if they chose the reason to do that so that they could enslave other humans.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Secession was legal then. Not now.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Secession was legal then. Not now.



Secession was never legal.  Texas vs. White the US Supreme court rules on that.  The secession of 1860/61 that led to the Civil war was unconstitutional.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Especially if they chose the reason to do that so that they could enslave other humans.



Again.... for the millionth time... enslaving humans was legal and upheld by the US Supreme Court. 

IF the US had outlawed slavery and there were a bunch of states who wanted to ignore that and have slaves anyway, you'd have a point.... but that's not what happened at all. What you keep trying to do is retroactively apply laws that now exist to history of the past.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Also illegal was raiding federal stockpiles of weapons, taking over federal military bases.  Taking control of US ships.  Raiding US mints.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Secession was legal then. Not now.
> ...



A-gain... you are attempting to apply a ruling in 1869 to actions taken in 1861! You cannot retroactively apply law!


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> IF the US had outlawed slavery and there were a bunch of states who wanted to ignore that and have slaves anyway, you'd have a point.... but that's not what happened at all. What you keep trying to do is retroactively apply laws that now exist to history of the past.



Yes it was legal to own other humans.  And the South wanted to make sure that would be a right granted to them in perpetuity rather than have to wonder if that right might someday be taken away.   I'm not trying to retroactively apply any law


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> A-gain... you are attempting to apply a ruling in 1869 to actions taken in 1861! You cannot retroactively apply law!



No new law was created.   The Supreme Court confirmed that the Constitution said secession was illegal.  Meaning since it was written.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > All the South wanted was Independence from the North. The US has a long history of getting involved in wars where a country wanted Independence from their neighboring country.
> ...



In the case of Fort Sumter, the sovereign state of SC gave the Union several chances to leave the fort peacefully.

But Slash you are correct in some cases Southern militias did indeed take Union equipment. But mostly the Southerners guarding that were showing their allegiance to their homeland and let it happen.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Yes it was legal to own other humans. And the South wanted to make sure that would be a right granted to them in perpetuity rather than have to wonder if that right might someday be taken away. I'm not trying to retroactively apply any law



Well, yes you are, hard head! 

The South was protecting their constitutional right to property by ruling of the US Supreme Court. Slavery did not become illegal until ratification of the 13th Amendment. You're attempting to apply it to 1861.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> In the case of Fort Sumter, the sovereign state of SC gave the Union several chances to leave the fort peacefully.
> 
> But Slash you are correct in some cases Southern militias did indeed take Union equipment. But mostly the Southerners guarding that were showing their alkegence to their homeland and let it hsppen.



Yes they did.   Cuba has asked multiple times for the US to abandon our base in Guantanemo.   We've responded no there as well.   If they bombed our troops there for nearly 24 hours after us saying that, I would hope our president would call that an act of war as well.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > A-gain... you are attempting to apply a ruling in 1869 to actions taken in 1861! You cannot retroactively apply law!
> ...



Again, SCOTUS rulings are not applied retroactively.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Yes they did. Cuba has asked multiple times for the US to abandon our base in Guantanemo. We've responded no there as well. If they bombed our troops there for nearly 24 hours after us saying that, I would hope our president would call that an act of war as well.



The difference is, Cuba is not a STATE with Constitutional protections as such.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Well, yes you are, hard head!
> 
> The South was protecting their constitutional right to property by ruling of the US Supreme Court. Slavery did not become illegal until ratification of the 13th Amendment. You're attempting to apply it to 1861.




Nobody was trying to illegally stop slavery.   They were worried it would be legally stopped so they illegally seceded.  

And no I am not trying to apply a later thing.  The Supreme court Confirmed that the secession that occured in 1861 was against the Constitution.   That's all they did.  No new law.   

Just because you don't like that they did confirm the secession was illegal, doesn't give us the right to take a dump on the Constitution and say "well I don't like that interpretation".   I mean when the Supreme Court says that Yes, this person committed treason, they aren't creating a new law.  They are taking the action and comparing it to what the Constitution defines as treason and saying that the Constitution says they broke the law.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> The difference is, Cuba is not a STATE with Constitutional protections as such.



I agree.  And while the Constitution said that secession was illegal, it never said that states could take over federal property.   It never said that states could bomb US bases.   It didn't protect any of those things either.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

Remember the LEGISLATIVE Branch is the only one that can create a new law.   That never happened in regards to secession.    IF AFTER 1961 the legislative branch created a new law that said secession was illegal, then you would have a point.  A law was made AFTER the secession and I would fully agree that you can't backdate that.   

But that never happened.  The Judicial Branch ruled that based on the Constitution, ratified 80 years earlier, the secession was illegal.  

It's the same with anything.  A law against internet porn pops up in 2000.   If you were doing that before 2000 you are ok.  If you do it in 2004, and the judicial system says you broke that law in your court case in 2005, you are guilty of breaking that law, even though the judicial system didn't rule on your case until after.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
> 
> The USA had slavery for 89 years.


And the south had slavery  until 1865, regardless of what they called themselves. The Federal government wanted it  removed, and certain states resisted. Reminds me of illegal immigration (little segway here),  how the feds want immigration laws enforced, buts certain states invoke state rights and create sanctuaries for illegal aliens. ( Our new class of neo-slaves). It seems liberals  haven't learned  from history or  the civil was as they love too preach about.


----------



## Slash (Aug 17, 2017)

It's pretty simple.  

Law comes out in 2014 that concealed carry is illegal in NY
If you were carrying in 2013, you aren't charged under that law 
If you carried in 2015 and a few months later the judicial system found you guilty in 2016, the act you took in 2015 was illegal   

Same here.  In the late 1780's states started ratifying the constitution as the law of the land.  In 1861 states seceded.  The charges were heard in 1869 and they were found to have broken the laws of the constitution by seceding.  

That's how the constitution and the US work.   It's how they've always worked.   The judicial system will never judge a person for something that has yet to happen.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

MaryL said:


> And the south had slavery  until 1865, regardless of what they called themselves. The Federal government wanted it  removed...


And the USA also had slavery until 1865, including New Jersey. But that is not taught anymore. Makes the US Federal Gov look like hypocrites. Thanks for proving my point. Erasing history makes some feel better.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Ask some Northern school kids which states had slaves, North or South? Be kind of funny their answer. And pitiful.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > And the south had slavery  until 1865, regardless of what they called themselves. The Federal government wanted it  removed...
> ...


What IS you point? Slavery ended as did the Confederacy. I am all about preserving history.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

Trying to change the fact that secession was not prohibited in the US Constitution at that time is not going to work. 
Lincoln was the Criminal here. He got his due.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 17, 2017)

MaryL said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


Point being, you Ma'am did not mention that the North had slavery at the same time. Like maybe you didn't even know this.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Trying to change the fact that secession was not prohibited in the US Constitution at that time is not going to work.
> Lincoln was the Criminal here. He got his due.


It's open to interpretation, I wondered  about this comparing the southern succession from the American rebellion, most of our founding fathers were wealthy white slave owners. George Washington was once a commissioned officer in the British Army.  Thomas Jefferson was a man of the times, a  wealthy elitist and he framed our constitution, even he owned slaves. America was rebelling from England over unfair taxation (those  taxes were to  pay back England for defending English colonies during the French-Indian Wars), but the fact England was activity working to outlaw slavery at the time. Canada was aligned with England, why do you think fleeing slaves fled NORTH? Our beloved forefathers were tax evaders and defending slavery by rebelling against England. I understand the roots of the Confederacy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> All the South wanted was Independence from the North. The US has a long history of getting involved in wars where a country wanted Independence from their neighboring country.
> 
> We all lost when Imperial subjugation won the war over States rights.



Um, I'm not sure why you hate America so much, but your ancestors wanted to keep owning other human beings.  That makes them kind of contemptable. 



Boss said:


> What the Southern Confederate was fighting for was their homeland. Wealthy plantation owners used a loophole called "proxy service" to avoid having to go and fight or their sons having to do so. To the extent any plantation owners were involved in the Confederacy it was as Generals or Colonels to which they were appointed. Most of the men who died fighting for the CSA didn't own slaves or know anyone who did.



I've conceded that point. The dumb white trash fought so they cold have someone to look down on.  And yes, you were all dumb enough to sign up to fight wars for rich people. It's positively Darwinian.  

But the war was about slavery.  What the rich people said to you dumb as dirt ancestors is besides the point.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Maybe some of you are ok with the President in Washington telling your State what they must do. Like allowing male sexual deviants to use the ladies bathroom.



Yeah, I'm perfectly good with that. The states are usually run by boobs like Raunder, Scott, Walker, etc.



Boss said:


> Again.... for the millionth time... enslaving humans was legal and upheld by the US Supreme Court.



Completely irrelevant. If the Supreme Court ruled cannibalism was legal, would you show up with a bottle of A-1?   Slavery was a moral wrong. Your side fought to preserve it.  



Scamp said:


> Secession was legal then. Not now.



So please point out a case where it happened?  Thanks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> The South was protecting their constitutional right to property by ruling of the US Supreme Court. Slavery did not become illegal until ratification of the 13th Amendment. You're attempting to apply it to 1861.



No, we are trying to point out that just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral. Or worth fighting for. 

But you dumbasses did it anyway. 

Now you are whining because the people you enslaved are saying, "Take down those ugly statues to murderers!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Ask some Northern school kids which states had slaves, North or South? Be kind of funny their answer. And pitiful.



And completely irrelevant to the conversation.  

It's not who had slaves.  It's who tried to disband the union so a few rich people could keep owning them. 



Scamp said:


> Point being, you Ma'am did not mention that the North had slavery at the same time. Like maybe you didn't even know this.



No, it's not relevant... The point was, the Northern states that still had (very small amounts) of slaves didn't consider it worth going to war over.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yes you are, hard head!
> ...



Well first of all, White v. Texas did not rule that it's unconstitutional to secede. It ruled the Constitution doesn't grant a provision for state secession. Second, and more importantly, you cannot apply a future court ruling to the present because we obviously do not know the future. In 1861, there simply was no Texas v. White... it did not exist yet. i.e.; I cannot argue that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds it may one day be ruled unconstitutional in the future. If it is ruled unconstitutional in the future that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional today. This is a silly and nonsensical argument.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

Slash said:


> Remember the LEGISLATIVE Branch is the only one that can create a new law. That never happened in regards to secession.



Yet that is EXACTLY what you are trying to claim happened.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Completely irrelevant. If the Supreme Court ruled cannibalism was legal, would you show up with a bottle of A-1? Slavery was a moral wrong. Your side fought to preserve it.



Abortion is morally wrong but Constitutionally legal (Roe v. Wade).. yet your side fights to preserve it. 

See how that works?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Abortion is morally wrong but Constitutionally legal (Roe v. Wade).. yet your side fights to preserve it.
> 
> See how that works?



Nothing morally wrong with abortion at all.  Sorry, man. 

Kidney bean sized fetuses aren't people.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> I've conceded that point. The dumb white trash fought so they cold have someone to look down on. And yes, you were all dumb enough to sign up to fight wars for rich people. It's positively Darwinian.



It had nothing to do with having someone to look down on. My grandmother fed 7 children through the Great Depression by picking cotton for a black sharecropper. She earned produce and groceries by cooking dinner for everyone. If it hadn't been for blacks who got 40 acres and a mule, I wouldn't be here because they would've starved to death.

And I am glad you bring up Darwinism because I'd like to point out that it was a purely Christian worldview that eliminated slavery. The abolition movement was started by Quaker ministers. You have two worldviews; One that says we are all equal in the eyes of our Creator... and another that says we evolved from the swamp and because of evolution, some are superior to others.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion is morally wrong but Constitutionally legal (Roe v. Wade).. yet your side fights to preserve it.
> ...



Sorry, they are just as human as a slave in 1860.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> It had nothing to do with having someone to look down on. My grandmother fed 7 children through the Great Depression by picking cotton for a black sharecropper. She earned produce and groceries by cooking dinner for everyone. If it hadn't been for blacks who got 40 acres and a mule, I wouldn't be here because they would've starved to death.



40 Acres a Mule wasn't a thing that actually happened. It was another one of those broken promises.  



Boss said:


> And I am glad you bring up Darwinism because I'd like to point out that it was a purely Christian worldview that eliminated slavery. The abolition movement was started by Quaker ministers. You have two worldviews; One that says we are all equal in the eyes of our Creator... and another that says we evolved from the swamp and because of evolution, some are superior to others.



There were just as many churches that advocated for slavery, and just as many that were able to find QUOTES IN THE BIBLE justifying it. 

Darwinism isn't a philosophy. It's SCIENCE.  It's science you probably don't understand, but that's kind of not my problem. Religion is a lot of fairy tales.   

So who are you going to believe, the guys who have fossils to back up their science, or the guys who cite the book with the talking snakes and the Giants in it? 



Boss said:


> Sorry, they are just as human as a slave in 1860.



No, a Slave was perfectly capable of living off a plantation. The fact that so many of them were running away from the plantations proved that. 

MEANWHILE, a Fetus will die within seconds of leaving the womb if it is less than 6 months along, usually.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> "Take down those ugly statues to murderers!"



I've got a better idea... let's leave them up and use them as a learning experience and to instil resilience in our youth. I think it's fundamentally important to teach tolerance and acceptance instead of victimhood. Statues and monuments do not exist necessarily to "celebrate" but rather to observe in remembrance. Case in point, we have a Vietnam War Memorial... is that a celebration of the war? Are we glorifying Vietnam? No, it's a very solemn place of remembrance and reflection.


----------



## Boss (Aug 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> 40 Acres a Mule wasn't a thing that actually happened. It was another one of those broken promises.



It was a thing that happened, as I said, my grandmother worked for a sharecropper. 



JoeB131 said:


> There were just as many churches that advocated for slavery...



Doesn't mean that abolition wasn't a Christian worldview. 



JoeB131 said:


> No, a Slave was perfectly capable of living off a plantation.



Doesn't change what something IS.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp 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."
> ...Lincoln's first Inaugural Address.


Makes sense doesn't it?
He was trying to preserve the union


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The South was better at Capitalism. They took existing US law and turned it into a billion dollar per year enterprise. The North having slaves for all those 89 years could not do that.


You don't get better capitalism than free labor for life


----------



## whitehall (Aug 17, 2017)

You can argue about the northern states (colonies) dependence on cotton and their 200 hundred years of enriching northern industrial conglomerates with slave trade or you can argue that the alleged greatest politician in American history couldn't compromise and hold the Union together for another 30 years until the industrial revolution. Lincoln didn't save the union. His incompetence and arrogance caused the Union to fall apart.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2017)

Boss said:


> I've got a better idea... let's leave them up and use them as a learning experience and to instil resilience in our youth. I think it's fundamentally important to teach tolerance and acceptance instead of victimhood. Statues and monuments do not exist necessarily to "celebrate" but rather to observe in remembrance. Case in point, we have a Vietnam War Memorial... is that a celebration of the war? Are we glorifying Vietnam? No, it's a very solemn place of remembrance and reflection.



Here's the thing about that.  The guys who died in Vietnam were trying to protect a people from communist tyranny.  Maybe it was misguided, but they fought for a good cause. 

The guys who died for the Confederacy were fighting to defend slavery. 

They don't deserve rememberance. They don't deserve honor. 

More to the point, what we don't have are statues of Westmoreland or MacNamara or the other idiots who blundered us into Vietnam. We don't put a statue of them in the middle of a Vietnamese community to remind them of "Their place".  



Boss said:


> It was a thing that happened, as I said, my grandmother worked for a sharecropper.



YOu do realize that Sharecropping was just a way that white folks fucked the freed slaves, right.  Read a fucking history book. 



Boss said:


> Doesn't mean that abolition wasn't a Christian worldview.



Except it wasn't. Some Christians thought - belatedly- that slavery was bad after supporting it for 1800 years.  And some Christians supported it because the bible said so right up until the day it was abolished. And those same Christians then supported segregation and Jim Crow and Miscegenation laws and putting up statues of Klan Murderers to put those people in their place. 

It was in fact a Catholic Churchman, Bartolome de la Casas, who advocated dragging Africans over  here to start with because the Europeans were killing off the Natives too quickly.  



Boss said:


> Doesn't change what something IS.



Except Fetuses aren't capable of breating, eating, or even surviving on their own. So granting a fetus human rights makes the woman it is in a slave to the fetus. 

And as a practical matter, a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2017)

whitehall said:


> You can argue about the northern states (colonies) dependence on cotton and their 200 hundred years of enriching northern industrial conglomerates with slave trade or you can argue that the alleged greatest politician in American history couldn't compromise and hold the Union together for another 30 years until the industrial revolution. Lincoln didn't save the union. His incompetence and arrogance caused the Union to fall apart.



When Republicans are reduced to denouncing Lincoln to apologize for Trump, they don't deserve to be a party anymore.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 18, 2017)

Scamp said:


> I many cases when Northern states ended slavery, instead of freeing their slaves, Northern slave owners sold them to Southern states. Money trumps ethics and morals again.



*Scalawags and Scabs*

Because the plutocratic parasites make us believe their wealth is earned after paying fair wages, we are blocked from realizing that the North wanted to free the slaves in order to hire them as cheaper labor too naturally passive ever to unionize.  This didn't work out for the sweatshoppers because they had overestimated the worth of freed Black labor.  We are told that questioning the North's motives is a Right Wing approach, but I take the lonely stand that if you're not a union man, you're not a man at all.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Because the plutocratic parasites make us believe their wealth is earned after paying fair wages, we are blocked from realizing that the North wanted to free the slaves in order to hire them as cheaper labor too naturally passive ever to unionize. This didn't work out for the sweatshoppers because they had overestimated the worth of freed Black labor. We are told that questioning the North's motives is a Right Wing approach, but I take the lonely stand that if you're not a union man, you're not a man at all.



I have three generations of union men in my family, and I have to say, unions have long outlived their usefulness.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 18, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Yankees had no problem using their ships to take those slave crops to Europe and sell them. It was all about Money.


*Liberals Are Agents of the Right Wing; That's Why They Are Called "Limousine Liberals"*


In the Second Reconstruction, MLK was hired to break up union solidarity by forced integration of disruptive elements into the workplace.  The twin elitist parties prevent us from thinking along these lines.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> In the Second Reconstruction, MLK was hired to break up union solidarity by forced integration of disruptive elements into the workplace. The twin elitist parties prevent us from thinking along these lines.



Really, what disruptive elements were those?  

Here's the real reason why unions are in decline. Most Americans think they are perfectly capable of managing their own careers.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 18, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Secession was legal then. Not now.


*Calgary Stampede*

It's legal in many countries, such as Canada, the UK, and the former Czechoslovakia. But it takes a national referendum.  Alberta may secede and join the USA, although we're never told that and it's hard for me to persuade people that our hired opinionators are unreliable sources.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 18, 2017)

whitehall said:


> You can argue about the northern states (colonies) dependence on cotton and their 200 hundred years of enriching northern industrial conglomerates with slave trade or you can argue that the alleged greatest politician in American history couldn't compromise and hold the Union together for another 30 years until the industrial revolution. Lincoln didn't save the union. His incompetence and arrogance caused the Union to fall apart.


Lincoln not only saved us but he made it possible to reunite 

Greatest president ever


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 18, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Because the plutocratic parasites make us believe their wealth is earned after paying fair wages, we are blocked from realizing that the North wanted to free the slaves in order to hire them as cheaper labor too naturally passive ever to unionize. This didn't work out for the sweatshoppers because they had overestimated the worth of freed Black labor. We are told that questioning the North's motives is a Right Wing approach, but I take the lonely stand that if you're not a union man, you're not a man at all.
> ...


We miss them more than we realize

Wages and worker protections haven't been the same


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 18, 2017)

MaryL said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


*Class-Biased Indentured Servitude*

College, too, is work without pay.  Are we required to believe that intelligent people deserve to be punished before they are rewarded?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> We miss them more than we realize
> 
> Wages and worker protections haven't been the same



As I said, I have mixed feelings.  

One one end, yes, you have the problem like my former boss who screwed me over and then said, "I'm so glad I don't have to deal with a union."  

But the other extreme is people who just plain old shouldn't be working in that field due to laziness or incompetence, but the Union makes them impossible to fire.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 18, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We miss them more than we realize
> ...


My dad was union and we had to endure occaisonal strikes. One lasting seven months But he supported a family of six on one income, bought a house, sent four kids to college and retired at 60. 
Can't find many jobs like that today
Union workers didn't get rich. But they earned a decent living


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2017)

whitehall said:


> You can argue about the northern states (colonies) dependence on cotton and their 200 hundred years of enriching northern industrial conglomerates with slave trade or you can argue that the alleged greatest politician in American history couldn't compromise and hold the Union together for another 30 years until the industrial revolution. Lincoln didn't save the union. His incompetence and arrogance caused the Union to fall apart.



That is ignorant on several levels.


----------



## Slash (Aug 18, 2017)

whitehall said:


> You can argue about the northern states (colonies) dependence on cotton and their 200 hundred years of enriching northern industrial conglomerates with slave trade or you can argue that the alleged greatest politician in American history couldn't compromise and hold the Union together for another 30 years until the industrial revolution. Lincoln didn't save the union. His incompetence and arrogance caused the Union to fall apart.



Seeing as no ship or person in the US was legally allowed to participate in the slave trade since 1794 (during Washington's presidency), and the only states allowing the buying of slaves were in the slave states, that doesn't hold up.   

Also Lincoln did save the union.  Secession occurred before he even entered office.  And while MAYBE the industrial revolution would have changed things, it very well may have made slavery or some form of it even more integral to the economy.


----------



## Slash (Aug 18, 2017)

Scamp said:


> And the USA also had slavery until 1865, including New Jersey. But that is not taught anymore. Makes the US Federal Gov look like hypocrites. Thanks for proving my point. Erasing history makes some feel better.




WHat do you mean it makes it look like hypocrites?   The state of New Jersey was in the process of ending slavery, the South was in the process of turning traitor to ensure it survived.   The Republican party which was the first party to base itself on an anti-slavery stance had JUST taken power and as soon as the Union was restored got slavery repealed.   

Again, if your point is that the people that BUILT this country were flawed, NOBODY is disagreeing.   If your point is that they were as flawed as a rebellion that went to war against the US and tried to overthrow the government of the United States of America for the perpetuation of slavery, I would disagree.


----------



## Boss (Aug 18, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing about that.  The guys who died in Vietnam were trying to protect a people from communist tyranny.  Maybe it was misguided, but they fought for a good cause.
> 
> The guys who died for the Confederacy were fighting to defend slavery.
> 
> They don't deserve rememberance. They don't deserve honor.



Here's the thing about that... you're full of shit. 
It is your ignorant and inaccurate opinion they were fighting to defend slavery. As I pointed out, they didn't even own slaves. It's not up to you to decide what deserves remembrance and remembrance doesn't necessarily mean honor. There are many reasons to remember something, honor is only one. 



> More to the point, what we don't have are statues of Westmoreland or MacNamara or the other idiots who blundered us into Vietnam. We don't put a statue of them in the middle of a Vietnamese community to remind them of "Their place".



Well, we don't have Vietnamese communities because we don't segregate people anymore. We threw the Democrats who liked to do that sort of thing out of office. And look... I am not opposed to a community voting to remove a Confederate statue! If that's what the people want to do, I'm fine with that! I object to it being done because YOU decided it didn't need to be there, you virtue signaling moron.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It was a thing that happened, as I said, my grandmother worked for a sharecropper.
> ...



No, I realize you are once again presenting your bigoted ignorant opinion. I guarantee I've read more history books than you on the Civil War and Reconstruction. Sharecropping and tenant farming is how we resolved the situation of freeing the slaves. Freedmen had no way of supporting their families and land owners had no labor. I didn't argue that it was some great and glorious thing that benefited all. I simply countered your idiotic argument that it didn't happen.

You claim it was a way to fuck over the freed slaves but by 1930, most sharecroppers were white.  Again, you present an ignorant and bigoted opinion without any basis in fact.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't mean that abolition wasn't a Christian worldview.
> ...



Except FACTS! The abolition movement began with Quaker ministers. Furthermore, it was a Baptist minister (MLK) who championed Civil Rights in the 1960s. It is a Christian worldview that people are equal in the eyes of God. It is a Darwinian worldview they are not equal because of evolution. I'm sorry that's not penetrating your bigoted head. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change what something IS.
> ...



What some humans are capable of doing doesn't change what they are. Look at yourself, for instance. You are incapable of reasoned and rational thought. Your views are ignorant and bigoted. Yet, you are still a human being.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 18, 2017)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the thing about that.  The guys who died in Vietnam were trying to protect a people from communist tyranny.  Maybe it was misguided, but they fought for a good cause.
> ...


Regardless of individual reasons for taking up arms, what was the officially stated cause for secession? I can quote the declarations if you'd like.


----------



## Boss (Aug 18, 2017)

pinqy said:


> Regardless of individual reasons for taking up arms, what was the officially stated cause for secession? I can quote the declarations if you'd like.



I've addressed this argument at least 100 times on this forum. I think I addressed it earlier in this thread. The state official declarations of secession prominently mention slavery because slavery was the issue. It wasn't the principle. That is VERY important. We have to remember that slavery had not been outlawed, it wasn't illegal to own slaves, and the US's own Supreme Court had repeatedly defended the right to own slaves as property. So you are literally arguing the South declared secession over something that did not yet exist. 

Yes, slavery was the prominent issue at hand, but it was NOT the principle on which secession resided. That was Federalism! Whether the US Federal government had authority under the Constitution to take the property (or in this case, render it worthless) of state citizens. MANY people (then and now) believe such issues are a STATE matter and the Constitution clearly states it as such. 

Congress had 89 years and countless opportunities to condemn slavery and outlaw it. The SCOTUS also had ample opportunities to condemn slavery and render it unconstitutional. These things did not happen in America. That's NOT the fault of the South or Southerners. Are they complicit? Do they share a part of the burden? Of course! But to attempt to revise history so as to lay the entire blame at their feet is deplorable and dishonest. Furthermore, I believe it is done in order to scapegoat the South and absolve the North from any and all culpability. This is bigotry at it's finest. 

The "reason" was not slavery! The "reason" for secession was in order to form a new nation. A Confederation of states who determined their own parameters and laws as opposed to a Union of states with a central Federal authority ruling over them. Slavery was the issue of the time and NOT the principle. 

More importantly-- Me, speaking this TRUTH is not an endorsement of slavery or even the idea of Confederacy. It's simply an acknowledgment of the truth, whether we like to hear it or not. We get nowhere by rejecting the truth and adopting an idiotic notion that doesn't comport with reality. You cannot absolve the North of the guilt for upholding slavery for 89 years by scapegoating the South. You cannot turn the Union into a bunch of Civil Rights Warriors who were fighting for equality against a racist South. That's a false picture of reality and I can't allow that to go unchallenged.


----------



## Slash (Aug 18, 2017)

Boss said:


> I've addressed this argument at least 100 times on this forum. I think I addressed it earlier in this thread. The state official declarations of secession prominently mention slavery because slavery was the issue. It wasn't the principle. That is VERY important. We have to remember that slavery had not been outlawed, it wasn't illegal to own slaves, and the US's own Supreme Court had repeatedly defended the right to own slaves as property. So you are literally arguing the South declared secession over something that did not yet exist.
> 
> Yes, slavery was the prominent issue at hand, but it was NOT the principle on which secession resided. That was Federalism! Whether the US Federal government had authority under the Constitution to take the property (or in this case, render it worthless) of state citizens. MANY people (then and now) believe such issues are a STATE matter and the Constitution clearly states it as such.
> 
> ...




Actually it was the principal.  You can read the articles of secession.  It was that the abolitionist movement had gotten to the white house.   That the federal government was no longer enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act.  That the Government had passed law that new states could not have slavery in them.   That the Federal Government outlawed the slave trade.   Bit by bit they felt the noose slipping around them. 

There's two things that show up in every state's Article of Secession.   Lincoln being elected (and his abolitionist leanings), and Slavery. 

You are right.  Slavery was legal, but for how long.  They seceded to form a nation that ensured the future of slavery in a Federal government they felt was about to drop the hammer on it.  That's what they wrote about.   To say "slavery was legal, all is fine" you need to get a really big fire going because you've got a lot of historical writings by those that seceded to burn to make that case. 

To attempt to revise that, to take those black markers and cross out all the proof right there in their state congress meeting minutes, articles of secession and speeches about their cause is wrong. 

To say it was federalism, when you had people like Joseph E Brown, governor of Georgia who truly felt he was leaving to join a new less Federally dominated Government and end up opposing Jefferson Davis later in the war because the Confederacy was every bit as Federally dominated just doesn't ring true with those that actually lived it. 


When we try to say the truth is the principal was something other than slavery, and in their own articles of secession the states said  "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"  that's a lie

When the Vice President of the Country kicks it off with a speech saying "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."  saying it's something else requires you to revise history. 


SO you are right.  We get nowhere when we reject the truth.


----------



## Boss (Aug 18, 2017)

Slash said:


> Actually it was the principal. You can read the articles of secession. It was that the abolitionist movement had gotten to the white house. That the federal government was no longer enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. That the Government had passed law that new states could not have slavery in them. That the Federal Government outlawed the slave trade. Bit by bit they felt the noose slipping around them.



No, actually it wasn't the principle. It was an issue pertaining to an overarching principle of Federalism or "State's Rights." 

Lincoln vehemently rejected the abolitionist label. You can read his numerous speeches of the time. The government did not pass any law prohibiting new states from slavery, as a matter of fact, West Virginia was adopted as a slave state in 1862, in the middle of a Civil War you claim the US was fighting against slavery. 

And let's get this clear... Upon the founding of the nation in 1776, the US (both North and South) banned slave trade. 

What Southerners felt was Federal encroachment on their rights as determined by the US's own SCOTUS. 



Slash said:


> You are right. Slavery was legal, but for how long. They seceded to form a nation that ensured the future of slavery in a Federal government they felt was about to drop the hammer on it. That's what they wrote about. To say "slavery was legal, all is fine" you need to get a really big fire going because you've got a lot of historical writings by those that seceded to burn to make that case.



I never said "slavery is legal, all is fine!" Slavery was legal, slaves were deemed property, not by the CSA or CSA courts, but by US courts and the US government. To pretend that was not the case is intellectual dishonesty. To pretend the US government had outlawed slavery and the South was refusing to comply, is a flat out lie. Even after the Civil War began, Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the union without freeing any slaves, he would do so. As a state senator, Lincoln actually proposed a bill that would've preserved slavery until 1911. Bet you didn't know that about the Great Emancipator. I bet you also didn't know his "plans" for how to deal with freed slaves was to ship them away to foreign lands because he did not believe they could ever hold equal station in white society. 

When we OBJECTIVELY look at history, we find racism and racist viewpoints were prevalent on both sides. I would argue that probably 96% of the nation, at that time, was vehemently racist by today's standard. There were VERY few people who honestly believed the negro slave was equal in station to whites. That's just a FACT! This revisionist fantasy that the North were somehow virtuous crusaders for equality is just asinine and factually inaccurate. Nothing is further from the TRUTH!


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Aug 18, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...



How was it legal? No provision in the constitution allows for it. When the states agreed to ratify the constitution the agreed to abide by the terms of the constitution.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 18, 2017)

Boss said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of individual reasons for taking up arms, what was the officially stated cause for secession? I can quote the declarations if you'd like.
> ...


 No, it's not. It's a distinction without a difference. When a proposed principle only has one issue, one concern, then you can't claim a separation of the two.



> We have to remember that slavery had not been outlawed, it wasn't illegal to own slaves, and the US's own Supreme Court had repeatedly defended the right to own slaves as property. So you are literally arguing the South declared secession over something that did not yet exist.


No, I'm not. I said it was about slavery, not abolition of slavery.  Let's look at what Georgia had to say:
"_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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war_"

Mississipi, South Carolina, and Texas also state that their cause for secession was hostility by the North towards slavery, lack of enforcement of Article IV section 2, and the election of Lincoln, a Republican, which party they viewed as abolitionist.



> Yes, slavery was the prominent issue at hand, but it was NOT the principle on which secession resided. That was Federalism! Whether the US Federal government had authority under the Constitution to take the property (or in this case, render it worthless) of state citizens. MANY people (then and now) believe such issues are a STATE matter and the Constitution clearly states it as such.


  Federalism?  No. While there were some complaints about the Federal government encroaching, most of the complaints were actually against the Northern States. I'll cite again part of the same passage from Georgia: "_numerous and serious causes of complaint against our *non-slave-holding confederate States*_*"*  That's not a complaint about Federalism.



> Congress had 89 years and countless opportunities to condemn slavery and outlaw it. The SCOTUS also had ample opportunities to condemn slavery and render it unconstitutional. These things did not happen in America. That's NOT the fault of the South or Southerners. Are they complicit? Do they share a part of the burden? Of course! But to attempt to revise history so as to lay the entire blame at their feet is deplorable and dishonest.


 When you're addressing me, please respond to MY arguments and what I've actually written, instead of a generalized rant.  Oh, and please use my full title of Lord High Grand Exalted One. Thanks.

But in any case....many states had abolished slavery and did not return escaped slaves. Restrictions on new slave states was also a concern. So that the Federal Government did not abolish slavery (and I remind you that in the 72 years before Lincoln, 49 of them were under slave-owning Presidents, and none of the others would have supported abolition). Oh, and where are you getting 89 years of Congress from?



> The "reason" was not slavery! The "reason" for secession was in order to form a new nation.


 And why did they want a new nation?  To continue slavery unmolested.



> You cannot absolve the North of the guilt for upholding slavery for 89 years by scapegoating the South. You cannot turn the Union into a bunch of Civil Rights Warriors who were fighting for equality against a racist South. That's a false picture of reality and I can't allow that to go unchallenged.


Then go challenging those who are doing that. I have not. The War was about slavery for the Confederacy...the Union didn't fight the war because of slavery.


----------



## Boss (Aug 18, 2017)

pinqy said:


> No, it's not. It's a distinction without a difference. When a proposed principle only has one issue, one concern, then you can't claim a separation of the two.



Well of course you can. I can think of dozens of examples where an issue is secondary to the principle. Abortion, gay marriage, corporate personhood... the list goes on and on. Almost every issue has an overarching principle and the principle is important. In order to make objective evaluations we must separate the two. Otherwise, you are making a subjective evaluation based on the issue and ignoring the principle. 



pinqy said:


> I'll cite again part of the same passage from Georgia:



You are parsing out the ISSUE without regard or acknowledgement of the PRINCIPLE! To repeatedly cite the timely statements issued in support of secession without also recognizing the overarching principles is unfair and not objective. 

Again... I have not claimed that slavery wasn't an issue. Indeed, it was the premier issue of the day. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. But it was not the principle. That's what seems to always be lost in this debate. The South was certainly not arguing it was morally right to enslave human beings. The principle of enslaving other humans is wrong and always was wrong. The principle was state sovereignty over the Federal government, pursuant to the Constitution. It took this nation another 100 years after the Civil War to recognize Civil Rights.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 18, 2017)

How was it legal? No provision in the constitution allows for it. When the states agreed to ratify the constitution the agreed to abide by the terms of the constitution.[/QUOTE]




Soupnazi630 said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Slash said:
> ...





Soupnazi630 said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Slash said:
> ...



Very good question. 
10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


----------



## Slash (Aug 18, 2017)

No, actually it wasn't the principle. It was an issue pertaining to an overarching principle of Federalism or "State's Rights."
*
If you don't think it was the principle, then take it up with those that seceded by saying it was.   Tell them they didn't know what they were talking about.  They even said slavery not federal rights was the cornerstone of their nation.   

"The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the PRINCIPLE of prohibition to the last extremity" is one of the articles of secession.  

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
With these PRINCIPLES on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal PRINCIPLE of this organization." is what they said they were fighting against.  

You can say it was the "principle of the Federal Governments power", but they spelled out where that overstep was happening and that was it's desire to get rid of slavery. *

And let's get this clear... Upon the founding of the nation in 1776, the US (both North and South) banned slave trade.

*Actually no.  Article 1 section 9 actually prevented that.  "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."


While most Northern states banned the slave trade during the Revolutionary war the South did not, and at the Federal level it was legal.  In fact Southern delegates asked for a moratorium on the vote to banish slave trade which was put in the Constitution as you see there.  Northern delegates got around it slightly in one way with the slave trade act of... 1794 maybe (can't remember the year off the top of my head)?   The one George Washington signed that US ships and sailors couldn't participate in it.  But banning slave trade overall had to wait until that moratorium, at which point it passed.   A group of Secessionists known as the fire eaters were ones that believed owning black people was a "God given right" and that the slave trade would be re-opened.   The creator of the confederate battle flag was one of these.  *

What Southerners felt was Federal encroachment on their rights as determined by the US's own SCOTUS.  

*And they listed the rights they felt THIS federal government took too far.   Slavery.  And Slavery.  And Slavery.   Which is why instead of allowing states the right to form their own pro or anti slave government in the CSA, they took that right away and made it a federal mandate that any new state had to be a slave state.   The lack of this hope for states rights was why Jospeh E Brown, governor of Georgia stood up to Jefferson Davis.   *

I never said "slavery is legal, all is fine!" Slavery was legal, slaves were deemed property, not by the CSA or CSA courts, but by US courts and the US government. To pretend that was not the case is intellectual dishonesty. 

*Nobody is pretending that is the case.  You were insinuating since slavery was legal at the time the legality of it wasn't being challenged.  That is EXACTLY why the states said they were seceding was the Republican party and Lincoln wanting to get rid of slavery.*


To pretend the US government had outlawed slavery and the South was refusing to comply, is a flat out lie. 

*Nobody is pretending that is the case.   What the South said was that Lincoln trying to end slavery in the south was a foregone conclusion *


Even after the Civil War began, Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the union without freeing any slaves, he would do so. 

*Again, he brought that up in two places..  On the campaign trail when he was being described as a warmongerer for the black man by his opposition and was trying to show himself as a moderate for votes, and when making the war a war on slavery before the battle lines had been completely drawn would have been suicide for America seeing as he lived between two slave states.  Of course we saw what his actions were the minute they Union had a decisive victory and pushed the Confederates away from DC.  When the lines were drawn in blood for that war.   He put out the Emancipation Proclamation.  *

As a state senator, Lincoln actually proposed a bill that would've preserved slavery until 1911. Bet you didn't know that about the Great Emancipator. 

*Yes he did.  It was his first attempt at ending slavery to find a way that would be acceptable and get through congress.  He was attempting to find ways to end slavery even before being president.  He also wrote one to ban slavery in land won from Mexico.  And one to ban slavery in DC.  And actually was the person to ban Slavery in DC. *


I bet you also didn't know his "plans" for how to deal with freed slaves was to ship them away to foreign lands because he did not believe they could ever hold equal station in white society.

*I did.  He wrote about it.  He also wrote that it would be a voluntary for those who wanted to leave.  I can see why  after the letter he received from the governor of Alabama, basically telling him he didnt even want slavery, but if you had free blacks running around the south, they might start to think they were human and equals.  Then his white constitutents would of course have to kill them all off and live with that on their conscience.   

Granted his action instead was to fight for complete freedom.  His emancipation Proclamation even, which made all slaves free in rebelling states made their forcible removal null and void.  The 13th Amendment as well.  When it came to action, Lincoln made them free AMERICANS, not colonists of some other land.  But we like to pretend his other plan was what happened.  *

When we OBJECTIVELY look at history, we find racism and racist viewpoints were prevalent on both sides. I would argue that probably 96% of the nation, at that time, was vehemently racist by today's standard. There were VERY few people who honestly believed the negro slave was equal in station to whites. That's just a FACT! This revisionist fantasy that the North were somehow virtuous crusaders for equality is just asinine and factually inaccurate. Nothing is further from the TRUTH!

*I agree.  But when we try and black out all the writings from the South that slavery was the issue at hand.   That it was even more prevalent in their articles of secession by far than federal power, and that the federal power they feared and disliked was almost entirely the anti-slavery stance they felt the federal government had, that's just erasing history to tell a revised version. * 


[/QUOTE]


----------



## Boss (Aug 18, 2017)

pinqy said:


> But in any case....many states had abolished slavery and did not return escaped slaves. Restrictions on new slave states was also a concern. So that the Federal Government did not abolish slavery (and I remind you that in the 72 years before Lincoln, 49 of them were under slave-owning Presidents, and none of the others would have supported abolition). Oh, and where are you getting 89 years of Congress from?



89 years... from 1776 to 1865. Do the maths! 

Excuses for why previous presidents didn't support abolition is pointless and irrelevant. The fact is, they didn't and neither did congress... Neither did the courts!  States were free to abolish slavery and the CSA didn't have any problem with that. Indeed, the principle of secession was so that states had every right to make this determination on their own. 

Ironically, the Constitution of the Confederacy granted voting rights to free blacks and Native Americans... 100 years before the US government passed the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Slash (Aug 18, 2017)

Scamp said:


> How was it legal? No provision in the constitution allows for it. When the states agreed to ratify the constitution the agreed to abide by the terms of the constitution.
> Very good question.
> 10th Amendment.
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



Actually the Supreme court said it does.   They said the secession was illegal based on their interpretation of what the US Constitution said about it.   That's what matters.  Unless you want to ball up the Constitution and flush it down the toilet, that's how America works.  You don't have to like the ruling.   You don't have to agree with it or how they came to it.  But it doesn't change the fact that it was illegal. 

As long as the Constitution rules the USA, that's what the judgement was on the legality of Secession.   You disagreeing with it doesn't matter.


----------



## Boss (Aug 18, 2017)

Slash said:


> I agree. But when we try and black out all the writings from the South that slavery was the issue at hand. That it was even more prevalent in their articles of secession by far than federal power, and that the federal power they feared and disliked was almost entirely the anti-slavery stance they felt the federal government had, that's just erasing history to tell a revised version.



No... It's erasing history to ignore the context and PRINCIPLE in favor of the prevailing popular opinion on an issue of the times. That's what you are doing. I am pointing out that, while slavery was very much an important issue of the times, it was NOT the overarching principle or reason behind secession from the Union.


----------



## Boss (Aug 18, 2017)

Slash said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > How was it legal? No provision in the constitution allows for it. When the states agreed to ratify the constitution the agreed to abide by the terms of the constitution.
> ...



But that is incorrect on TWO fronts. First, SCOTUS did NOT rule secession was "illegal." It simply ruled it wasn't constitutionally supported. There are LOTS of things the Constitution doesn't support that aren't illegal. Secondly, and more importantly, you cannot apply a ruling from 1869 to 1861 actions. We cannot retroactively apply constitutionality to history. If SCOTUS rules tomorrow that aborting a human fetus is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean it was unconstitutional today. 

If someone were trying to argue that slavery is Constitutional today, then you can cite the 13th Amendment and prove them incorrect. But you cannot apply the 13th Amendment to a time in history before it existed. In 1860, it was a Constitutional right to own slaves as property. Like it or not, that was the law... not according to the CSA but according to the highest US court in the land.


----------

