Confederate flags to be banned from CMA country music festival

DO try to keep up....the South, while seceding, said secession was about protecting their slavery. They were paranoid (and it showed)....the North wasn't threatening their slavery by electing Lincoln in 1860....He just wanted to prevent the growth of slavery into the new territories.
Which would have been a de facto ban on the practice in the future because the slave states would have been outnumbered as the U.S. expanded. So, yeah. They were going back on their word.

It's still no excuse for slavery and I do not defend the practice, like 100% of all living southerners.
 
Yeah, at or below the U.S. flag, same as every other state. There's nothing special about Texas.

Shutterstock_12895679h.jpg
This is not correct. We also have TexMex and Chupacabra. Fear the goatsucker!
 
Which would have been a de facto ban on the practice in the future because the slave states would have been outnumbered as the U.S. expanded. So, yeah. They were going back on their word.

It's still no excuse for slavery and I do not defend the practice, like 100% of all living southerners.
OOOOoooooooooh. In other words, they knew they would end up being a minority later on so decided to pout and break away? Like what the Republican white-wing sees coming for them soon? Minority status?
 
The states themselves who explained a reason for seceding was to keep their slaves.
Because the North agreed to it but threatened to end the practice without the South's consent as the U.S. expanded.

I can admit that the states seceded to protect a horrible institution. Why can you people admit that the North and Lincoln threatened to go back on those original agreements and threaten the horrible institution by the expanding U.S.?
 
In other words, they knew they would end up being a minority later on so decided to pout and break away?
Yes. They believed that the North would go back on its word and interfere in State affairs. Absolutely.
Like what the Republican white-wing sees coming for them soon? Minority status?
Now you're just being an ass hurt kuuuunt because you know I am right.

By the way, are you now telling me that replacement theory is real?
 
I've read them, evidently you haven't, old man

Let's dance you decrepit old fck
I don't dance with catfish....you have no legs.


Slavery

1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.

READ MORE

Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Texas: The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.
South Carolina: Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.
Georgia: That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.

READ MORE

Georgia: We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it… or an equal participation in the whole of it. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.
Texas: The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.

READ MORE

Georgia: For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. … These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.
Mississippi: [Abolitionism] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
Texas: The people [of non-slave holding states] have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States... They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.

READ MORE

Mississippi: We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.
Georgia: But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere.
 
Because the North agreed to it but threatened to end the practice without the South's consent as the U.S. expanded.

I can admit that the states seceded to protect a horrible institution. Why can you people admit that the North and Lincoln threatened to go back on those original agreements and threaten the horrible institution by the expanding U.S.?

So yes, to keep their slaves. And to this day there are still asshole racists who want to proudly display that with the flag from back then. Nice to see they're being told to fuck off.
 

Forum List

Back
Top