Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So one speech by the Confederate vice president, Alexander Stephens, is supposed to be the final, total word on the Confederacy? Really? Do you know who Alexander Stephens was? Do you know that Stephens ardently opposed secession? Do you know what a bit, minor player he was in the CSA? I discuss Stephens' speech in Slavery and Southern Independence, which I'm guessing none of you liberals have bothered to read yet.
Before Civil War scholarship came to be dominated by the PC line, a number of historians were willing to be objective and accurate about the Confederacy. Historians Robert Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams have commented on the formation of the Confederacy as follows:
The [Confederate] convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
. . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction. (Robert Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998 pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
Historian Allan Nevins said the following about the Confederate Constitution in his book The Emergence of Lincoln:
The most remarkable features of the new instrument [the Confederate Constitution] sprang from the purifying and reforming zeal of the delegates, who hoped to create a more guarded and virtuous government than that of Washington. The President was to hold office six years, and be ineligible for reelection. Expenditures were to be limited by a variety of careful provisions, and the President was given budgetary control over appropriations which Congress could break only by a two-thirds vote.
Subordinate employees were protected against the forays of the spoils system. No bounties were ever to be paid out of the Treasury, no protective tariff was to be passed, and no post office deficit was to be permitted. . . . Some of these changes were unmistakable improvements, and the spirit behind all of them was an earnest desire to make government more honest and efficient. (Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, Volume 2, The Ordeal of the Union series, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950, p. 435)
After noting that “limited government was the Confederate ideal,” political science professor Marshall L. DeRosa discusses some of the innovations in the Confederate Constitution:
Some of those innovations include modifications of the budgetary and appropriations process, such as the line-item veto, the elimination of legislative riders, the exclusion of industrial and agricultural protectionism, and drastic restrictions on internal improvements [national public works projects]. . . .
Those omissions expose certain shibboleths [common ideas], such as the specious [false] contention that the Confederacy was designed exclusively or primarily to maintain a slavocracy. The Confederate Constitution does not mandate slavery; not only was slavery not constitutionally mandated, but certain constitutional provisions cleared the way for nonslave states to join the Confederacy. (The Confederate Constitution of 1861, University of Missouri Press, 1991, pp. 133-134)
Why should they leave land that was theirs because slavers threw a tantrum?It was an invasion the minute they were asked to leave and they refused, numskull.Read history. It was there before the confederates threw their tantrum and stayed there by agreement. So it wasn't a invasion.Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.
On that point alone, you lose.
Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?
black people agreed that there was a right to own slavesYou support the Confederacy.ROFL! What a sleazy weasel. Did you have anything besides cheap personal attacks?
.
If you were prevented from cheap personal attacks- you wouldn't be able to post here.
Oh, right, because you don't make cheap personal attacks, like accusing people of supporting slavery.
They agreed to a right own slaves. Absolutely.
You would also say people who support Planned Parenthood support the right to an abortion.
Do you disagree?
It's kind of hard for you to disassociate yourself from the primary cause of a group.
hard to dis-associate yourself from that
In Slaves We Trust. Their foundation, their cornerstone, the engine that ran the southern economy, their lifeblood working the fields, emblazoned right on their currency.
Where? I don't see that written on the note. Furthermore, your note seems to have been issued in 1858. It must be bogus.
Need more?
Every time they passed the bills to buy food and wood
In Slaves We Trust. Their foundation, their cornerstone, the engine that ran the southern economy, their lifeblood working the fields, emblazoned right on their currency.
Where? I don't see that written on the note. Furthermore, your note seems to have been issued in 1858. It must be bogus.
Need more?
Where do they say "In Slaves We Trust?"
Here we go again. No. That is not true.black people agreed that there was a right to own slavesYou support the Confederacy.ROFL! What a sleazy weasel. Did you have anything besides cheap personal attacks?
.
If you were prevented from cheap personal attacks- you wouldn't be able to post here.
Oh, right, because you don't make cheap personal attacks, like accusing people of supporting slavery.
They agreed to a right own slaves. Absolutely.
You would also say people who support Planned Parenthood support the right to an abortion.
Do you disagree?
It's kind of hard for you to disassociate yourself from the primary cause of a group.
hard to dis-associate yourself from that
In fact the first person to legally own a slave in this country was a black man arguing that one of his black indentured servants was his "negro for life". This court case set the precedent for all others affirming slavery as a legal practice.
I was not aware of this. Interesting, if true....In fact the first person to legally own a slave in this country was a black man arguing that one of his black indentured servants was his "negro for life". This court case set the precedent for all others affirming slavery as a legal practice.
I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..
Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?
(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)
Here we go again. No. That is not true.black people agreed that there was a right to own slavesYou support the Confederacy.If you were prevented from cheap personal attacks- you wouldn't be able to post here.
Oh, right, because you don't make cheap personal attacks, like accusing people of supporting slavery.
They agreed to a right own slaves. Absolutely.
You would also say people who support Planned Parenthood support the right to an abortion.
Do you disagree?
It's kind of hard for you to disassociate yourself from the primary cause of a group.
hard to dis-associate yourself from that
In fact the first person to legally own a slave in this country was a black man arguing that one of his black indentured servants was his "negro for life". This court case set the precedent for all others affirming slavery as a legal practice.
Haven't you already been schooled on this before?
Every time they passed the bills to buy food and wood
In Slaves We Trust. Their foundation, their cornerstone, the engine that ran the southern economy, their lifeblood working the fields, emblazoned right on their currency.
Where? I don't see that written on the note. Furthermore, your note seems to have been issued in 1858. It must be bogus.
Need more?
Where do they say "In Slaves We Trust?"
and other supplies
that would
month by month
grow more and more
worthless
until
it
was
nothing.
Like the dead, worthless Confederacy you so enshrine and support.
I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..
Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?
(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)
It depends on who you ask. Many conservative talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin still worship Lincoln and think he's the greatest president ever. He only killed 600,000 Americans and could have killed ten times as many because he was the "great emancipator". Neo-cons, like Leftists, worship power and love when the state crushes all opposition and protest.
I was not aware of this. Interesting, if true....In fact the first person to legally own a slave in this country was a black man arguing that one of his black indentured servants was his "negro for life". This court case set the precedent for all others affirming slavery as a legal practice.
Then again, given that Slavery was a common practice amongst the African tribes who sold their brothers and sisters into bondage, to the Muslim-Arab slavers, who, in turn, sold their 'rolling stock' to the coast-hugging English and Spanish and Portugese slave-traders, well...
Black Culpability in the Slave Trade is well-documented, albeit half-forgotten.
Here we go again. No. That is not true.black people agreed that there was a right to own slavesYou support the Confederacy.Oh, right, because you don't make cheap personal attacks, like accusing people of supporting slavery.
They agreed to a right own slaves. Absolutely.
You would also say people who support Planned Parenthood support the right to an abortion.
Do you disagree?
It's kind of hard for you to disassociate yourself from the primary cause of a group.
hard to dis-associate yourself from that
In fact the first person to legally own a slave in this country was a black man arguing that one of his black indentured servants was his "negro for life". This court case set the precedent for all others affirming slavery as a legal practice.
Haven't you already been schooled on this before?
Prove it.
Towards the end of the War, US Greenbacks were worth $$ -- Confederate Currency? Ha! It cost on order of about 3,000.00 greybacks to buy a suit. If you could find one.Every time they passed the bills to buy food and wood
In Slaves We Trust. Their foundation, their cornerstone, the engine that ran the southern economy, their lifeblood working the fields, emblazoned right on their currency.
Where? I don't see that written on the note. Furthermore, your note seems to have been issued in 1858. It must be bogus.
Need more?
Where do they say "In Slaves We Trust?"
and other supplies
that would
month by month
grow more and more
worthless
until
it
was
nothing.
Like the dead, worthless Confederacy you so enshrine and support.
Is this supposed to prove something? Confederate bills were just like the federal reserve notes in your wallet: backed by nothing. They also become worth less and less with each passing day.
The liberals here are making two big errors: They're saying (1) that the South seceded over slavery and (2) that therefore the Civil War was fought over slavery.
But secession and the war were two very different events. The Confederacy tried to establish peaceful, normal relations with the federal government. The Confederacy offered to pay the South's share of the national debt, offered to pay compensation for federal installations in the South, and sought to make the U.S. a most-favored-nation trading partner. But the Radical Republicans and certain Northern business interests refused peaceful coexistence and pressured Lincoln into opting for coercion and war.
...
No one is endorsing slavery, dumbass.Has it been asked by what right people had slaves?
Look at you hating on America like a good little democrat . You do Obama and the Pauls proudWhy should they leave land that was theirs because slavers threw a tantrum?It was an invasion the minute they were asked to leave and they refused, numskull.Read history. It was there before the confederates threw their tantrum and stayed there by agreement. So it wasn't a invasion.Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.
On that point alone, you lose.
Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?
They should leave for the same reason that we would have to pull our troops out of Germany if the government asked us to leave, numskull. Failure to comply would be an act of war. The U.S. doesn't determine the legitimate uses of property in foreign countries. Any kid in grade school understands that.
Again slow kid the confederates started the warI've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..
Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?
(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)
It depends on who you ask. Many conservative talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin still worship Lincoln and think he's the greatest president ever. He only killed 600,000 Americans and could have killed ten times as many because he was the "great emancipator". Neo-cons, like Leftists, worship power and love when the state crushes all opposition and protest.
No one is endorsing slavery, dumbass.Has it been asked by what right people had slaves?
The Confederacy did and those who defend the Confederacy are doing so whether they are honest enough to agree with it or not.The Confederacy stated emphatically that it was about the state right to own and trade slaves
