Netherlands

[freeandfun1]

Well, according to this site slavery wasn't abolished in the US until 1865.
http://www.historicaldocuments.com/13thAmendment.htm

We are not proud of having been the world's largest slavetrading nation. And trafficking of people, or modern slavery is a large problem, but not only in our country. Because of its geographical position, with the world's third (after Singapore and Shanghai) largest port, Rotterdam, the Netherlands is an ideal place on the route.

Lincoln gave his Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, effective 1865. His proclamation was an executive order which means it stood, unless overturned. As you see, it was NOT overturned.

And on the other subject, "excuses are like assholes".

Furthermore, regardless of whether it was 1863 or 1865, based on your own country's history, you still have NO ROOM to yack your mouth.

Nuff said.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Lincoln gave his Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, effective 1865. His proclamation was an executive order which means it stood, unless overturned. As you see, it was NOT overturned.

And on the other subject, "excuses are like assholes".

Furthermore, regardless of whether it was 1863 or 1865, based on your own country's history, you still have NO ROOM to yack your mouth.

Nuff said.

Based on YOUR country's history you can't yack your mouth at our mistakes of the past.

 

[freeandfun1]

Based on YOUR country's history you can't yack your mouth at our mistakes of the past.

Go back, read the thread and tell me WHO claimed what first then yack your mouth. DOH!

 

[Blashyrkh]

Go back, read the thread and tell me WHO claimed what first then yack your mouth. DOH!

Well, I didn't bring up the slavery thing. But enough on that, we were wrong back then and our history of slavery is definitely worse than yours. But you can't just shed light on a very dark page of our history and then tell me to shut up.

 

[Merlin1047]

Well, I didn't bring up the slavery thing. But enough on that, we were wrong back then and our history of slavery is definitely worse than yours. But you can't just shed light on a very dark page of our history and then tell me to shut up.

What's the point to all this drivel? Why are you on this board? Just looking for a place to spout your euroweenie philosphy?

 

[Blashyrkh]

What's the point to all this drivel? Why are you on this board? Just looking for a place to spout your euroweenie philosphy?

If you want to call it that way.

 

[Merlin1047]

If you want to call it that way.

Now there's an intelligent answer. I'll have to go with my gut feeling that you're here for no other reason than to stir up shit.

And you're not doing a very good job of that.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Now there's an intelligent answer. I'll have to go with my gut feeling that you're here for no other reason than to stir up shit.

And you're not doing a very good job of that.

Your country fucks things up all over the world, and they are doing a very good job of that.

 

[Shattered]

Your country fucks things up all over the world, and they are doing a very good job of that.

Are you always so charming when you visit other countries via Internet? I can see why people would want to have you back...

 

[IControlThePast]

Because the politically correct nazi's have decided that sounds like a better reason to have fought the war? I don't know. Uneducated I guess.

Modern historians now say slavery played a larger role in the war that the older historians thought. It was very much a major issue, probably the biggest in the country, so just look at the 1790 debate over it.

Also, here is part of the South Carolina Declaration of Secession. South Carolina was the first state to leave, and it's Declaration served as a prototype for that of other states, so that is why I have SC's.

"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:

[p18]
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

[p19]
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

[p20]
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

[p21]
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

The only explicitly mentioned state right was slavery.

 

[freeandfun1]

Modern historians now say slavery played a larger role in the war that the older historians thought. It was very much a major issue, probably the biggest in the country, so just look at the 1790 debate over it.

Also, here is part of the South Carolina Declaration of Secession. South Carolina was the first state to leave, and it's Declaration served as a prototype for that of other states, so that is why I have SC's.

"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:

[p18]
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

[p19]
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

[p20]
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

[p21]
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

The only explicitly mentioned state right was slavery.

You are pinpointing on one issue which, regardless, STILL points back to state's rights. So no matter how you try to present this, the issue that was fought over was state's rights. Period. Left, right, sideways, upside down, the issue, once again, was STATE'S RIGHTS.

No matter how you slice it, dice it or spin it, the bottom line is that the civil war was over state's rights. Even if, as you want to claim, it was only over the rights to decide if slavery was legal or not, it was still over state's rights. Their (the states') right to decide.

Nice try though.

 

[IControlThePast]

You are pinpointing on one issue which, regardless, STILL points back to state's rights. So no matter how you try to present this, the issue that was fought over was state's rights. Period. Left, right, sideways, upside down, the issue, once again, was STATE'S RIGHTS.

No matter how you slice it, dice it or spin it, the bottom line is that the civil war was over state's rights. Even if, as you want to claim, it was only over the rights to decide if slavery was legal or not, it was still over state's rights. Their (the states') right to decide.

Nice try though.

Right, I'm not saying it wasn't about States' Rights. I'm disagreeing with the people who said "civil war was about states rights not slavery" and agreeing with "With the most disputed states right being slavery." Slavery happens to be the only explicitly mentioned right in the Declaration of Secession, and because the ideas the war was fought over states' rights and slavery are not mutually exclusive. The states' rights issue was over slavery.

 

[Shattered]

You are pinpointing on one issue which, regardless, STILL points back to state's rights. So no matter how you try to present this, the issue that was fought over was state's rights. Period. Left, right, sideways, upside down, the issue, once again, was STATE'S RIGHTS.

No matter how you slice it, dice it or spin it, the bottom line is that the civil war was over state's rights. Even if, as you want to claim, it was only over the rights to decide if slavery was legal or not, it was still over state's rights. Their (the states') right to decide.

Nice try though.

So..I'm not understanding.. what're you trying to say? That it was State's Rights? :halo:

 

[freeandfun1]

Right, I'm not saying it wasn't about States' Rights. I'm disagreeing with the people who said "civil war was about states rights not slavery" and agreeing with "With the most disputed states right being slavery." Slavery happens to be the only explicitly mentioned right in the Declaration of Secession, and because the ideas the war was fought over states' rights and slavery are not mutually exclusive. The states' rights issue was over slavery.

But to say the civil war was only over or even mainly over slavery is wrong. Slavery is what brought it to the forefront, but troubles had been stewing for a long time.

Remember, several states that did not succeed had slave laws and Lincoln didn't end slavery at the beginning of the war. A matter-of-fact, he didn't issue the EP until 1863 and then he did it hoping it would help end the war (by encouraging slaves from the South to revolt and/or flee to Union states). So to say the civil war was over "slavery" is just incaccurate. It was cleary over state's rights with slavery just being one issue. If you look at why the others states secceeded, you will see that. It is the same reason why Robert E. Lee fought for the South even though he was a West Point grad. He believed the federal government was attempting to usurp the rights of the states. His decision had NOTHING to do with slavery.

 

[IControlThePast]

But to say the civil war was only over or even mainly over slavery is wrong. Slavery is what brought it to the forefront, but troubles had been stewing for a long time.

Remember, several states that did not succeed had slave laws and Lincoln didn't end slavery at the beginning of the war. A matter-of-fact, he didn't issue the EP until 1863 and then he did it hoping it would help end the war (by encouraging slaves from the South to revolt and/or flee to Union states). So to say the civil war was over "slavery" is just incaccurate. It was cleary over state's rights with slavery just being one issue. If you look at why the others states secceeded, you will see that. It is the same reason why Robert E. Lee fought for the South even though he was a West Point grad. He believed the federal government was attempting to usurp the rights of the states. His decision had NOTHING to do with slavery.

We'll were looking for the cause of the Civil War. It had nothing to do directly with the EP or Lincoln's views. The Union attacked because the South seceeded, and the cause of the war, thus what it was fought over, is why the South seceeded, which was states' rights/slavery.

Lee fought for the South because he considered himself first a Virginian and second an American (you're right, his decision did not have anything to do with slavery), but if that was how everybody was then there would have been no war, because nobody would have seceeded. Lee went to war because Virginia did. Now looking at the underlying cause of the war, why did Virginia seceed? The only states' right mentioned in the Virginian Declaration is once again slavery:

"The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."

 

[Merlin1047]

Your country fucks things up all over the world, and they are doing a very good job of that.

I believe I smell a troll.

Consider this your first warning. Either start posting something that makes sense or be prepared to get your ass kicked off the board, Sven.

 

[Blashyrkh]

I believe I smell a troll.

Consider this your first warning. Either start posting something that makes sense or be prepared to get your ass kicked off the board, Sven.

Jij bent een lelijke noellie.

 

[Said1]

Jij bent een lelijke noellie.

Manger le merde, tete du carre.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Manger le merde, tete du carre.

I don't eat shit.

 

[freeandfun1]

Jij bent een lelijke noellie.

So you are now calling him ugly? You like pusing your luck don't you?