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.
Except those black folks, huh?
Read my words
"The North did NOT go to war to end slavery."
Ending slavery was an afterthought.
Had the Southern slaveholders done the smart thing - remained in the union - the North would have never paid off the property and never done more than posture.
The Southerners could have had the best of all worlds -
Paid off for their slaves
Kept all their property and wealth
Used the free blacks as cheap labor, which could have cost even less (for a given amount of productivity) than keeping slaves. Note that the "oh so righteous" North NEVER lifted a finger to help black sharecroppers and passed laws to keep the "negroes" out of their White Northern RACIST communities.
The North would never have gone for any scheme which did not strip the South.
Because the Northerners were NEVER concerned with freedom.
In fact, it really should have been called "The Southern War of Aggression in Defense of Owning People as Slaves."
South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
At least they didn't try to candy coat it. It was all about the slavery. "We're taking our ball and leaving the game, cuz Kansas can't have no slaves..."
I've had them in my files for a long time.In fact, it really should have been called "The Southern War of Aggression in Defense of Owning People as Slaves."
South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
At least they didn't try to candy coat it. It was all about the slavery. "We're taking our ball and leaving the game, cuz Kansas can't have no slaves..."
How did you find those? I could never figure out what to put in the search engine to get those documents.
Ignorance of this level is so appalling as to approach the level of stupidity.the SOUTH did ATTACK the North, the SOUTH did seize Federal property and murder Federal troops. All the North ever did was RESPOND to Southern aggression.
^^^ Ignorance of this level is so appalling as to approach the level of stupidity.Ignorance of this level is so appalling as to approach the level of stupidity.the SOUTH did ATTACK the North, the SOUTH did seize Federal property and murder Federal troops. All the North ever did was RESPOND to Southern aggression.
Fort Sumter was NOT the North. It was a fort in South Carolina.
No Federal Soldier died during the firing of shots at Fort Sumter.
No one really knows which battery fired the first shot. Given Lincolns reliance on Pinkerton it may even have been a Northern spy as the garrison was ready to surrender the fort.
The South never invaded Northern territory until much later when Lincoln made it clear he would gladly ravage Southern countryside to win the war.
Again the war was forced by the Lincoln.
Had he not asked for Virginia levies, Virginia would not have left.
Lincoln started the war to expand federal power, denying it to the people. The technical term for that is tyranny.
You should learn some actual history, not the propaganda pap they are teaching in public schools.
lol.No one really knows which battery fired the first shot.
I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy today would have slaves - if they could.
Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.
From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :
That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.
The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).
During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.
I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.
In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.
From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :
That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.
The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).
During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.
I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.
In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.
There are several people in this thread that REFUSE to see that argument. If a State is free to leave, for any reason or no reason, any time it wants, then the Constitution is meaningless. The compact between the States is a meaningless gesture with no enforcement or glue to hold it together.
Its difficult tho believe that anyone could be this remarkably dense: Its like someone joining a baseball team then refusing to play because they're required to use a baseball.
They would no doubt claim that they hadn't understood when they joined the team that a baseball was used to play the game!
That's a load of B.S.I understand in the South now the high schoolers are taught to say "thank heavens" the South lost.
I wrote "now", Sunni Man. You are wrong. Ask around.
False analogy, Kevin. The component parts have to more than cosmetically comparable, they have to be intrinisically similar.
No, you foolishly played along.
The South was not separate, the southern states were not sovereign republics, Kevin. They were part of a larger whole, they fired on the national flag, they spit on the sacrifices of the patriots, they defied constitutional process, and you are making them out to be good guys when in fact they were bad guys.
Well if you like to believe that sort of nonsense nothing will change your mind.Wherever the South invaded, it invaded "northern" territory, the Union, whether in Florida or Vermont. All of the states were union territory.
I agree with you, KK. Lincoln was committed to the Union, period. I think the South had the right to secede, I think some of the Founders thinking was wrong, and I think Lincoln fixed all of that it by telling the secessionists, "No, over your dead bodies!" and preceded to kill them. Good!
Yeah, it's worked out wonderfully. The Fed govt has steadily encroached into every facet of our lives and usurped any powers the Constitution gives the states it so desires. Little good has come of that.
