Tomorrow feb 12 is birthday of our most famous white supremacist

[Syriusly]

LOL- feel free to try to prove me wrong- it would be amusing.

Why don't you post up facts that the north didn't have slaves your article stated most not all! So fk off dweeb

Tell me which State of the "North" owned slaves?

Here is a map of Slave and Free States in 1857- which of these states would you call "North"?

Slavery in the North, Washington, and Oney Judge - USHistory.org

Thanks for proving my point.

You've never had a thought in your time on here. LOL.

Oh I have- just none that you have the intellect to be able to read and comprehend.

I leave you to your admiration of the institution of slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

You're right about the north. They didn't care about the slaves. But to say the south fought to keep slavery is nonsense. Only like 10% of southern households had slaves.

You can't refute my post- so you lie about what said.

I have consistently said that the rebel states tried to secede to protect slavery- but the North did not fight to free the slaves

Why would southerners fight a war to preserve slavery when only 10% of southerners had slaves? THINK

Why?

Superiority

Even if you were poor as shit white trash, you were still higher socially than a negro. And you wanted to keep it that way

That's not true, since 1) slave held value, poor whites were free; 2) there were white slaves.

The Southern States rebelled thinking that they had to protect their right to own human property.

Which of course is why you are such a fan boy of the Confederacy.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would southerners fight a war to preserve slavery when only 10% of southerners had slaves? THINK

Even if you were poor as shit white trash, you were still higher socially than a negro. And you wanted to keep it that way

HAHAHA. No one but you would give their life for something like that. Face the fact that nearly all southerners had no involvement in slavery and certainly were not willing to fight for the "right" of a few rich plantation owners to have slaves. THINK

LOL- always cracks me up when you abuse the word 'think'.

The ones who led the secession were the wealthy land owners- who did indeed own slaves.

The majority of southerners fought to protect their home states- but the reason they were doing that was because the wealthy slave owners wanted to protect their human property and led the secession.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Lincoln didn't free any slaves in a foreign country- he freed slaves here in the United States- in the United States that were in rebellion to protect slavery.
.

Then why did lincoln set up POW camps to house captured southern soldiers?. If he truly believed they were american citizens in rebellion, he should have treated them as criminals not POWs. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Southern States rebelled thinking that they had to protect their right to own human property.
.

HAHAHA. The board has already explained that to you a hundred times and you still don't get it. The Union had 4 slave states of their own so there is no way the CW was fought over slavery. You are a blithering idiot.

 

[rightwinger]

You're right about the north. They didn't care about the slaves. But to say the south fought to keep slavery is nonsense. Only like 10% of southern households had slaves.

You can't refute my post- so you lie about what said.

I have consistently said that the rebel states tried to secede to protect slavery- but the North did not fight to free the slaves

Why would southerners fight a war to preserve slavery when only 10% of southerners had slaves? THINK

Why?

Superiority

Even if you were poor as shit white trash, you were still higher socially than a negro. And you wanted to keep it that way

That's not true, since 1) slave held value, poor whites were free; 2) there were white slaves.

No, there were not white slaves at the time of the Civil War
Poor whites were the footsoldiers of the Confederacy. Their leaders knew what buttons to push. Negros will be your equal, Negroes will be elected, Negroes will marry white women

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

You're right about the north. They didn't care about the slaves. But to say the south fought to keep slavery is nonsense. Only like 10% of southern households had slaves.

You can't refute my post- so you lie about what said.

I have consistently said that the rebel states tried to secede to protect slavery- but the North did not fight to free the slaves

Why would southerners fight a war to preserve slavery when only 10% of southerners had slaves? THINK

Why?

Superiority

Even if you were poor as shit white trash, you were still higher socially than a negro. And you wanted to keep it that way

That's not true, since 1) slave held value, poor whites were free; 2) there were white slaves.

No, there were not white slaves at the time of the Civil War
Poor whites were the footsoldiers of the Confederacy. Their leaders knew what buttons to push. Negros will be your equal, Negroes will be elected, Negroes will marry white women

Before making comments like that, you should read a book first.

Tell me, did you read that on some wackjob leftist blog, or did you dream it up yourself?

 

[rightwinger]

You can't refute my post- so you lie about what said.

I have consistently said that the rebel states tried to secede to protect slavery- but the North did not fight to free the slaves

Why would southerners fight a war to preserve slavery when only 10% of southerners had slaves? THINK

Why?

Superiority

Even if you were poor as shit white trash, you were still higher socially than a negro. And you wanted to keep it that way

That's not true, since 1) slave held value, poor whites were free; 2) there were white slaves.

No, there were not white slaves at the time of the Civil War
Poor whites were the footsoldiers of the Confederacy. Their leaders knew what buttons to push. Negros will be your equal, Negroes will be elected, Negroes will marry white women

Before making comments like that, you should read a book first.

Tell me, did you read that on some wackjob leftist blog, or did you dream it up yourself?

I called bullshit on you

Prove me wrong

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Why would southerners fight a war to preserve slavery when only 10% of southerners had slaves? THINK

Why?

Superiority

Even if you were poor as shit white trash, you were still higher socially than a negro. And you wanted to keep it that way

That's not true, since 1) slave held value, poor whites were free; 2) there were white slaves.

No, there were not white slaves at the time of the Civil War
Poor whites were the footsoldiers of the Confederacy. Their leaders knew what buttons to push. Negros will be your equal, Negroes will be elected, Negroes will marry white women

Before making comments like that, you should read a book first.

Tell me, did you read that on some wackjob leftist blog, or did you dream it up yourself?

I called bullshit on you

Prove me wrong

I have a better idea, you prove yourself right, because I can't prove a negative.

Show us ANY talking points from the period that support your claims. Real talking points by the seccessionists, not one obscure letter by some semi-literate fire breather.

When you do, I'll quote William T. Sherman she says that he would like to own a couple slaves and how the war, "isn't really about the *******".

Ready?...go!!

 

[Dovahkiin]

Hysterical thread and OP.

 

[rightwinger]

Why?

Superiority

Even if you were poor as shit white trash, you were still higher socially than a negro. And you wanted to keep it that way

That's not true, since 1) slave held value, poor whites were free; 2) there were white slaves.

No, there were not white slaves at the time of the Civil War
Poor whites were the footsoldiers of the Confederacy. Their leaders knew what buttons to push. Negros will be your equal, Negroes will be elected, Negroes will marry white women

Before making comments like that, you should read a book first.

Tell me, did you read that on some wackjob leftist blog, or did you dream it up yourself?

I called bullshit on you

Prove me wrong

I have a better idea, you prove yourself right, because I can't prove a negative.

Show us ANY talking points from the period that support your claims. Real talking points by the seccessionists, not one obscure letter by some semi-literate fire breather.

When you do, I'll quote William T. Sherman she says that he would like to own a couple slaves and how the war, "isn't really about the *******".

Ready?...go!!

They fought for the supremacy of the white race.
read what Alexander Stephens said in the Cornerstone Speech.
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
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 moral condition.
Please read what the Texas Convention said in the
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

 

[rightwinger]

Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought

Reverend Furman of South Carolina insisted that the right to hold slaves was clearly sanctioned by the Holy Scriptures. He emphasized a practical side as well, warning that if Lincoln were elected, “every Negro in South Carolina and every other Southern state will be his own master; nay, more than that, will be the equal of every one of you. If you are tame enough to submit, abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.”

 

[rightwinger]

In the fall of 1860, John Townsend, owner of a cotton plantation on Edisto Island, authored a pamphlet delineating the consequences of Lincoln’s elevation to presidency.

Non-slaveholders, he predicted, were also in danger. “It will be to the non-slaveholder, equally with the largest slaveholder, the obliteration of caste and the deprivation of important privileges,” he cautioned. “The color of the white man is now, in the South, a title of nobility in his relations as to the negro,” he reminded his readers. “In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be per formed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste; and there is nothing which he would resent with more fierce indignation than the attempt of the Abolitionist to emancipate the slaves and elevate the Negroes to an equality with himself and his family.”

 

[Syriusly]

The four southern slave states that did not secede did not rebel- so Lincoln had no authority to do anything about their slaves- that took the 13th Amendment that you despise so much.

Of course he did. If you accept he had authority to free the slaves in a foreign country such as the confederacy, then he certainly had authority to free slaves in his own country. THINK

Lincoln didn't free any slaves in a foreign country- he freed slaves here in the United States- in the United States that were in rebellion to protect slavery.
.

Then why did lincoln set up POW camps to house captured southern soldiers?. If he truly believed they were american citizens in rebellion, he should have treated them as criminals not POWs. THINK

I think you are an idiot

On December 11, 1861, the US Congress passed a joint resolution calling on President Lincoln to "inaugurate systematic measures for the exchange of prisoners in the present rebellion."[5]

The exchange system collapsed in 1863 because the Confederacy refused to treat black prisoners the same as whites. They said they were probably ex-slaves and belonged to their masters, not to the Union Army.

 

[Syriusly]

The Southern States rebelled thinking that they had to protect their right to own human property.
.

HAHAHA. The board has already explained that to you a hundred times and you still don't get it. The Union had 4 slave states of their own so there is no way the CW was fought over slavery. You are a blithering idiot.

Now the voices in your head tell you that you are 'the board'?

You are a slavery loving racist idiot

The North did not fight to end slavery- but the Confederate states attempted to rebel to protect their right to own human property- something you to this day agree with.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The North did not fight to end slavery- but the Confederate states attempted to rebel to protect their right to own human property- something you to this day agree with.

You still haven't explained why southerners would fight for slavery when very few southerners owned slaves!! THINK

 

[rightwinger]

[
The North did not fight to end slavery- but the Confederate states attempted to rebel to protect their right to own human property- something you to this day agree with.

You still haven't explained why southerners would fight for slavery when very few southerners owned slaves!! THINK

Non-slaveholders, he predicted, were also in danger. “It will be to the non-slaveholder, equally with the largest slaveholder, the obliteration of caste and the deprivation of important privileges,” he cautioned. “The color of the white man is now, in the South, a title of nobility in his relations as to the negro,” he reminded his readers. “In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be per formed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste; and there is nothing which he would resent with more fierce indignation than the attempt of the Abolitionist to emancipate the slaves and elevate the Negroes to an equality with himself and his family.”

 

[reconmark]

[
The North did not fight to end slavery- but the Confederate states attempted to rebel to protect their right to own human property- something you to this day agree with.

You still haven't explained why southerners would fight for slavery when very few southerners owned slaves!! THINK

Post 353 answers your question if you could read idiot!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

In the fall of 1860, John Townsend, owner of a cotton plantation on Edisto Island, authored a pamphlet delineating the consequences of Lincoln’s elevation to presidency.

Non-slaveholders, he predicted, were also in danger. “It will be to the non-slaveholder, equally with the largest slaveholder, the obliteration of caste and the deprivation of important privileges,” he cautioned. “The color of the white man is now, in the South, a title of nobility in his relations as to the negro,” he reminded his readers. “In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be per formed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste; and there is nothing which he would resent with more fierce indignation than the attempt of the Abolitionist to emancipate the slaves and elevate the Negroes to an equality with himself and his family.”

And that is obvios BS. No white southerner would give his life for something like that. HAHAHA. You are making a fool of yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

In the fall of 1860, John Townsend, owner of a cotton plantation on Edisto Island, authored a pamphlet delineating the consequences of Lincoln’s elevation to presidency.

Non-slaveholders, he predicted, were also in danger. “It will be to the non-slaveholder, equally with the largest slaveholder, the obliteration of caste and the deprivation of important privileges,” he cautioned. “The color of the white man is now, in the South, a title of nobility in his relations as to the negro,” he reminded his readers. “In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be per formed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste; and there is nothing which he would resent with more fierce indignation than the attempt of the Abolitionist to emancipate the slaves and elevate the Negroes to an equality with himself and his family.”

And that is obvios BS. No white southerner would give his life for something like that. HAHAHA. You are making a fool of yourself.

Over 300,000 did