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.
Naw, eventually your kind will fade away and in 200 years the conservatives of that time will be bitching about the same things only society will be far more socially liberal than it is today.
You either didn't comprehend what I wrote or you didn't bother reading it. If you want to take a swag at actually addressing my point rather than repeating your superficial view then that would be cool. Else you can just stay willfully shallow and uninformed.
Slavery was a necessary evil in the pre-industrialized labor intense agricultural world. Since slavery was directly tied to the economy of course the Southern Gentry felt that they had to preserve it. It was not a effect, it was the cause. States rights was an excuse not a cause.
So now that you actually read my post you realize I was right...
Lincoln had no plans to take the institution of slavery from the Southern elite. Their fears were based on bold and often told lies. Kind of like todays' fear-mongering of the right-wing talking heads.
Gotta get that little Marxist propaganda in there. I'll give you that one.
He's right, "sound" is the last word I would use to describe your argument. You can't tell someone to come "up to date" and then insist they are bound by a so-called "contract" that is 250 years old. At least, you can't if you don't want to sound like someone who lacks the ability to commit logic.
Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.
Any other yacking is just yacking.
Exactly. Without the ability to leave you do not have a union.
The states entered into a perpetual union, of their own accord. It's no different than you entering into a contract to lease a piece of real estate for the next 150 years. You entered on your own accord, and therefore your own free will.
Also, every state has the ability to leave the union. They simply need to acquire the consent of the several states. If that doesn't work, they can execute a revolution.
What you have is slavery.
That's an amazingly stupid thing to say.
How anyone could possibly advocate for force and violence against a state that wanted to peacefully leave federal control is ironically hypocritical.
People also say the same thing about Americans who oppose illegal immigrants or strict immigration policies. And I say to you now what I say to them. Stop living hundreds of years in the past. This is the 21st century. It is pointless to dictate modern day policy based on century's old political points.
He's right, "sound" is the last word I would use to describe your argument. You can't tell someone to come "up to date" and then insist they are bound by a so-called "contract" that is 250 years old. At least, you can't if you don't want to sound like someone who lacks the ability to commit logic.
That's not at all what I said, but go ahead and tear down the straw man if it makes you feel like a big, strong man.
The "hypocrisy" argument is problem. Saying that it's hypocritical for a person to support the United States being a perpetual union is no different than calling a person hypocritical for supporting the United States adopting strict immigration laws and opposing illegal immigration. The events from centuries ago do not obligate a 21st century person's moral consistency.
As always, you are nothing more than an anarchist who simply hates being part of any society larger than yourself. You hate any and all obligations that are imposed upon you by virtue of being a part of society. You wish you could live your life completely free from all government and rules whatsoever, save those you choose for yourself.
And what that really means, is that you wish you could impose your own rules and will upon everyone you might ever encounter.
Slavery was a necessary evil in the pre-industrialized labor intense agricultural world. Since slavery was directly tied to the economy of course the Southern Gentry felt that they had to preserve it. It was not a effect, it was the cause. States rights was an excuse not a cause.
So now that you actually read my post you realize I was right...
Lincoln had no plans to take the institution of slavery from the Southern elite. Their fears were based on bold and often told lies. Kind of like todays' fear-mongering of the right-wing talking heads.
Gotta get that little Marxist propaganda in there. I'll give you that one.
You were incorrect. I bolded the parts I disagreed with. It is simply what I addressed in my original post.
Truth is not propaganda. Manipulating the minds of the masses with lies is as old as politics itself. Right up there with denigration of the opposition.
you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.
Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.
Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.
Any other yacking is just yacking.
Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.
However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.
The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.
So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!
The Gettysburg Address is the biggest lie ever uttered by a U.S. President. If anyone was fighting for government "of the people, by the people and for the people," it was the Confederacy. Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. The entire purpose of the war was to prevent people from having the government they wanted.
Really you sound like the poor men who charged into canister fire at Gettysburg. .
Men talked into a war by the rich southern democrat aristocrats. Why? To protect their 4 billion dollar slavery industry. Anyone who claims that the war was about freedom either is deluding themselves, doesn't know the definitions, or think black men are not men.
The war was about nothing but slavery it is in their state constitution and their reasoning for seceding. As soon as an abolitionists president was elected the states parted company it wasn't for any other reason.
you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.
Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being intentionally stupid. I mean, you can't possibly be too stupid to understand the difference between a perpetual union that continues to obligate member states, and some asinine idea that historical events from centuries ago obligate the moral opinions of individuals in the present.
Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery.
The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.
Normally, I would write your statement off as the meandering of an ignorant and uneducated fool - but I'm going to call bullshit because I suspect you know your statement is shit, and made it for partisan reasons.
The agrarian South had a nearly feudal structure, with a landed gentry wielding enormous political and economic power, while the majority lived as virtual serfs. The fact that 90% of whites in the Antebellum South lived in abject poverty, makes the claim of slavery as a root cause utterly absurd. Only the larger land owners could afford slaves.
The greater fear of the serf class was the competition posed by slaves. Often it was free whites who suffered most from slavery, as the agricultural jobs were filled by slaves, leaving them to literally starve to death.
The Antebellum South was not a pretty place for most people, black and white.
Contrast this with the North that was well into the industrial revolution. Despite the bullshit the leftists spew, industry was the salvation of the masses. Suddenly, the question of survival no longer depended on a healthy crop, but instead just labor at a factory. These masses became consumers who increased the fortunes of the remaining agrarian community in the North. To make matters worse, animosity toward the South, by the North, led to the importation of goods for manufacture from Europe. Particularly cotton, which was imported from France. The North was waging a form of economic warfare on the South long before the shooting war.
The socioeconomic situation in the Antebellum South was not viable, if left alone, it was destined to collapse. This went way beyond slavery, into the structure of the states, who could not sustain the existing infrastructure.
The war was between a fading agrarian society structured into virtual feudalism, and an emerging industrial powerhouse. Slavery was at best an ancillary issue.
you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.
Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being intentionally stupid. I mean, you can't possibly be too stupid to understand the difference between a perpetual union that continues to obligate member states, and some asinine idea that historical events from centuries ago obligate the moral opinions of individuals in the present.
No matter how much you waffle and dance, you can't get around the fact that you contradicted yourself.
A rational person would just concede the point and come up with better arguments. Of course, there are no good arguments to justify the claim that secession Is somehow illegal.
Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.
Any other yacking is just yacking.
Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.
However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.
The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.
So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!
Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.
Any other yacking is just yacking.
Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.
However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.
The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.
So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!
It is true for ever as for a moment. Anything else is yacking for yacking's sake.
I do not discuss matters that are not so.
Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.
Any other yacking is just yacking.
Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.
However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.
The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.
So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!
Less than a year after the first major battle of the war the South imposed a draft or conscription.
President Jefferson Davis authorized the first Conscription Act on April 16, 1862. This legislation required all white males aged eighteen to thirty-five to serve three years of Confederate service if called. Soldiers already in the military would now be obligated to serve an additional twenty-four months. Five days later, the Confederate government passed the Exemption Act, which excused from military service select government employees, workers deemed necessary to maintain society (such as teachers, railroad workers, skilled tradesmen, and ministers), and owners of twenty or more slaves.
Conscription (Civil War) - Encyclopedia of Arkansas
you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.
Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being intentionally stupid. I mean, you can't possibly be too stupid to understand the difference between a perpetual union that continues to obligate member states, and some asinine idea that historical events from centuries ago obligate the moral opinions of individuals in the present.
The "perpetual union" evaporated when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin and drew up the Constitution. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a perpetual contract or a perpetual treaty. Both treaties and contracts are only valid so long as all parties agree to abide by them.
The "perpetual union" evaporated when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin and drew up the Constitution.
Furthermore, there's no such thing as a perpetual contract or a perpetual treaty. Both treaties and contracts are only valid so long as all parties agree to abide by them.
