Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

[Boss]

As determined by US Law and SCOTUS for 87 years.

...did you have a point?

Only the one that has been made incessantly here, that the Confederacy wanted to maintain and expand slavery and the institution of the black man as property while the North wanted the practice to expire naturally.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that you are now running from the fact that owning black people as property was the idea of the United States and not the Confederacy. Of course the CSA wanted to maintain what had been law of the land and upheld by the SCOTUS for 87 years. You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything. You've also shown no evidence the North collectively wanted the practice to expire naturally. These are emotions you are applying with a broad brush to an entire group.... Like BIGOTS generally want to do.

You should be embarrassed to admit you dont know what you are talking about but yet you seem proud of that fact! The entire reason the losers wanted to secede had to do with the argument of expanding slavery.

Sorry, but it didn't and I explained why it couldn't have. Certain individuals may have advocated expanding slavery, but they are not the official government of the CSA. To make the argument the CSA wanted to expand slavery, you need to show that in their Constitution... but their Constitution says the matter is up to the state.

Again, the issue of slavery was an issue because slaves were considered property and not humans with rights. The CSA didn't make that law, the US Congress did and the SCOTUS upheld it, and for 87 years that had been the policy of the US government in all three branches.

 

[Boss]

This shows very clearly how the south felt about the western territories and whether or not slavery should be expanded. I gave you multiple examples of how this debate played out politically in the first half of the 19th century.

"A New Free State. These antislavery Californians quickly seized the initiative and in October 1849, with the Taylor administration’s blessing, met in convention and applied for admission to the Union as a free state. Southern senators, who had long counted on their control of the Senate as a check to antislavery policies, were livid. “For the first time, we are about permanently to destroy the balance of power between the sections,” seethed first-term Mississippi senator Jefferson Davis. He added that if California was admitted as the sixteenth free state, the fifteen states of the South would be reduced to permanent minority status within the Union. This was unacceptable to most Southerners, who feared that slavery confined to the South would quickly suffocate. The South, more and more of its representatives were saying, would either have to concede victory to the Free Soilers or leave the Union."

The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 FREE The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 information Encyclopedia.com Find The Slavery Issue Western Politics and the Compromise of 1850 research

Look... You are trying to debate with me on an argument that was made in the Congress of the United States, not the Confederate States of America! But you are trying to apply this argument to the CSA which didn't even exist at the time.

It's like arguing that some Colonial agreement reached with England before the Revolution was somehow indicative of our founding as a nation. It has no bearing, it was a different time and a different debate.

The main point is... The Confederacy was established AS a Confederacy! There is something very distinctive about that word and you need to acknowledge that. The very nature of a confederation is that of "states rights" and no central authority. How can you make the argument that the "confederacy wanted to expand..." or do anything for that matter? The very nature of their governmental structure left such powers to the member states and NOT the Confederate government.

The example I gave included the sentiments of the man who later became the president of the confederacy.


I suppose he changed his mind. LOL

Doesn't matter what one man said... Was our nation's Constitution established solely on the opinions and viewpoints of George Washington?

 

[Asclepias]

As determined by US Law and SCOTUS for 87 years.

...did you have a point?

Only the one that has been made incessantly here, that the Confederacy wanted to maintain and expand slavery and the institution of the black man as property while the North wanted the practice to expire naturally.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that you are now running from the fact that owning black people as property was the idea of the United States and not the Confederacy. Of course the CSA wanted to maintain what had been law of the land and upheld by the SCOTUS for 87 years. You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything. You've also shown no evidence the North collectively wanted the practice to expire naturally. These are emotions you are applying with a broad brush to an entire group.... Like BIGOTS generally want to do.

You should be embarrassed to admit you dont know what you are talking about but yet you seem proud of that fact! The entire reason the losers wanted to secede had to do with the argument of expanding slavery.

Sorry, but it didn't and I explained why it couldn't have. Certain individuals may have advocated expanding slavery, but they are not the official government of the CSA. To make the argument the CSA wanted to expand slavery, you need to show that in their Constitution... but their Constitution says the matter is up to the state.

Again, the issue of slavery was an issue because slaves were considered property and not humans with rights. The CSA didn't make that law, the US Congress did and the SCOTUS upheld it, and for 87 years that had been the policy of the US government in all three branches.

Bullshit. I dont need to show it anywhere. We only need to look at the actions and statements of those that ran the CSA. Jefferson Davis was a big advocate of spreading slavery long before the CSA existed.

In 1848. (Regarding Cuba), Davis declared that it "must be ours" to "increase the number of slaveholding constituencies."

 

[Boss]

As determined by US Law and SCOTUS for 87 years.

...did you have a point?

Only the one that has been made incessantly here, that the Confederacy wanted to maintain and expand slavery and the institution of the black man as property while the North wanted the practice to expire naturally.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that you are now running from the fact that owning black people as property was the idea of the United States and not the Confederacy. Of course the CSA wanted to maintain what had been law of the land and upheld by the SCOTUS for 87 years. You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything. You've also shown no evidence the North collectively wanted the practice to expire naturally. These are emotions you are applying with a broad brush to an entire group.... Like BIGOTS generally want to do.

You should be embarrassed to admit you dont know what you are talking about but yet you seem proud of that fact! The entire reason the losers wanted to secede had to do with the argument of expanding slavery.

Sorry, but it didn't and I explained why it couldn't have. Certain individuals may have advocated expanding slavery, but they are not the official government of the CSA. To make the argument the CSA wanted to expand slavery, you need to show that in their Constitution... but their Constitution says the matter is up to the state.

Again, the issue of slavery was an issue because slaves were considered property and not humans with rights. The CSA didn't make that law, the US Congress did and the SCOTUS upheld it, and for 87 years that had been the policy of the US government in all three branches.

Bullshit. I dont need to show it anywhere. We only need to look at the actions and statements of those that ran the CSA. Jefferson Davis was a big advocate of spreading slavery long before the CSA existed.

In 1848. (Regarding Cuba), Davis declared that it "must be ours" to "increase the number of slaveholding constituencies."

No Sir!

When you make the allegation that the CSA wanted to expand slavery, you HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT WITH EVIDENCE! Pointing to something a politician said or a personal opinion of someone in the CSA government, is NOT evidence of what you claimed.

 

[Asclepias]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

 

[Asclepias]

Only the one that has been made incessantly here, that the Confederacy wanted to maintain and expand slavery and the institution of the black man as property while the North wanted the practice to expire naturally.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that you are now running from the fact that owning black people as property was the idea of the United States and not the Confederacy. Of course the CSA wanted to maintain what had been law of the land and upheld by the SCOTUS for 87 years. You've shown me NO evidence they planned or wanted to expand anything. You've also shown no evidence the North collectively wanted the practice to expire naturally. These are emotions you are applying with a broad brush to an entire group.... Like BIGOTS generally want to do.

You should be embarrassed to admit you dont know what you are talking about but yet you seem proud of that fact! The entire reason the losers wanted to secede had to do with the argument of expanding slavery.

Sorry, but it didn't and I explained why it couldn't have. Certain individuals may have advocated expanding slavery, but they are not the official government of the CSA. To make the argument the CSA wanted to expand slavery, you need to show that in their Constitution... but their Constitution says the matter is up to the state.

Again, the issue of slavery was an issue because slaves were considered property and not humans with rights. The CSA didn't make that law, the US Congress did and the SCOTUS upheld it, and for 87 years that had been the policy of the US government in all three branches.

Bullshit. I dont need to show it anywhere. We only need to look at the actions and statements of those that ran the CSA. Jefferson Davis was a big advocate of spreading slavery long before the CSA existed.

In 1848. (Regarding Cuba), Davis declared that it "must be ours" to "increase the number of slaveholding constituencies."

No Sir!

When you make the allegation that the CSA wanted to expand slavery, you HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT WITH EVIDENCE! Pointing to something a politician said or a personal opinion of someone in the CSA government, is NOT evidence of what you claimed.

I did support it with evidence. You have the #1 and the #2 men in the CSA showing support for expanding slavery. You may be perturbed by that evidence but that doesnt make it less true.

 

[Boss]

I did support it with evidence. You have the #1 and the #2 men in the CSA showing support for expanding slavery. You may be perturbed by that evidence but that doesnt make it less true.

Again... this does not mean the CSA was committed to or intent upon expanding anything. You are showing me the opinions of men who argued these points in the US Congress before the CSA existed. People change their minds on what they support based on changing circumstances all the time... AND... no Constitutional government operates on the notions of a single, or even a couple of individuals. So you are making illegitimate correlations to what these men said in 1850 with the actual founding of the CSA. It's beyond a leap in logic, it's a giant step toward intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Asclepias]

I did support it with evidence. You have the #1 and the #2 men in the CSA showing support for expanding slavery. You may be perturbed by that evidence but that doesnt make it less true.

Again... this does not mean the CSA was committed to or intent upon expanding anything. You are showing me the opinions of men who argued these points in the US Congress before the CSA existed. People change their minds on what they support based on changing circumstances all the time... AND... no Constitutional government operates on the notions of a single, or even a couple of individuals. So you are making illegitimate correlations to what these men said in 1850 with the actual founding of the CSA. It's beyond a leap in logic, it's a giant step toward intellectual dishonesty.

So let me make sure I have this correct. You actually think that people that seceded from the union to preserve slavery simply because the north only opposed slaverys expansion were not going to attempt to expand slavery despite both its #1 and #2 men advocating this very concept?

 

[Boss]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

Again... The Argument is NOT about what individuals advocated in 1850 or 1848. You and others maintain the CSA wanted to expand slavery. I challenged that. So far, all you can show is that some people wanted to expand slavery in 1848 and 1850 because they argued for that in the US Congress. This is a decade before the CSA existed, so how is this evidence of what the CSA advocated?

I do not deny that there were Southerners who wanted to expand slavery and continue what had been law of the land the previous 87 years. There was a great divide among the people over this issue of expanding slavery. The abolitionist movement was born from this debate. Lincoln began as someone who wasn't opposed to slavery but was opposed to expanding it further. People in both the North and South were divided on this. Predictably enough, it had a lot to do with your own personal interests. It wasn't about racial equality!

All that said... it has nothing to do with the Confederate States of America or the government their Constitution established. Indeed, the CSA Constitution DID uphold the institution which had been US Law for the previous 87 years. But it also allowed for the same mechanisms of Constitutional change as our own Constitution which was changed with passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. There was nothing in the Constitution of the CSA to prevent abolition of slavery. The best you can do is show where there was a commitment to uphold slavery where it existed. It didn't exist because of the CSA... it existed because of the USA and SCOTUS.

The issue of expanding slavery became moot with the CSA. Arguments made in the US Congress ten years before are totally unrelated.

 

[Asclepias]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

Again... The Argument is NOT about what individuals advocated in 1850 or 1848. You and others maintain the CSA wanted to expand slavery. I challenged that. So far, all you can show is that some people wanted to expand slavery in 1848 and 1850 because they argued for that in the US Congress. This is a decade before the CSA existed, so how is this evidence of what the CSA advocated?

I do not deny that there were Southerners who wanted to expand slavery and continue what had been law of the land the previous 87 years. There was a great divide among the people over this issue of expanding slavery. The abolitionist movement was born from this debate. Lincoln began as someone who wasn't opposed to slavery but was opposed to expanding it further. People in both the North and South were divided on this. Predictably enough, it had a lot to do with your own personal interests. It wasn't about racial equality!

All that said... it has nothing to do with the Confederate States of America or the government their Constitution established. Indeed, the CSA Constitution DID uphold the institution which had been US Law for the previous 87 years. But it also allowed for the same mechanisms of Constitutional change as our own Constitution which was changed with passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. There was nothing in the Constitution of the CSA to prevent abolition of slavery. The best you can do is show where there was a commitment to uphold slavery where it existed. It didn't exist because of the CSA... it existed because of the USA and SCOTUS.

The issue of expanding slavery became moot with the CSA. Arguments made in the US Congress ten years before are totally unrelated.

They are not just two random individuals. They are the #1 and #2 leaders of the CSA. So far those are the only 2 I have looked at. You just admitted that the issue had a lot to do with personal interest. Are you claiming the expansion of slavery was not in their personal interests? You do realize that chattel slavery in the US was all about racial equality?

If the CSA seceded from the union simply because the north was against the expansion of slavery then you must logically come to the conclusion that they were going to expand slavery had they won the war. This is not even factoring in that the #1 and #2 men in their new government were eager proponents of the concept of expansion. Face it. Anything contrary to that conclusion is simply an attempt to rationalize a failing and false position

 

[Asclepias]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

Again... The Argument is NOT about what individuals advocated in 1850 or 1848. You and others maintain the CSA wanted to expand slavery. I challenged that. So far, all you can show is that some people wanted to expand slavery in 1848 and 1850 because they argued for that in the US Congress. This is a decade before the CSA existed, so how is this evidence of what the CSA advocated?

I do not deny that there were Southerners who wanted to expand slavery and continue what had been law of the land the previous 87 years. There was a great divide among the people over this issue of expanding slavery. The abolitionist movement was born from this debate. Lincoln began as someone who wasn't opposed to slavery but was opposed to expanding it further. People in both the North and South were divided on this. Predictably enough, it had a lot to do with your own personal interests. It wasn't about racial equality!

All that said... it has nothing to do with the Confederate States of America or the government their Constitution established. Indeed, the CSA Constitution DID uphold the institution which had been US Law for the previous 87 years. But it also allowed for the same mechanisms of Constitutional change as our own Constitution which was changed with passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. There was nothing in the Constitution of the CSA to prevent abolition of slavery. The best you can do is show where there was a commitment to uphold slavery where it existed. It didn't exist because of the CSA... it existed because of the USA and SCOTUS.

The issue of expanding slavery became moot with the CSA. Arguments made in the US Congress ten years before are totally unrelated.

Ooops!....

The Confederacy s Plan to Conquer Latin America Mental Floss

Ooops!...

Section 9 of the CSA constitution

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or imparing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

OMG - for the ten thousandth time, everyone agrees the south supported slavery during the CW. But so did the north. So you can't condemn one and not the other. THINK, you white-hating miserable wretch.

 

[Asclepias]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

OMG - for the ten thousandth time, everyone agrees the south supported slavery during the CW. But so did the north. So you can't condemn one and not the other. THINK, you white-hating miserable wretch.

We werent talking about the North. You losers from the south keep pretending the south didnt secede then fight a war to maintain and expand slavery. If you want to pout about people not addressing the norths view of slavery then you should open a thread on that subject.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

Again... The Argument is NOT about what individuals advocated in 1850 or 1848. You and others maintain the CSA wanted to expand slavery. I challenged that. So far, all you can show is that some people wanted to expand slavery in 1848 and 1850 because they argued for that in the US Congress. This is a decade before the CSA existed, so how is this evidence of what the CSA advocated?

I do not deny that there were Southerners who wanted to expand slavery and continue what had been law of the land the previous 87 years. There was a great divide among the people over this issue of expanding slavery. The abolitionist movement was born from this debate. Lincoln began as someone who wasn't opposed to slavery but was opposed to expanding it further. People in both the North and South were divided on this. Predictably enough, it had a lot to do with your own personal interests. It wasn't about racial equality!

All that said... it has nothing to do with the Confederate States of America or the government their Constitution established. Indeed, the CSA Constitution DID uphold the institution which had been US Law for the previous 87 years. But it also allowed for the same mechanisms of Constitutional change as our own Constitution which was changed with passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. There was nothing in the Constitution of the CSA to prevent abolition of slavery. The best you can do is show where there was a commitment to uphold slavery where it existed. It didn't exist because of the CSA... it existed because of the USA and SCOTUS.

The issue of expanding slavery became moot with the CSA. Arguments made in the US Congress ten years before are totally unrelated.

Ooops!....

The Confederacy s Plan to Conquer Latin America Mental Floss

Ooops!...

Section 9 of the CSA constitution

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or imparing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I gave him the link hoping he would actually read it and come to his senses. Apparently that didn't happen.

 

[Boss]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

Again... The Argument is NOT about what individuals advocated in 1850 or 1848. You and others maintain the CSA wanted to expand slavery. I challenged that. So far, all you can show is that some people wanted to expand slavery in 1848 and 1850 because they argued for that in the US Congress. This is a decade before the CSA existed, so how is this evidence of what the CSA advocated?

I do not deny that there were Southerners who wanted to expand slavery and continue what had been law of the land the previous 87 years. There was a great divide among the people over this issue of expanding slavery. The abolitionist movement was born from this debate. Lincoln began as someone who wasn't opposed to slavery but was opposed to expanding it further. People in both the North and South were divided on this. Predictably enough, it had a lot to do with your own personal interests. It wasn't about racial equality!

All that said... it has nothing to do with the Confederate States of America or the government their Constitution established. Indeed, the CSA Constitution DID uphold the institution which had been US Law for the previous 87 years. But it also allowed for the same mechanisms of Constitutional change as our own Constitution which was changed with passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. There was nothing in the Constitution of the CSA to prevent abolition of slavery. The best you can do is show where there was a commitment to uphold slavery where it existed. It didn't exist because of the CSA... it existed because of the USA and SCOTUS.

The issue of expanding slavery became moot with the CSA. Arguments made in the US Congress ten years before are totally unrelated.

They are not just two random individuals. They are the #1 and #2 leaders of the CSA. So far those are the only 2 I have looked at. You just admitted that the issue had a lot to do with personal interest. Are you claiming the expansion of slavery was not in their personal interests? You do realize that chattel slavery in the US was all about racial equality?

If the CSA seceded from the union simply because the north was against the expansion of slavery then you must logically come to the conclusion that they were going to expand slavery had they won the war. This is not even factoring in that the #1 and #2 men in their new government were eager proponents of the concept of expansion. Face it. Anything contrary to that conclusion is simply an attempt to rationalize a failing and false position

I realize that Constitutional governments are not formed on the basis of two people's opinions from a decade before in a different debate and different time and circumstances. That's really ALL I need to realize. I've not claimed that expansion of slavery was or wasn't in anyone's interest, just that it wasn't established as an intent of the CSA.

You do realize that chattel slavery in the US was all about racial equality?

No, it actually WASN'T... that's the perception you are trying to promote. In 1861, across ALL of America... about 2% of the people held the viewpoint that African slaves were equal to white people. About 98% held a viewpoint that would be considered racist white supremacist by today's standards. The matter of slavery was a humanitarian thing, like not wanting to see dogs abused. It had nothing to do with equality.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

OMG - for the ten thousandth time, everyone agrees the south supported slavery during the CW. But so did the north. So you can't condemn one and not the other. THINK, you white-hating miserable wretch.

We get your point moron. You are trollfodder. The midget fool, the pawn that emerges to run interference when your team is heeled.
You don't even need text. Just hit respond and post.

 

[Asclepias]

Alexander Stephens (vice prez of the CSA)...fought against both the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850, because they would restrict the expansion of slavery

Again... The Argument is NOT about what individuals advocated in 1850 or 1848. You and others maintain the CSA wanted to expand slavery. I challenged that. So far, all you can show is that some people wanted to expand slavery in 1848 and 1850 because they argued for that in the US Congress. This is a decade before the CSA existed, so how is this evidence of what the CSA advocated?

I do not deny that there were Southerners who wanted to expand slavery and continue what had been law of the land the previous 87 years. There was a great divide among the people over this issue of expanding slavery. The abolitionist movement was born from this debate. Lincoln began as someone who wasn't opposed to slavery but was opposed to expanding it further. People in both the North and South were divided on this. Predictably enough, it had a lot to do with your own personal interests. It wasn't about racial equality!

All that said... it has nothing to do with the Confederate States of America or the government their Constitution established. Indeed, the CSA Constitution DID uphold the institution which had been US Law for the previous 87 years. But it also allowed for the same mechanisms of Constitutional change as our own Constitution which was changed with passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. There was nothing in the Constitution of the CSA to prevent abolition of slavery. The best you can do is show where there was a commitment to uphold slavery where it existed. It didn't exist because of the CSA... it existed because of the USA and SCOTUS.

The issue of expanding slavery became moot with the CSA. Arguments made in the US Congress ten years before are totally unrelated.

They are not just two random individuals. They are the #1 and #2 leaders of the CSA. So far those are the only 2 I have looked at. You just admitted that the issue had a lot to do with personal interest. Are you claiming the expansion of slavery was not in their personal interests? You do realize that chattel slavery in the US was all about racial equality?

If the CSA seceded from the union simply because the north was against the expansion of slavery then you must logically come to the conclusion that they were going to expand slavery had they won the war. This is not even factoring in that the #1 and #2 men in their new government were eager proponents of the concept of expansion. Face it. Anything contrary to that conclusion is simply an attempt to rationalize a failing and false position

I realize that Constitutional governments are not formed on the basis of two people's opinions from a decade before in a different debate and different time and circumstances. That's really ALL I need to realize. I've not claimed that expansion of slavery was or wasn't in anyone's interest, just that it wasn't established as an intent of the CSA.

You do realize that chattel slavery in the US was all about racial equality?

No, it actually WASN'T... that's the perception you are trying to promote. In 1861, across ALL of America... about 2% of the people held the viewpoint that African slaves were equal to white people. About 98% held a viewpoint that would be considered racist white supremacist by today's standards. The matter of slavery was a humanitarian thing, like not wanting to see dogs abused. It had nothing to do with equality.

Of all the things you have lost on this thread...your credibility, your pride etc..I am guessing you miss your mind the most?

 

[Bobby1250]

What is absurd about this is that when Jefferson and Washington were alive, slavery was legal and socially accepted. The utter arrogance of demonizing 18th century men for not living a 21st Century lifestyle is astounding!

As a side note; Lincoln's wife's family were slave owners! Teddy Roosevelt's Grandfather served on the Confederate warship Alabama, and Teddy's mother came from a slave-owning family. BULLDOZE THE ENTIRE MOUNTAIN!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Asclepias]

. BULLDOZE THE ENTIRE MOUNTAIN!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats actually a great idea. No way it will happen though. Its the only structure the white man has built that has a chance of lasting as long as the pyramids.

 

[Bobby1250]

MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery.

FACT - Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.