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

[ShootSpeeders]

States are not sovereign, they have not so been since the Constitution was ratified at least.

The hell they are not sovereign. The states of america are as sovereign as the states of europe and the american states need to assert that..

 

[ShootSpeeders]

1. I admit that the Civil War BEGAN as a matter of States Rights.

2. I admit that the Civil War BEGAN and REMAINED as a matter of Preserving the Union.

3. I submit that the Civil War EVOLVED into a struggle that ALSO included the Abolition of Slavery as a prime motivating factor in continuing and prosecuting the war.

Some truth to that. After the first two years of the war, the south was winning and it looked like france and england were going to recognize the South ( they needed cotton for their textile industry). That's why lincoln issued the EP - to make it look like the war was about slavery. It didn't fool anybody in america but it fooled many in europe.

 

[gallantwarrior]

So is that supposed to mean the South didn't go to war to maintain the right of states to assert the inferiority of the black man?

It means that the South went to war because they were denied the explicit right to succeed from the Union, regardless of their reasoning.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There were four UNION STATES, KY MD MO DE, that had legal slavery during the civil war. Those 4 states had a combined total of 400,000 slaves.!! Yes, the south had 3.6 million slaves but the point remains that both sides had slave states .

For the 8 millionth time, the CW was not about slavery. The idea is absurd. The media is telling another of it's whopper lies.

Those four states did not go into rebellion and start a war of aggression over slavery. Those four states didn't start a war over slavery that cost more American lives then all wars before or since.

Now here is a question for you, since the war was started over the slavery issue, whether you want to call it states rights or not it was still all about slavery why should the rebel battle flag be flown in any form on public land? Other then being brave men who were willing to charge into canister fire to protect the rich democrat southern aristocrat's way of live what is there to be proud about?

So, if your state supported the Union, owning slaves was OK. If your state opposed the Union and supported succession, regardless of reason, your state should be abolished?

 

[cnm]

Not much for logic are you?. You admit the union had 4 slave states and yet you claim the union was NOT pro-slavery???!!!

That's right, the Union wanted to see slavery expire. Why do you ask, do you think the Union wanted to maintain and expand slavery?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Look, this is about nothing but designating 'victim status' OKA: 'I'm SPECIAL and you're not, so you owe me...' status on the Left's respective constituents.

That way, anything anyone says about any of those constituencies, PROVES their SPECIAL STATUS AS VICTIM and the speaker is branded a HATER, A RACIST, HOMOPHOBE, BIGOT or what have you.

It's a lie... as is EVERY THING THE LEFT STANDS UPON.

And that is because the Ideological Left is the means by which EVIL is advanced Politically.

Smacked that nail on the head, didn't you?

 

[cnm]

It means that the South went to war because they were denied the explicit right to succeed from the Union, regardless of their reasoning.

Cite and link. That's in none of the histories I've read.

 

[cnm]

The hell they are not sovereign. The states of america are as sovereign as the states of europe and the american states need to assert that..

They are not. The Constitution stripped them of their sovereignty. Foreign policy was taken from their hands, they were no longer sovereign. They still are not sovereign.

 

[Freewill]

[

Those four states did not go into rebellion and start a war of aggression over slavery. Those four states didn't start a war over slavery that cost more American lives then all wars before or since.

No one started a war over slavery since both sides practiced wide-spread slavery. The north started the war but it was not over slavery.

I am sorry sir but this has been so debunked on this board it isn't funny. The practice of slavery was big business in the south and was worth millions of dollars. It was a war of economics, economics to protect the rich slave owners. Read the reasons for succession from the various states and you will read for yourself the reasons they gave. You might be surprised.

The north did not go to war to end slavery that much I agree, but the south certainly did go to war to protect the practice and the expansion of slavery.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They are not. The Constitution stripped them of their sovereignty.

ROFLMNAO!

The American CITIZEN is a sovereign, as the US Citizen is endowed by Nature's God with inalienable rights...

You think that that is flourished rhetoric... which is how we can know that you've no kinship with America. Because if you were an American, you'd have known that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

what happened political?....did a bunch of "millennials" teabag you in front of the girls?...you blame them for a lot of your ills....just wonderin...

ROFL! Now isn't that pitiful?

 

[Freewill]

Slavery was the status quo that the South sought to maintain by seceding, in the wake of Lincoln's election.

Lincoln was not on the ballot in 10 states..

The fight was over states rights, slavery was just the cause used..

As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war."

Never said otherwise.

What I said was that slavery was an underlying cause, and that that underlying cause became a primary motivating factor, as the war progressed and the populist opinion on the subject evolved.

So then you admit the civil war was not about slavery, but about states rights..

Read the Corner Stone speech. It will educate you on the fact the war was about slavery as far as the south was concerned.

The 'Cornerstone' Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".

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 normal condition.

. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.

 

[Freewill]

It was about states rights, it could have been over coffee beans, but the rally cry was because of slavery.

The South may well have gone to war to assert the rights of its states to form a government based on the inferiority of the black man, but the North went to war to preserve Federal property.

The federal government was attacked by the south. A stupid, very stupid plunder by the south.

 

[cnm]

The American CITIZEN is a sovereign, as the US Citizen is endowed by Nature's God with inalienable rights...

You think that that is flourished rhetoric... which is how we can know that you've no kinship with America. Because if you were an American, you'd have known that.

The US citizen is bound by the Constitution and laws of the US, he is not sovereign. The states of the US are not sovereign, they are bound by the US Constitution and laws. One thing I've noticed on US forums is the rightard tactic of redefining words, perhaps it is the only way they can explain away reality.

One only has to look at my location to imagine I'm not an American citizen.

 

[cnm]

The federal government was attacked by the south. A stupid, very stupid plunder by the south.

Only on this planet.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Its about keeping eternally offended gals from crying......

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The American CITIZEN is a sovereign, as the US Citizen is endowed by Nature's God with inalienable rights...

You think that that is flourished rhetoric... which is how we can know that you've no kinship with America. Because if you were an American, you'd have known that.

The US citizen is bound by the Constitution and laws of the US, he is not sovereign.

The US Citizen CONSENTS TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN THE AMERICAN CHARTER OF PRINCIPLES... WHICH THE US CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN TO SUSTAIN IN THE CONSTRUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

The US Citizen is NOT BOUND BY THE US GOVERNMENT.

As such the US Citizen IS a free sovereign.

 

[browsing deer]

It was started by slave owners to maintain their economic power. They could have gone peacfully. their was a lot of liking for that idea in the North. Davis insisted on attacking Ft Sumter so as to unite the south. It was a monster piece of stupidity. Slave owners began it. Slave owners ran it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

[

It was about states rights, not any other reason..

I slightly disagree. There were many issues and states rights was one of them. The war was also about profiteering and tariffs and the simple fact that the north and south hated each other. Certainly states rights was a bigger cause than slavery..

Yeah, States rights to keep slavery popping lol

 

[cnm]

The US Citizen is NOT BOUND BY THE US GOVERNMENT.

As such the US Citizen IS a free sovereign.

Yeah, right. When the US government puts the US citizen's arse in prison the US citizen consents to go there. It's not because he is bound by the laws of the US.

Only on planet Rightard.

Note too I said the US citizen was bound by the Constitution and laws of the US. I guess it must be the rightard need to redefine words that turned the Constitution and laws into the US government.