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

[cnm]

Definition of sovereign Collins English Dictionary

adjective

1. supreme in rank or authority ⇒ a sovereign lord
2. excellent or outstanding ⇒ a sovereign remedy
3. of, relating to, or characteristic of a sovereign
4. independent of outside authority ⇒ a sovereign state

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Yes I know many want to deny facts, especially far left drones..

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

So why did the Cornerstone speech of the losers say it was about slavery?

 

[cnm]

So why did the Cornerstone speech of the losers say it was about slavery?

They didn't know suckers would be stuck for explanations a century and a half later.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Well then, I suppose you can explain these away?

"If slavery be a sin, it is not yours. It does not rest on your action for its origin, on your consent for its existence. It is a common law right to property in the service of man; its origin was Divine decree."

-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

"African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."

-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

 

[Politico]

Resentment at being held back, maybe?

What the U.S. would be like without the South

http://www.washingtonpost.com

"Minus the South, the rest of the U.S. probably would be more like Canada or Australia or Britain or New Zealand — more secular, more socially liberal, more moderate in the tone of its politics and somewhat more generous in social policy," writes Michael Lind. "And it would not be as centralized as France or as social democratic as Sweden."​

So you're saying that without the South... the US would be today, completely Feminized?

WOW~ So, CNN FINALLY gets one right... . No doubt that the next report was that Pigs obtained flight and Hell is encrusted in a solid block of ice.

It already is feminized. Have you not seen these manchild Milleninials walking around on the streets?

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...

No they were just born.

 

[Harry Dresden]

so you got tea bagged?......hey shit happens....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Well then, I suppose you can explain these away?

"If slavery be a sin, it is not yours. It does not rest on your action for its origin, on your consent for its existence. It is a common law right to property in the service of man; its origin was Divine decree."

-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

The board notes your feeble attempt to change the subject. Everyone agrees the south supported and practiced slavery. But so did the union as proven by the fact that they had four slave states of their own. THINK

 

[Freewill]

Well then, I suppose you can explain these away?

"If slavery be a sin, it is not yours. It does not rest on your action for its origin, on your consent for its existence. It is a common law right to property in the service of man; its origin was Divine decree."

-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

The board notes your feeble attempt to change the subject. Everyone agrees the south supported and practiced slavery. But so did the union as proven by the fact that they had four slave states of their own. THINK

The north didn't start the war over slavery, the south did. THINK!

 

[Asclepias]

Well then, I suppose you can explain these away?

"If slavery be a sin, it is not yours. It does not rest on your action for its origin, on your consent for its existence. It is a common law right to property in the service of man; its origin was Divine decree."

-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

The board notes your feeble attempt to change the subject. Everyone agrees the south supported and practiced slavery. But so did the union as proven by the fact that they had four slave states of their own. THINK

The difference is that the southern losers went to war to keep slavery. THINK!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

 

[Asclepias]

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

 

[Freewill]

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

Only because the Vice President of the Confederacy said it was and most of the letters from states concerning the reason for succession.

I would post them again but I am not sure it would do much good.

You are right about those who owned slaves, the greatest con job in history.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Liberals and their revisionist history SMH

 

[Asclepias]

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

That's absurd. Actions are what matters, not word. The south went to war because lincoln would not let them secede. If the war had been about slavery, the north would have kicked out its slave states.

 

[Asclepias]

[
There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

That's absurd. Actions are what matters, not word. The south went to war because lincoln would not let them secede. If the war had been about slavery, the north would have kicked out its slave states.

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

It is a common assertion nowadays that the Confederacy had no purpose or justification but perpetuating racist slavery.

That argument can be made intelligently, and has been made, but the lazy debater wants to treat it as a settled proposition above discussion. Any objection to it, or any suggestion of Southern legitimacy, is automatically dismissable because it amounts to a defense of the Confederacy, and even if someone who is not an outright racist or slavery-apologist would defend the Confederacy, the debater on the other side has the option to not be bothered with that distinction. Far easier to dismiss the opposition as crypto-racist.

It's the old fallacy of arguing in a circle. Yet people choose this tactic, perhaps in part because they find it frustratingly difficult to pin down American history or any part of it to such a simplistic idea as "it was all about slavery."

Naturally, some people do want to regard all this as settled before they plow into their opponents. The easy expedient is to go in search of one zinger of a quote that will seem to prove the case. In Internet debates, those willing to be convinced will look no further, and those who disagree will be required to build up the cathedral of context, a tedious process. By the time they finish, the audience will have wandered off with the zinger lodged in their heads.

So they pick through the sources. Any quote will do, by anyone remotely prominent in the Confederacy, saying, more or less, "it was all about slavery." Jeff. Davis's inaugural speech? No, it makes nary a mention of slaves or slavery. Robert Toombs' report to the Georgia legislature in 1860? No, that outlines how anti-slavery agitation in the North was exploited by political powers there to disguise economic motives.

The "Cornerstone Speech" by Alexander Stephens is the usual bludgeon of choice. Stephens, a Georgian who had served in Congress, was the new vice president of the CSA in the spring of 1861, and in this speech he explained the new Confederate constitution and the prospects of the new nation, as he saw them, to an audience in Savannah.

Here is how one commentator cherry-picks the usual cherries from it:

Stephens said that the American Revolution had been based on a premise that was “fundamentally wrong.” That premise was, as Stephens defined it, “the assumption of equality of the races.” Stephens insisted that, instead, “our new [Confederate] government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea. Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great and moral truth.” Stephens's post-war writings downplayed the importance of slavery in the sectional conflict, and they formed much of the foundation of the first generation of defense of the Southern nation -- the so-called "Lost Cause" view of the war. That reasonably can be dismissed as a convenient revisionism.

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration.

Cornerstone Speech

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

 

[paperview]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

Find the word Tariff once in the Declaration of Causes for secession. by the individual states.

See if you can.

Know many times the words slave or slavery is there?

Almost a hundred.