Black college student hangs Confederate Flag in his dorm room

[Deanimator]

Nope, the sole reason for the war is that the North would not allow the South to peacefully secede after declaring its independence...the exact same reason we had to fight a war with Britain...

The ONLY reason why the South wished to secede was to preserve slavery.

And yes, slavery is equivalent to pedophilia.

 

[Deanimator]

What is most interesting to me in this entire exchange is the attempt by revisionist historians to pinpoint the entire reason for the War Between the States on slavery. The vast majority of the men who fought for the South did not own slaves but fought, instead, for the idea that the federal government did not have the right to intrude into the various states' business.

And that "business" was... <drum roll> SLAVERY.

 

[Deanimator]

Neither of my two great-grandfathers, of the 32nd Alabama Infantry, owned slaves. From the letters which have been preserved that were written by other men who fought for the Confederacy, a very clear picture emerges that they were both against slavery and even more against an all-powerful federal government.

The South forced the Fugitive Slave Law through Congress.

NOBODY afraid of an "all-powerful federal government" would tolerate for one INSTANT the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law.

But then I guess allowing Federal Marshals to dragoon private citizens into being SLAVE CATCHERS is the sort of federal "oppression" that you can get behind...

 

[PrayingForWar]

For Christ's Sake can we dredge up an older issue? I want reparations from Italy, since their ancestors enslaved mine. We aren't called "slavic" because we fought off invading legions. Get over it already.

 

[PrayingForWar]

The South forced the Fugitive Slave Law through Congress.

NOBODY afraid of an "all-powerful federal government" would tolerate for one INSTANT the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law.

But then I guess allowing Federal Marshals to dragoon private citizens into being SLAVE CATCHERS is the sort of federal "oppression" that you can get behind...

That's a real low blow, and I don't recall seeing a post by SFC that condones any sort of "federal oppression".

The politics and society of 150 years ago are nothing like today's. You couldn't give away a black man now-a-days let alone sell him. Even the arabs don't want them.


Disclaimer:

That was intended too be as politically incorrect and insulting as possible. You can now focus your vitriol on me rather than people who's corpses became carbon several decades ago.

 

[WCrawford]

For Christ's Sake can we dredge up an older issue? I want reparations from Italy, since their ancestors enslaved mine. We aren't called "slavic" because we fought off invading legions. Get over it already.

Think I could have a claim against Italy for the genocides perperated by the Roman Empire?


Sent from my M865 using Tapatalk

 

[Jack House]

And yes, slavery is equivalent to pedophilia.

It most certainly is not. Slavery is wrong, but can new compared to pedophilia. Want to compare it to something? Compare it with genocide.


Posted using my HTC Evo

 

[Deanimator]

It most certainly is not. Slavery is wrong, but can new compared to pedophilia. Want to compare it to something? Compare it with genocide.


Posted using my HTC Evo

Slavery and pedophilia are usually associated with genocide.

They of course all reflect a profound contempt for human dignity and human rights.

 

[KBCraig]

The ONLY reason why the South wished to secede was to preserve slavery.

The ONLY reason why the North invaded the South was to force them back into the union. The North launched the war, not the South, and for the North it most definitely was NOT about slavery.

Thus, the claim that the war was about slavery is false.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
~Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Horace Greeley (22 August 1862) Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

I was never taught this in school, but I have read several places recently, that there were several (I think Indiana was one) states and territories in the North that had among their state laws, prohibitions on ANY free blacks from moving to reside within their state or territory borders! Imagine that! The northerners, we were taught, were willing to fight and die for the freedom of blacks, yet they were determined not to have them living anywhere inside their states! Something does not match up. What hypocrisy! Check that out, put it in your pipe, and smoke it!! It opened my eyes, I tell you . . . . .

 

[Tawnos]

The ONLY reason why the North invaded the South was to force them back into the union. The North launched the war, not the South, and for the North it most definitely was NOT about slavery.

Hurr durr a derpa derpa doo, if the North launched the war, what does this mean to you?

Edit: In other words, Lincoln fought to preserve the union, but the south seceded to preserve slavery.

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

Here is analogy I came up with:
1. Think about the person who bought a new, heavy, Buick sedan gas hog auto and drove it for years. When it bacame cool to be "green," this person felt guilty about the low MPG vehicle he owns, and sold the smoking, mostly worn out car to a poor family, taking the money for it and making a down payment on a hybrid. Now, this person was talking recently at a holiday cocktail party about how despicable it is that he sees these ignorant, immoral poor people still driving these smoking old gas guzzlers on the road on his ride to work in his new hybrid.

2. A northern slave owner from the first half of the 1800s realizes there is little profit to be made anymore with his existing slaves, due to changes in the Northern economy. He sells these slaves to a Southern farmer, and invests the money in his manufacturing plant. He attends a holiday cocktail party in his hometown, and talks smack about those despicable Southerners who keep people as slaves, and how immoral they are.

Did either person just give away his property? No. He made the most of it, by selling it. Then, had the gall to condemn the very person who paid him for the property. Aren't both men quite the hypocrite? (I know people are not cars---just making an illustration---chill out).

 

[Deanimator]

The ONLY reason why the North invaded the South was to force them back into the union.

I've never claimed otherwise.

The North launched the war, not the South, and for the North it most definitely was NOT about slavery.

Their reasons for fighting the war were asymmetrical.

The South fought the Civil War to preserve secession to preserve slavery.

The North fought the Civil War to preserve the Union.

Thus, the claim that the war was about slavery is false.

They fought the war for different reasons, making me completely correct.

 

[j4l]

Read the book "Border War".

Since the territory (it was not yet a State) of California shared no borders, whatsoever, with the USA or the CSA, I dont quiet get the point.. The CSA was not even remotely interested in California- so why "terrorise" it?

 

[j4l]

White "slavery" WASN'T.

Try telling that to the Scotts, Irish, Minorcans, Italians, and Poles who were brought over as "indentured servants".


Gotta love selective histories, eh?

 

[Deanimator]

Since the territory (it was not yet a State) of California shared no borders, whatsoever, with the USA or the CSA, I dont quiet get the point.. The CSA was not even remotely interested in California- so why "terrorise" it?

To make it a slave state.

All territories not yet states, had to be slave territories.

All states had either to be slave states or states which protected slave holder interests, whether they be free or not.

Slavery was to the South what extremist Islam is to Al Qaeda.

 

[Deanimator]

Try telling that to the Scotts, Irish, Minorcans, Italians, and Poles who were brought over as "indentured servants".

If they weren't dead, I'd gladly do so.

They were HEREDITARY slave, RIGHT?

I didn't think so.

 

[j4l]

If they weren't dead, I'd gladly do so.

They were HEREDITARY slave, RIGHT?

I didn't think so.

And one kind of slave versus another kind of slave makes which one less of an issue than the other? A slave of any race/gender/nationality/ethnicity is still a slave -"endentured" was really just a version of "pc" terminology of the time..

Also, you go to quiet some length to twist the intent, and meaning of the CSA's position on territories and other States.
CSA wasnt even remotely attempting to do anything about, or with California at the time, since it was practically un-inhabbited yet.. Who were they going to "dictate" terms to? Coyotes? Scorpions? A handful of "pioneers"
The CSA werent attempting to, or even planning to, invade other States or territories in any effort to force them into becomming slave states...

Do you even bother to read the nonsense you put out there? And to what purpose does anti-Confederate propoganda serve, 140+ years after the fact, anyway?

 

[PrayingForWar]

SNIP...

What purpose does anti-Confederate propoganda serve, 140+ years after the fact, anyway?

Self righteous psuedo-intellectual indignation? Just a guess, I'm still pist off at the WOPS for enslaving my ancestors.

 

[KBCraig]

Hurr durr a derpa derpa doo, if the North launched the war, what does this mean to you?

It means that you don't understand that Robert Anderson illegally invaded unoccupied territory belonging to a sovereign nation.