NationStates Jolt Archive

All right here are the rules, we are discussing the American civil war, I'm a southerner, do your worst, if you make a claim, be ready to back it up, all unsubstantiated claims will be ignored, lets get it on.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.

The American civil war took place in America and the anti-slavery guys won.

That's all I know. That's all anybody non-USian needs to know.

All right here are the rules, we are discussing the American civil war, I'm a southerner, do your worst, if you make a claim, be ready to back it up, all unsubstantiated claims will be ignored, lets get it on.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.

The Confederate Battle Flag is not offensive or racist.
Half a check. It's really just a losing color; the symbol (like a Nazi or Imperial Japanese flag) is and of itself not racist or offensive; the belief system it STOOD for is. Per se, the flag isn't the issue: it's that it stands for a land that was pro-slave is.

The Civil War was about state's rights.
Check.

The South was right.
About what? Succession? Slavery? Westward expansion? International trade?

I remember reading once that one side named battles after the closes body of water, and the other named it... after something else? Towns? I can't remember who got to name it, but it was probably whoever won the battle. I read it in 'Tietam Brown', but otherwise, it is a war that does not interest me because it was not fought in the ancient days and it was not fought by the English or any country which makes me go 'Oooooh'. Yeah, I respect America, but it does not really interest me that much.

PS: If you could clear it up for me, I'd be happy. I'll probably remember it second time around too.

if you make a claim, be ready to back it up
Care to back youself up as well?

I do agree that the Stars and Bars isn't racist and offensive. As many southerners claim it says, "wave me with pride, not bigotry." Though at times it's used for subversive purposes, I see a lot of southern culture in it.

The main reason for the Civil War was the war over states' rights, but the underlying issue for the States' rights is slavery vs. Free-Soilism and abolition. Morals are your own, but in my moral eye, Social Darwinism is one of the worst belief systems invented. There are enough "model minorities" in this country for me to draw the conclusion that no race is inferior to another, and no race is an evolutionary dead end. Had blacks enslaved the whites, the whites would be in almost the same socioeconomic position the poorer blacks are in today.

Care to back youself up as well?

I do agree that the Stars and Bars isn't racist and offensive. As many southerners claim it says, "wave me with pride, not bigotry." Though at times it's used for subversive purposes, I see a lot of southern culture in it.

The main reason for the Civil War was the war over states' rights, but the underlying issue for the States' rights is slavery vs. Free-Soilism and abolition. Morals are your own, but in my moral eye, Social Darwinism is one of the worst belief systems invented. There are enough "model minorities" in this country for me to draw the conclusion that no race is inferior to another, and no race is an evolutionary dead end. Had blacks enslaved the whites, the whites would be in almost the same socioeconomic position the poorer blacks are in today.
States' rights? Which right is that?

The South lost.

The South lost.

True dat.

Anywho, I agree with Markreich on the Flag issue. People are offended by the Confederate flag offensive because of what it stood for, same as the Nazi Swastika, which is actually a symbol of peace.

And yes, the war was mostly about states rights.

And, for some reason, I don't think the South was right about slavery.

States' rights? Which right is that?

Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


There might be a few too many to list.

States' rights? Which right is that?
The right for states to determine the legality of slavery.

The right for states to determine the legality of slavery.
Since when does the right for states to determine the legality of slavery trump the right to live freely?


No states' right involved here.

There might be a few too many to list.
That's an amendment. I am well aware of it. Do tell me what rights were being violated which lead for them to leave the union.

The Confederates were frickin traitors. They should have all been hanged as rebellious scum. They were the original anti-americans.

The Confederates were frickin traitors. They should have all been hanged as rebellious scum. They were the original anti-americans.
*coughs*
Dry humor?

and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.
Wrong on all counts. Due to the supremacy clause in the Constitution, the South had no legal right to secede. They also attacked a federal fort, in doing so declaring war on the federal government. Thus, they committed treason. By the law of the U.S., they should have been executed, but Lincoln was generous and spared the leaders.

The civil war was all economic in nature, as almost all wars have been since the beginning of time. It really had nothing to do with slavery, save the north "freeing" the slaves to stand infront of the white infantry men as cannon fodder.

The confederate flag racist? Who cares, it's a piece of cloth.

The south was right? Well my friend, I wouldn't say that too loud in any of the thousands of still angry black communities that populate the southern states.

And as for the south it's self, when are you guys going to secede already? Here, I'll give up my honorary "We northerners won the civil war" claim and say you guys won just so that you southern states will take your redneck, extremist agendas and begone!

Since when does the right for states to determine the legality of slavery trump the right to live freely?


No states' right involved here.

I don't think there's any general 'right to live freely' in the constitution. If you can point it out, please do so.

Note: I mean when the states started seceding.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.

I'm a Yankee, born and raised outside of Boston. You sir are so right. The war was about States Rights, slavery was a secondary issue. The Confederate battle flag is a part of the history of the United States. The South was correct about States Rights, but lost the war so now states have few rights. Heck, they can't even control their own school systems even tought they have to foot most of the bill for education.

oh right, that thing about the pro slavery and the anti slavery dudes, i dont know there names, heck i dont even know were there from. when did it happen again?

I remember reading once that one side named battles after the closes body of water, and the other named it... after something else? Towns? I can't remember who got to name it, but it was probably whoever won the battle. I read it in 'Tietam Brown', but otherwise, it is a war that does not interest me because it was not fought in the ancient days and it was not fought by the English or any country which makes me go 'Oooooh'. Yeah, I respect America, but it does not really interest me that much.

PS: If you could clear it up for me, I'd be happy. I'll probably remember it second time around too.

as far as i know:

the Union named battles (and armies) after the nearest body of water.
I.E. The Battle of Bull Run, The Army of The Potomac

the Confederacy named battles after the nearest town and armies after regions.
I.E. The Battle of Manassas, The Army of Northern Virginia

*Manassas and Bull Run were the same battle

hope that helped

I don't think there's any general 'right to live freely' in the constitution. If you can point it out, please do so.

Note: I mean when the states started seceding.
9th (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people). And the last part of the 10th ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved..to the people. Also the 5th ("No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property...") and the 4th ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated")

The American civil war took place in America and the anti-slavery guys won.

That's all I know. That's all anybody non-USian needs to know.

Then you have no idea or concept about our history. The war was not about slavery. It was about states rights and economics. Slavery was a part of the economics. I'm not saying slavery was right, it was not, but it was not the major issue in the causes of the war.

P.S. What you said is what any close minded individual needs to know. Please do not ignor the historical facts.

and several days ago i rented this movie from video easy, dont know if it exsists in america. but it was about a bunch of black guys who fought for the dudes in blue, dont know there names but the movie was called "Glory" can someone plz explain the civil war to me as i know nothing on the topic, but the again, no one from australia does, arr but u dont know about the eureka stockade do u, see u dont know about it and i dont know about the american civil war

Wrong on all counts. Due to the supremacy clause in the Constitution, the South had no legal right to secede.

Really?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The constitution doesn't specifically say that states can't secede. In fact, it was a huge issue for the framers. They wanted the states to be as independent as possible while still being under the partial rule of a federal government. They wanted to leave an out for the states, and they specifically did in the Articles of Confederation.

All right here are the rules, we are discussing the American civil war, I'm a southerner, do your worst, if you make a claim, be ready to back it up, all unsubstantiated claims will be ignored, lets get it on.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.

Right you are the Civil War was about States rights. The right of States to hold slaves.

.. The war was not about slavery. It was about states rights and economics.

Largest and most frequent rationalization in human history.

(according to Guiness book)

States' rights? Which right is that?

Take a History course dude. Study the reasons for the war then you will not have to ask that question.

Really?



The constitution doesn't specifically say that states can't secede. In fact, it was a huge issue for the framers. They wanted the states to be as independent as possible while still being under the partial rule of a federal government. They wanted to leave an out for the states, and they specifically did in the Articles of Confederation.
Texas v. White...

Take a History course dude. Study the reasons for the war then you will not have to ask that question.
It's a loaded question. Which right?


I'd like you to say it. I know the answer.

and several days ago i rented this movie from video easy, dont know if it exsists in america. but it was about a bunch of black guys who fought for the dudes in blue, dont know there names but the movie was called "Glory" can someone plz explain the civil war to me as i know nothing on the topic, but the again, no one from australia does, arr but u dont know about the eureka stockade do u, see u dont know about it and i dont know about the american civil warbasically, the Southern states wanted to keep their slaves and treatened to break away from the Union unless they were allowed to keep their slaves.

The north felt otherwise when it came to slavery. So you can call America the first victim of American foreign policy at work... I guess...

what's the Eureka Stockade? never heard of it till now.

All right here are the rules, we are discussing the American civil war, I'm a southerner, do your worst, if you make a claim, be ready to back it up, all unsubstantiated claims will be ignored, lets get it on.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.
And I would totally agree with you.

and if you care to know, I live in Oregon.

i did ask for some american to explain it too me!

Really?

Yes. Read the Constitution. Hint: It's not in the Amendment Section.

Since when does the right for states to determine the legality of slavery trump the right to live freely?


No states' right involved here.
At the time of the Civil War, African Americans were not thought of as people. They were thought of as property, and that's why they were bought and sold. You still had your Federalists around this time (same as today) who thought that there should be sovreignty for each state.

i did ask for some american to explain it too me!
Basically:

Root cause was slavery. Slavery lead to the disparties in economical structure that lead to the quarrels over tarrifs and over various other issues (the other states' rights at hand). The south and the north had a tenious peace and many compromises in the senate until it all fell apart following the election of Abe Lincoln to the presidency. The south walked out, the north did nothing for a bit. The south then opened fire on federal property, offically starting the civil war.

After all of this, it was determined by the courts that the south never actually left the union, and was only in a state of rebellion. Some argue that this is a matter of the winner writing history...and well, it is. Rebellions are ligitimate only if they win. That's how it works, tough luck guys.

9th (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people). And the last part of the 10th ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved..to the people. Also the 5th ("No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property...") and the 4th ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated")
don't forget the preamble

At the time of the Civil War, African Americans were not thought of as people. They were thought of as property, and that's why they were bought and sold. You still had your Federalists around this time (same as today) who thought that there should be sovreignty for each state.
Irrelevent of what they thought, the matter still stands that they are human, and thus subject to protection under the constitution as such. However, that is pointless, as I can concede this and still have my central point being correct- the argument was over slavery, at its root.

don't forget the preamble
Erh...I dislike quoting that as it isn't actually law. However it is invaluable for determining intention, as the courts showed in Texas v. White.

Has anyone noticed that Lincoln's inaugural adress is NEVER in history books? Here's why:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

and:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

Interesting, no? I am staunchly against slavery, but I am against hypocrisy too. That promise should never have been made, especially if he had not planned to keep it. He may have done the right thing when he freed the slaves, but he did it for the wrong reasons, and the border states that still had slaves were allowed to keep them until later, when a full amendment was passed. The North was in error; the 'protective' tariffs were so high, they did severe damage to the Southern Economy. Also, I think that the states were wrong to claim the right to simply waive out of any federal law they felt like. Neither side was out and out right, but in the end, I think that is was for the best that things ended up how they did - imagine the Soviet Union with UNILATERAL hegemony? A bipolar system kept both sides in check - a divided USA into a north and south would have given the USSR complete control when it rose - and any nation having that kind of power is extremely dangerous.

The war was not about slavery. It was about states rights and economics. Slavery was a part of the economics.
Let's rewrite the scenario of the Civil War to modern politics and see whether we can understand the conflict a little better. Let's see...first we need a divisive political theory that seems to be tearing our country apart...I know! Gay Marriage!
Now, the South wants to keep its right to deny homosexuals the rights and privileges of matrimony. Northern states are concerned because some of them have allowed gay marriage, and according to federal law, marriage in one state must be respected in another. The South, realizing it won't be able to keep its rights under federal law (if Massachusetts couples move to Georgia, for example), and after much discussion, resolve to secede.
Now, you can look at this scenario as a "State's Rights" issue, or you can look at it as a "Gay Rights" issue. In either case, the South chooses to deny rights of individuals in favor of rights of the State. And what's that called, class? That's right! Authoritarianism!
The Civil War was about Southern States' fight to allow their citizens to own people. To claim it's "about States' Rights" is correct, but to claim it's "not about slavery" is just plain stupidity.

Oh, and the Confederate flag, though once a symbol of rebellion, has been so abused by white supremacist groups as to take a racist meaning. Sorry guys, the stars and bars are a racist symbol.

Texas v. White...

The court's rationale for their decision was made on very shaky grounds. That is an example of partisan politics interfering with a court decision.

Erh...I dislike quoting that as it isn't actually law. However it is invaluable for determining intention, as the courts showed in Texas v. White.

They cited the articles of confederation in their decision. That document says this of state's rights. "Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." I have a feeling I know what the intent of the words 'sovereignty' and 'independence' were.

Irrelevent of what they thought, the matter still stands that they are human, and thus subject to protection under the constitution as such. However, that is pointless, as I can concede this and still have my central point being correct- the argument was over slavery, at its root.
No. At the time, slaves were not thought of as people. I'm not saying that they weren't people, nor am I saying that it was right. They were thought of as property, and restrictions on their sale helped ignite the war. Many of the framers of the Constitution had slaves, and they didn't include anything in the Constitution about their rights.

From the same speech:
'But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is LESS perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. "

The court's rationale for their decision was made on very shaky grounds. That is an example of partisan politics interfering with a court decision.
Not too shaky. Not shaky enough to be overturned, and like it or not, it is standing case law.

Then you have no idea or concept about our history. The war was not about slavery. It was about states rights and economics. Slavery was a part of the economics. I'm not saying slavery was right, it was not, but it was not the major issue in the causes of the war.

P.S. What you said is what any close minded individual needs to know. Please do not ignor the historical facts.

The war was about economics, yes, among other things -- it was not about state's rights, though, any more than it was specifically about slavery. I find it funny that people who claim to be "setting the record straight" by showing that slavery as a cause was just a convenient cover for the Northern agenda completely ignore the fact that "state's rights" was, itself, just a cover for the Southern agenda.

The civil war was a power struggle between two blocs of states with increasingly divergent economic systems (one based on SLAVERY, the other on industrialization and wage labor), both of whose elites believed the key to their political and economic future lay in disputed western territories. The civil war represented the breakdown of the purely political struggle.

I bolded "slavery" not to make a moral point, but to point out the idiocy of claiming that the civil war could be about economics without also being about slavery. It was about slavery, just as it was about wage labor, just as it was about the political power.

It was not about "state's rights." Face it: in November of 1860 there was no specific or implied threat to the right of any state, northern or southern. Lincoln wanted to prevent slavery spreading to territories beyond the slave states, not interfere with the South itself; thus there was no threat to their "rights", but to their political power, which is hardly unacceptable in a democracy.

The only thing that happened in that month was that a man with a take on national issues that was decidedly Northern in outlook and interests was rightfully elected president under the mechanisms prescribed by the United States constitution, itself ratified by every state, North and South. This sort of thing had happened several times in the past, often with southerners reaping the biggest rewards.

But rather do what every losing side in a functioning democracy must do -- accept the valid results of a legal election and work to reestablish your side the next time 'round -- a group of elite extremists in the southern states decided that they could up and take by force what they had failed to take via political means. Secession violated the rights of every man of every state who voted in 1860.

Lastly -- the confederate battle flag is no less racist a symbol than the swastika. It hardly matters that some southerners consider it a part of their "heritage." A man's heritage can still be wrong.

Not too shaky. Not shaky enough to be overturned, and like it or not, it is standing case law.

Edited my post.

And it doesn't mean that there won't come a time where it won't be. You may win the proverbial battle, but the proverbial war isn't over. Whether it will ever be taken up again is to be decided. I'd hope not. I don't want to see the nation lose states.

Let's rewrite the scenario of the Civil War to modern politics and see whether we can understand the conflict a little better. Let's see...first we need a divisive political theory that seems to be tearing our country apart...I know! Gay Marriage!
Now, the South wants to keep its right to deny homosexuals the rights and privileges of matrimony. Northern states are concerned because some of them have allowed gay marriage, and according to federal law, marriage in one state must be respected in another. The South, realizing it won't be able to keep its rights under federal law (if Massachusetts couples move to Georgia, for example), and after much discussion, resolve to secede.
Now, you can look at this scenario as a "State's Rights" issue, or you can look at it as a "Gay Rights" issue. In either case, the South chooses to deny rights of individuals in favor of rights of the State. And what's that called, class? That's right! Authoritarianism!
The Civil War was about Southern States' fight to allow their citizens to own people. To claim it's "about States' Rights" is correct, but to claim it's "not about slavery" is just plain stupidity.

Oh, and the Confederate flag, though once a symbol of rebellion, has been so abused by white supremacist groups as to take a racist meaning. Sorry guys, the stars and bars are a racist symbol.


Actually, that analogy is flawed, because the war was primarily started because of immense protective tariffs, not because of slavery - it would be like if the goverment raised taxes on foreign goods that are only US produced in a few regions - those regions are unaffected, but everyone else pays an extreme burden to support the economy of the regions that produce it. While small tariffs are logical, tariffs on goods that were only made either in the North or outside of the country were so high that the American businesses than raised their price, underselling the now massively marked-up foregin goods by a tiny margin, despite the fact that the goods should have been sold for far less in a proper competetive market.

Interesting, no? I am staunchly against slavery, but I am against hypocrisy too. That promise should never have been made, especially if he had not planned to keep it. He may have done the right thing when he freed the slaves, but he did it for the wrong reasons, and the border states that still had slaves were allowed to keep them until later, when a full amendment was passed.
Lincoln didn't free the slaves.

At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, the CSA were still independent, and he had no legal right over them. It was a political move that worked. Lincoln used the African Americans to help himself.

what's the Eureka Stockade? never heard of it till now.
ok the eueka stokade happend on the goldfields in Ballarat during the Australian gold rush. The imperial government (Australia didnt get independence untill 1901) introduced mining permits which a miner must have to mine, and theese were very expensive. this along with many other things outraged the miners. Eventualy 1000 miners led by Peter Laor set up a stockade on top of a hill on ballarat hoisted the flag of the southern cross and swore alleigance to the rebeelion. "We swear by the southern cross to stand truly by each other abd fight to defend our rights and liberties". they also burned all of their permits and litrally declared war on the queen. the stockade had many armed miners ready to die for the cause and several days later the army assualted the stockade, unfortunatly many of the miners were drunk or out at the pub, so it was a large massacare with many miners dead. only 150 miners were on gurad that day and the attack was over in minutes. 30 miners were killed and six government soldiers also died. this might seem nothin by comparison to the american civil war but it is a big thing in australia. and millions go to ballarat evey year to visit the site of the stockade and some say it was the begining of the end for the imperial governtment. the southern cross has also been added as one of the most likly contenders for the new flag as soon as we brake away from the commonwealth

No. At the time, slaves were not thought of as people. I'm not saying that they weren't people, nor am I saying that it was right. They were thought of as property, and restrictions on their sale helped ignite the war. Many of the framers of the Constitution had slaves, and they didn't include anything in the Constitution about their rights.
Again, I concede this, I was just pointing out that if you're going to claim that it was states' rights, at least be honest about it and call it slavery, and admit that it was a wrong choice.

The court's rationale for their decision was made on very shaky grounds. That is an example of partisan politics interfering with a court decision.



They cited the articles of confederation in their decision. That document says this of state's rights. "Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." I have a feeling I know what the intent of the words 'sovereignty' and 'independence' were.
They went on to cite the "more perfect union" clause of the preamble and the part that says "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

I think I know what perpetual union means.

Lincoln didn't free the slaves.

At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, the CSA were still independent, and he had no legal right over them. It was a political move that worked. Lincoln used the African Americans to help himself.

Legally, he didn't, but I'm looking at the effects, not at the action itself - that action DID free the slaves, even if it was just a political ploy. Honest Abe indeed :)

Yes. Read the Constitution. Hint: It's not in the Amendment Section.

Humor me. What does it say? I'll then decide if I'm full of it or not.

ok the eueka stokade happend on the goldfields in Ballarat during the Australian gold rush. The imperial government (Australia didnt get independence untill 1901) introduced mining permits which a miner must have to mine, and theese were very expensive. this along with many other things outraged the miners. Eventualy 1000 miners led by Peter Laor set up a stockade on top of a hill on ballarat hoisted the flag of the southern cross and swore alleigance to the rebeelion. "We swear by the southern cross to stand truly by each other abd fight to defend our rights and liberties". they also burned all of their permits and litrally declared war on the queen. the stockade had many armed miners ready to die for the cause and several days later the army assualted the stockade, unfortunatly many of the miners were drunk or out at the pub, so it was a large massacare with many miners dead. only 150 miners were on gurad that day and the attack was over in minutes. 30 miners were killed and six government soldiers also died. this might seem nothin by comparison to the american civil war but it is a big thing in australia. and millions go to ballarat evey year to visit the site of the stockade and some say it was the begining of the end for the imperial governtment. the southern cross has also been added as one of the most likly contenders for the new flag as soon as we brake away from the commonwealthactually, it sounded very similar to the American Revolution... it's just that this time the British struck hard and struck first. Damn... that was rough.

They went on to cite the "more perfect union" clause of the preamble and the part that says "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

I think I know what perpetual union means.

Two statements directly at odds with each other. I think I know what their intent was when writing it, though.

Actually, that analogy is flawed, because the war was primarily started because of immense protective tariffs, not because of slavery - it would be like if the goverment raised taxes on foreign goods that are only US produced in a few regions - those regions are unaffected, but everyone else pays an extreme burden to support the economy of the regions that produce it. While small tariffs are logical, tariffs on goods that were only made either in the North or outside of the country were so high that the American businesses than raised their price, underselling the now massively marked-up foregin goods by a tiny margin, despite the fact that the goods should have been sold for far less in a proper competetive market.
The tarrifs were only a factor because the south was more rural (because of slavery) then the north, which was more urban/industrial. Tarrifs helped the north's goods, but hurt the south. Without slavery, it stands to reason that both the north and the south would be as urban and would both stand to benifit (or not be opposed to each other) by tarrifs.

No. At the time, slaves were not thought of as people. I'm not saying that they weren't people, nor am I saying that it was right. They were thought of as property, and restrictions on their sale helped ignite the war. Many of the framers of the Constitution had slaves, and they didn't include anything in the Constitution about their rights.

not quite. they were 3/5 persons, in order to add to the population of southern states, which increased their power in the house of representatives.

as to the civil war, as someone else said, it was about the states rights not only to determine the legality of slavery, but also to come into northern states to retrieve their "property" with little more than the word of a slave owner that the person did indeed belong to him. so to say it wasn't about slavery is to miss the forrest for the trees.

The South's downfall was inevitable, in this I mean the move away from agrarian-based economy and the growth of the central government. People talk a lot of smack about the unitary system, but I think we Americans should remember we all live under one--our state governments.

Two statements directly at odds with each other. I think I know what their intent was when writing it, though.
You can be independant while being perpetual. It was one of the main reasons why we had to have the Constitution, because of the problems we were having with that independant clause. And yes, as you said, it is on shaky grounds, but that's really all the grounds it needs, at least until the next time it gets challenged. As it stands, the south never left, nor does any state have the right to leave the union (except without the authorization of congress etc).

You can be independant while being perpetual. It was one of the main reasons why we had to have the Constitution, because of the problems we were having with that independant clause. And yes, as you said, it is on shaky grounds, but that's really all the grounds it needs, at least until the next time it gets challenged. As it stands, the south never left, nor does any state have the right to leave the union (except without the authorization of congress etc).

Fair enough.

Humor me. What does it say? I'll then decide if I'm full of it or not.
I'll paraphrase for right now, because I need to find my copy of the Constitution. It says something to the effect of "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

I also have an explanation as to how that relates to secession somewhere. I'll try to find it.

Fair enough.
Indeed. It is a bit of the winner writing history, but that is just how it is. Rebellions are legitimate only if they win their independence.

Indeed. It is a bit of the winner writing history, but that is just how it is. Rebellions are legitimate only if they win their independence.

To a certain extent it was illegitimate. I don't know if it's unprecidented, but as a whole our country sure does romanticize both sides of the civil war whether we're from the north or the south. It often seems to end up giving brownie points to the south.

Indeed. It is a bit of the winner writing history, but that is just how it is. Rebellions are legitimate only if they win their independence.

Good point. You never hear anyone say that the British had no right to try to stop the American Revolution, to try to put down that rebellion after it had started -- there's lots of talk about what caused it in the first place, about British misdeeds leading up to it, but noone really questions what happened once the shots were fired. It's what any people need to do to establish independence. Indeed, it would sort of cheapen it to think that it was no sweat, that we just walked away from the empire and that was that.

But to hear southerners talk, the "cause" is not so important (in fact, totally unimportant - they like to sweep under the rug the fact that their "cause" for leaving the union was based on preserving an outmoded economic/social system with white supremacy as its core principle) as the fact that (gasp! shock!) the government actually took umbrage at the thought of an internal rebellion and tried to stop it.

The tarrifs were only a factor because the south was more rural (because of slavery) then the north, which was more urban/industrial. Tarrifs helped the north's goods, but hurt the south. Without slavery, it stands to reason that both the north and the south would be as urban and would both stand to benifit (or not be opposed to each other) by tarrifs.

Well, that is true to a degree, but the south had a much better climate and superior conditions for agriculture, and it's gorwith reflected that, wheras most of the important early growth in the north, even in just the Colonial periods, was at or near ports.

I'm a Yankee, born and raised outside of Boston. You sir are so right. The war was about States Rights, slavery was a secondary issue. The Confederate battle flag is a part of the history of the United States. The South was correct about States Rights, but lost the war so now states have few rights. Heck, they can't even control their own school systems even tought they have to foot most of the bill for education.

Give me a break.

Yes, the Civil War was about more than "just" slavery, but both of the other issues cited -- "states' rights" and "economics" -- revolved 100% around the central issue of slavery. While it is incorrect to say that the Civil War occurred because one side had slaves and the other didn't, claiming that slavery was just part of some complex system of beliefs the southern states had is equally deceptive.

Why did the southern states worry about what they saw as federal incursion on their rights? Limitations on slavery. Tarriffs on slave-made goods which hurt international trade on which the South depended. What composed the vast economic gulf between the two factions? The southern economy was entirely dependent on largely slave-driven agriculture, while the northern states came to rely increasingly on industry and mass-production.

Spin your little piece about how slavery was just one tiny piece, but please realize that it makes absolutely no sense at all, because all the other reasons you cite are also based upon slavery!

As for the flag, I completely disagree with the multiple claims that it should cause no offense. Yes, it is just a piece of cloth. Yes, it is just a symbol. So, I take it you would not mind if I walked right up to your front yard and lit a couple dozen American flags on fire? Or stuck a nice big swastica on my car hood? Or maybe drew a huge mural showing Jesus being sodomized? At the risk of sounding simplistic, symbols mean things. Stripes and circles and right angles and colors are obviously not offensive in and of themselves, but when a symbol is created it takes on the moral baggage of whatever it represents. The southern flag represents a system based on utter white supremacy, with black people counting as 3/5 of a person just to boost the population of the southern states to give them an edge in the House. Because I find such a system offensive, I find any symbol representing it, and the wish that said system continued, equally offensive.

The "southern cause" has been revitalized by cunning right-wing politicians to make ignorant Southerns feel better about voting Republican. Or haven't you noticed that all these arguments and Civil War revisionism only really started after Nixons's "Southern Strategy"?

Tarriffs on slave-made goods which hurt international trade on which the South depended. What composed the vast economic gulf between the two factions? The southern economy was entirely dependent on largely slave-driven agriculture, while the northern states came to rely increasingly on industry and mass-production.

Just a quick point - it wasn't tariffs on Southern goods, it was 'protective' tariffs to sheild Nothern ones. See, the Northern industry was in competition with European goods - so high tariffs killed that competition. Basically, it wasn't tariffs stopping Southern goods from getting out, but allowing the North to charge overly high rates without having any competition to lower it. This doesn't really change your point, I'm just correcting a detail.

Just a quick point - it wasn't tariffs on Southern goods, it was 'protective' tariffs to sheild Nothern ones. See, the Northern industry was in competition with European goods - so high tariffs killed that competition. Basically, it wasn't tariffs stopping Southern goods from getting out, but allowing the North to charge overly high rates without having any competition to lower it. This doesn't really change your point, I'm just correcting a detail.

You are correct. Thanks for pointing out that I don't remember everything about early US history as well as I thought I did.

To note that slavery was legal in many Northern states only two or three generations before the Civil War. Vermont was first, outlawing it in 1777, New Jersey (the last state to do so pre-war) in 1786.

I'm from Connecticut... it's not like the North had some sort of moral highground.
Odds are, the average Union Army soldier (if he was at least a second generation American) knew an old/freed slave or someone whom had owned slaves. Kind of the same way if you think about it, you probably know somebody right now that owns something rare like a classic car or a tube radio or something.

While slavery in the North wasn't COMMON, it wasn't unheard of, either.

Know what cracks me up about this thread?

140 years after the end of the US Civil War and the abolition of slavery, people are still going on about it.

Makes you wonder how long people will be arguing Terry Schiavo and Election 2000.

Pretty scarey, eh?

The "southern cause" has been revitalized by cunning right-wing politicians to make ignorant Southerns feel better about voting Republican. Or haven't you noticed that all these arguments and Civil War revisionism only really started after Nixons's "Southern Strategy"?

I hadn't realized that Nixon began his "Southern Strategy" by helping ex-CSA officers publish their memoirs in the late 19th Century. Interesting, that.

One of the main thrusts of the "Southern Strategy" has been to try to minimize the Civil War, because the ONLY reason the South was so solidly Democrat for so long was to punish the Republican Party for nominating Lincoln in 1860. Civil War references in the South today aren't a tithe of what they were prior to the 1970s. Partly this is becuase people with firsthand experiances were dying off. Partly this has been a result of the Civil Rights movement making them less acceptable in public. Partly it's been a result of trying to move beyond the war.

Know what cracks me up about this thread?

140 years after the end of the US Civil War and the abolition of slavery, people are still going on about it.

Makes you wonder how long people will be arguing Terry Schiavo and Election 2000.

Pretty scarey, eh?

Neither the 2000 Election nor the Schiavo case killed more people than the US lost in both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam combined. The death of an entire generation of young men tends to make a fairly large impression.

Neither the 2000 Election nor the Schiavo case killed more people than the US lost in both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam combined. The death of an entire generation of young men tends to make a fairly large impression.

Meh ... we should ask a USCW veteran's opinion or at least someone who bore witness to the event. Oh wait ...

I understand looking at it from a historical perspective and studying it ... but to argue its validity is the dumbest thing I've heard people doing since "New Coke". 140 years later, does it really matter who was right?

Meh ... we should ask a USCW veteran's opinion or at least someone who bore witness to the event. Oh wait ...

I understand looking at it from a historical perspective and studying it ... but to argue its validity is the dumbest thing I've heard people doing since "New Coke". 140 years later, does it really matter who was right?

Of course it does..not only does it tell you many things about American culture, but studying the validity of slavery and states rights helps one understand why the system is like it is today.

The civil war was all economic in nature, as almost all wars have been since the beginning of time. It really had nothing to do with slavery, save the north "freeing" the slaves to stand infront of the white infantry men as cannon fodder.

Well, considering the Union army was very, very reluctant to put African Americans into combat and did so in limited numbers when they finally did, I hardly think they served as cannon fodder for white northern troops. Grant removed two black units from their lead position in the assault on the crater exactly because people might have viewed it as using them as cannon fodder. In doing so he cost the Union a victory because the replacing white brigades were not trained on what to do once they were down in the crater.

To note that slavery was legal in many Northern states only two or three generations before the Civil War. Vermont was first, outlawing it in 1777, New Jersey (the last state to do so pre-war) in 1786.

I'm from Connecticut... it's not like the North had some sort of moral highground.
Odds are, the average Union Army soldier (if he was at least a second generation American) knew an old/freed slave or someone whom had owned slaves. Kind of the same way if you think about it, you probably know somebody right now that owns something rare like a classic car or a tube radio or something.

While slavery in the North wasn't COMMON, it wasn't unheard of, either.

i think they did feel they had the moral high ground for the very reason that they had outlawed slavery. that it was only really because it didnt make good economic sense in the north probably didnt occur to them.

ive read accounts of northerners who visited the families of their southern college classmates who were shocked to see what the reality of slavery really was. they found it creepy and didnt envy their friends for having slaves.

I do agree that the Stars and Bars isn't racist...Though at times it's used for subversive purposes.
A xerox can be used for subversive purposes too.

All right here are the rules, we are discussing the American civil war, I'm a southerner, do your worst, if you make a claim, be ready to back it up, all unsubstantiated claims will be ignored, lets get it on.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.

How to anger the uninformed. Explain to them:

1. The confederate battle flag is a symbol. It began as symbol of treason and opposition to the duly formed constitutional government of our Republic. It was resurrected as a symbol of white supremacy. That the flag also symbolizes other things to some people is largely irrelevant. I can claim the Nazi flag is, to me, a symbol of cherry cheescake and gumdrops. Doesn't make it so. And doesn't change the history of the symbol.

2. The Civil War was not about only slavery. Disputes over the institution of slavery and related issues were pre-eminent, however, in the causes of the war. And the ending of the war brought about the end of slavery. If the War was unrelated to slavery, why was it immediately followed by the 13th Amendment? Hmmm?

3. The south was right about what? Treason? The right to own others as property? White supremacy? The beauty of magnolias? The superiority of sweet tea as a beverage? You need to be a tad more specific about your inanity.

How to anger the uninformed. Explain to them:

1. The confederate battle flag is a symbol. It began as symbol of treason and opposition to the duly formed constitutional government of our Republic. It was resurrected as a symbol of white supremacy. That the flag also symbolizes other things to some people is largely irrelevant. I can claim the Nazi flag is, to me, a symbol of cherry cheescake and gumdrops. Doesn't make it so. And doesn't change the history of the symbol.

2. The Civil War was not about only slavery. Disputes over the institution of slavery and related issues were pre-eminent, however, in the causes of the war. And the ending of the war brought about the end of slavery. If the War was unrelated to slavery, why was it immediately followed by the 13th Amendment? Hmmm?

3. The south was right about what? Treason? The right to own others as property? White supremacy? The beauty of magnolias? The superiority of sweet tea as a beverage? You need to be a tad more specific about your inanity.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8667441&postcount=3

GET OUT OF MY HEAD! :D

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8667441&postcount=3

GET OUT OF MY HEAD! :D

*shudders*

Then you have no idea or concept about our history. The war was not about slavery. It was about states rights and economics. Slavery was a part of the economics. I'm not saying slavery was right, it was not, but it was not the major issue in the causes of the war.

P.S. What you said is what any close minded individual needs to know. Please do not ignor the historical facts.

You need to learn to comprehend what you read before you start criticising anybody else's education. Where did I write that the war was solely about slavery? And was incorrect in saying that the anti-slavery side won?

Really, get a grip. Your little civil war is one of the more uninteresting parts of human history, and the only thing that makes it stand out is the fact that it took that war for you to abolish slavery, something most countries had done a considerable time before that. The petty, and oh so trivial "states rights" issues, are neither original nor in any sense particularly pertinent for non-USians.

Wrong on all counts. Due to the supremacy clause in the Constitution, the South had no legal right to secede. They also attacked a federal fort, in doing so declaring war on the federal government. Thus, they committed treason. By the law of the U.S., they should have been executed, but Lincoln was generous and spared the leaders.


Wrong you are sir, the constitution has supremacy to a point, but the constitution wasn't even the root of the issue, the FEDERAL laws were the issue, the constitution was the backing the confederacy needed to secede, the states of the confecderacy wanted the right of self determination, the north wanted abolition, that was not the issue, the issue was the same as abortion, the right to choose what you do, as a person I despise the klan and all they stand for, but I also despise the yankees who try to twist and destroy my family history. The civil war as we know it is revisionist history, and presents very little truth except for the union victories and the supposed southern aggression, the civil war was a disagreement of principle and belief that was driven to combat by the northern blockade of southern ports, not southern zest for killing or hatred of the north, it was an act of economic necessity, the south was better off without war, all they had to do was not lose, the north had to truly win and crush the "rebels". support coming later.

9th (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people). And the last part of the 10th ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved..to the people. Also the 5th ("No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property...") and the 4th ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated")


In all honesty, that interpretation of the ninth ammendment requires the ammendments that freed the slaves and supposedly ended discrimination to work, in the time of the war slaves weren't people, it's not pretty but it's true, none of those had any bearing on slaves as unfortunate as that may be, the fact is back the they were property, not people and were not afforded the same rights as people, therefore your argument is moot.

...but the constitution wasn't even the root of the issue, the FEDERAL laws were the issue...
The civil war as we know it is revisionist history, and presents very little truth except for the union victories and the supposed southern aggression, the civil war was a disagreement of principle and belief that was driven to combat by the northern blockade of southern ports...

Please show where the Constitution says states can leave if they want. Barring that, please point out the Supreme Court case where the Court interpreted the Constitution as saying that the right to secede. Federal laws fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution; had the South wanted to they could have worked through governmental channels or even amended the Constitution to get what they wanted, or at least some of it.

For some reason, I was under the impression that cannon balls were hitting Fort Sumpter before Northern ships were sinking Southern merchantmen.

and several days ago i rented this movie from video easy, dont know if it exsists in america. but it was about a bunch of black guys who fought for the dudes in blue, dont know there names but the movie was called "Glory" can someone plz explain the civil war to me as i know nothing on the topic, but the again, no one from australia does, arr but u dont know about the eureka stockade do u, see u dont know about it and i dont know about the american civil war


The 54th massachusetts infantry regiment, they were led by colonel Robert Gould Shaw who died in their heroic charge on fort wagner under the guns of the fort and the ships in the harbor, their commander fought to the parapets of the fort and killed a gun crew, he was then shot and his body fell into the fort one company made it in after him, they fought around his corpse for hours finally being brought down by sheer weight of numbers, when his family requested the return of his body the bastard in charge of the fort replied that "We have buried him with his niggers" when the fort was finally captured his father told them to leave him with the men who had fought and died for him, he and they were true heroes, to both the north and the south, there is a book and the movie the book is titled undying glory and is one of the most moving pieces of literature I have ever read. I salute the men of massachusetts and all the others who died on the parapets of fort wagner and the killing fields of morris island in charleston harbor.

Please show where the Constitution says states can leave if they want. Barring that, please point out the Supreme Court case where the Court interpreted the Constitution as saying that the right to secede. Federal laws fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution; had the South wanted to they could have worked through governmental channels or even amended the Constitution to get what they wanted, or at least some of it.

For some reason, I was under the impression that cannon balls were hitting Fort Sumpter before Northern ships were sinking Southern merchantmen.


All right I've temporarily misplaced the book but if I remember right the blockade was declared at least a full week before the attack on sumpter, the book is called "strange and fascinating facts about the civil war", that is one of the stranger facts, but the declaration of blockade, if I recall correctly was sometime in may of 1861 and the attack was not until june so they were already feeling the strain. The supreme court Decision that said state laws can cancel out federal ones, again don't remember the case name, but I do know that if the state legislature were to pass a law that allowed them to secede from the union that law would be clompletely and totally valid, were they to act on such a law they would be well within their rights to do so.

Wrong you are sir, the constitution has supremacy to a point, but the constitution wasn't even the root of the issue, the FEDERAL laws were the issue, the constitution was the backing the confederacy needed to secede, the states of the confecderacy wanted the right of self determination, the north wanted abolition, that was not the issue, the issue was the same as abortion, the right to choose what you do, as a person I despise the klan and all they stand for, but I also despise the yankees who try to twist and destroy my family history. The civil war as we know it is revisionist history, and presents very little truth except for the union victories and the supposed southern aggression, the civil war was a disagreement of principle and belief that was driven to combat by the northern blockade of southern ports, not southern zest for killing or hatred of the north, it was an act of economic necessity, the south was better off without war, all they had to do was not lose, the north had to truly win and crush the "rebels". support coming later.

First, could you please try to make your posts a little more legible?

Second, I have Confederate ancestors. I see no need to be be proud of their actions or their beliefs. I have other ancestors that were Indian hunters. Their actions were despicable. Why do you feel the need to belittle the evil of slavery to feel better about yourself?

Admit it. Slavery was wrong. Very, very wrong.

The institution of slavery was wrong. Very, very wrong.

The institution of slavery was a major cause of the war. To dress it up as "an economic issue" or "state's rights" is mendacity.

There was nothing honorable or just about fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.

Individual actions of Confederates may have been honorable and praiseworthy. Their cause was not.

The American civil war took place in America and the anti-slavery guys won.

That's all I know. That's all anybody non-USian needs to know.

The anti-slavery guys? Is that what the American Civil war was about? Or was it about creating a centralized system of government and proving that states no longer had the right of secession if they didn't like it? If it was really about ending slavery, why was a war even necessary? Why couldn't they have done what the rest of the world did in the 19th century and end slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation?

Let's rewrite the scenario of the Civil War to modern politics and see whether we can understand the conflict a little better. Let's see...first we need a divisive political theory that seems to be tearing our country apart...I know! Gay Marriage!
Now, the South wants to keep its right to deny homosexuals the rights and privileges of matrimony. Northern states are concerned because some of them have allowed gay marriage, and according to federal law, marriage in one state must be respected in another. The South, realizing it won't be able to keep its rights under federal law (if Massachusetts couples move to Georgia, for example), and after much discussion, resolve to secede.
Now, you can look at this scenario as a "State's Rights" issue, or you can look at it as a "Gay Rights" issue. In either case, the South chooses to deny rights of individuals in favor of rights of the State. And what's that called, class? That's right! Authoritarianism!
The Civil War was about Southern States' fight to allow their citizens to own people. To claim it's "about States' Rights" is correct, but to claim it's "not about slavery" is just plain stupidity.

Oh, and the Confederate flag, though once a symbol of rebellion, has been so abused by white supremacist groups as to take a racist meaning. Sorry guys, the stars and bars are a racist symbol.


Ah Ha, but state laws can trump federal laws, Virginia did exactly that and does not recognize gay marraiges or civil unions, in much the same manner the civil war was not about slavery until Lincoln got desperate and needed some sort of moral high ground, the reason he needed it was that europe was considering declaring for the confederates and that would have guaranteed a confederate victory, the people who say that we must recognise gay marraiges are trying to claim a moral high ground.

The truth of the matter is that the confederate battle flag is not the one used by the klan or any other racist organisation, the confederate battle flag was a square of dimensions varying from between 8x8 to 36x36, but always a square, the klans flag is rectangular, it may seem like flimsy reasoning, but were you to make a square american flag it would not be an american flag, but instead a square with 13 lines a blue patch and fifty stars, and thatsall it would be.

First, could you please try to make your posts a little more legible?

Second, I have Confederate ancestors. I see no need to be be proud of their actions or their beliefs. I have other ancestors that were Indian hunters. Their actions were despicable. Why do you feel the need to belittle the evil of slavery to feel better about yourself?

Admit it. Slavery was wrong. Very, very wrong.

The institution of slavery was wrong. Very, very wrong.

The institution of slavery was a major cause of the war. To dress it up as "an economic issue" or "state's rights" is mendacity.

There was nothing honorable or just about fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.

Individual actions of Confederates may have been honorable and praiseworthy. Their cause was not.


You fucking dumbass, I have said that I despise the klan, I'm against slavery, the war was not about slavery, get it through your head it was about CHOICE choice you hear me, not slavery.

All right I've temporarily misplaced the book but if I remember right the blockade was declared at least a full week before the attack on sumpter, the book is called "strange and fascinating facts about the civil war", that is one of the stranger facts, but the declaration of blockade, if I recall correctly was sometime in may of 1861 and the attack was not until june so they were already feeling the strain. The supreme court Decision that said state laws can cancel out federal ones, again don't remember the case name, but I do know that if the state legislature were to pass a law that allowed them to secede from the union that law would be clompletely and totally valid, were they to act on such a law they would be well within their rights to do so.

There is no such Supreme Court decision.

For someone who claimed to be correcting the ignorant, you appear to have an appalling lack of knowledge about the issues you raised.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI (emphasis added):

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Among the many cases starting at the very founding of our Republic that explain the supremacy of federal law is Gibbons v. Ogden (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/22/1.html ), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 210 -211 (1824):

In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers.

But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act, law inconsistent with the constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the constitution is the supreme The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State Legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but, though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.

You fucking dumbass, I have said that I despise the klan, I'm against slavery, the war was not about slavery, get it through your head it was about CHOICE choice you hear me, not slavery.

The war wasn't about slavery in the sense that it was a war fought to end/preserve slavery, but slavery did play a considerable part in the debate over states' rights which led to the war. Keeping slavery legal in the South was a choice that Southerners felt was being violated, so therefore the war was concerned with, but not focused on slavery.

You fucking dumbass, I have said that I despise the klan, I'm against slavery, the war was not about slavery, get it through your head it was about CHOICE choice you hear me, not slavery.

Flaming hardly makes you right. It just shows your inability to defend your position.

To say the war was about "choice" is disingenuous, unless you admit it was to protect the "choice" to own slaves.

Ah Ha, but state laws can trump federal laws, Virginia did exactly that and does not recognize gay marraiges or civil unions, in much the same manner the civil war was not about slavery until Lincoln got desperate and needed some sort of moral high ground, the reason he needed it was that europe was considering declaring for the confederates and that would have guaranteed a confederate victory, the people who say that we must recognise gay marraiges are trying to claim a moral high ground.

Your understanding of the relevant history is either appallingly ignorant or deceptively selective.

Have you heard of the Missouri Compromise?

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. (60 US) 393 (1857)?

And, as I have explained, your understanding of federal supremacy is ass-backward.

The truth of the matter is that the confederate battle flag is not the one used by the klan or any other racist organisation, the confederate battle flag was a square of dimensions varying from between 8x8 to 36x36, but always a square, the klans flag is rectangular, it may seem like flimsy reasoning, but were you to make a square american flag it would not be an american flag, but instead a square with 13 lines a blue patch and fifty stars, and thatsall it would be.

You are right. That is flimsy reasoning.

Tell me, Cat-Tribe, what is it like to anger the uninformed? I hope it feels as sweet and delicious as it looks.

Tell me, Cat-Tribe, what is it like to anger the uninformed? I hope it feels as sweet and delicious as it looks.


It's almost as good as Puppy Juice! ;)

There is no such Supreme Court decision.

For someone who claimed to be correcting the ignorant, you appear to have an appalling lack of knowledge about the issues you raised.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI (emphasis added):

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Among the many cases starting at the very founding of our Republic that explain the supremacy of federal law is Gibbons v. Ogden (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/22/1.html ), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 210 -211 (1824):

In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers.

But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act, law inconsistent with the constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the constitution is the supreme The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State Legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but, though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.


Tenth ammendment, the right of the states to all of the rights not contained in the constitution, its a wonderful thing, you see the tenth ammendment allowed the states to do things not stated in the constitution, therefore since the sates were not barred from seceding by any law or ammendment of the constitution they had the right to do so, I know of the supreme court case because of VA's marraige recognition laws, specifically that we don't recognise marraiges or civil unions to members of the same sex, the Federal law requires recognition of other states marraiges, but we don't why could that be, its because undr certain circumstances state law can trump federal law.

Your understanding of the relevant history is either appallingly ignorant or deceptively selective.

Have you heard of the Missouri Compromise?

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. (60 US) 393 (1857)?

And, as I have explained, your understanding of federal supremacy is ass-backward.



You are right. That is flimsy reasoning.


The history relevant to my statement is that Ebgland was already the largest supplier of guns to the CSA and france was considering supporting the confederates before Lincoln claimed the moral high ground with the most ineffective executive order in the history of america, the emancipation proclamation which freed exactly 0 slaves.

As for federal supremacy, I'll post the relevant points all at once for all of my posts so that'll be around five or six eastern time, until then you'll have to wait.

My reasoning may be flimsy but it is FACT and that makes it much more important than the emotional response triggered by the klan and their various affiliates. The fact is that the battle flag was square, between 8x8 and 36x36, there never was a battle flag carried into combat that was rectangular, because they didn't exist, the confederacy had absolutely 0 rectangular flags, the klan has too many and really should be dealt with(is it still murder if the person qualifies as sub-human or klan).

Speaking as a lawyer in Virginia, I can tell you that will only last until someone files a lawsuit challenging the legislation.

The U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize the valid actions of other states. A marriage recognized in one state should be entitled to recognition in other states.

In Virginia, it was not a state constitutional amendment, it was merely legislation. In some other states, there are state constitutional amendments.

None of that will matter once the matter reaches Federal court. I cannot imagine a Federal judge who would not strike down those amendments and legislation - it's strictly mechanical - they won't have any choice in the matter.

Note that this is not the Federal government saying that gay marriage is legal. It is the Federal government saying that we've all agreed to respect each other's legal agreements - one of the foundations of law and commerce. So if one state gets gay marriage, you can fight it in court, but it's like trying to stop an avalanche after the rocks have already voted.

It's almost as good as Puppy Juice! ;)


Puppy juice huh? Does it taste as bad as it smells?

I might add that the first step in the gay marriage court fight would be tossing out the Defense of Marriage Act (or Marriage Protection Act), which is unconstitutional.

I don't think there's any general 'right to live freely' in the constitution. If you can point it out, please do so.

Note: I mean when the states started seceding.


Eh hmmm LIFE, LIBERTY and the persuit of happyness... I realy do think the right to live free is somewhere in there

Speaking as a lawyer in Virginia, I can tell you that will only last until someone files a lawsuit challenging the legislation.

The U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize the valid actions of other states. A marriage recognized in one state should be entitled to recognition in other states.

In Virginia, it was not a state constitutional amendment, it was merely legislation. In some other states, there are state constitutional amendments.

None of that will matter once the matter reaches Federal court. I cannot imagine a Federal judge who would not strike down those amendments and legislation - it's strictly mechanical - they won't have any choice in the matter.

Note that this is not the Federal government saying that gay marriage is legal. It is the Federal government saying that we've all agreed to respect each other's legal agreements - one of the foundations of law and commerce. So if one state gets gay marriage, you can fight it in court, but it's like trying to stop an avalanche after the rocks have already voted.

Won't they? The point is that Virginia isn't (going into pain in the ass mode here) technically a state but instead a commonwealth, as such the laws that require state cooperation do not apply. Now for the serious version of my belief. The point is that the Supreme court can't judge either way without making a position on an issue that they should avoid because of the seperation of powers, if the court supports either side it opens the floodgates, on either extreme, on a different tactic the court could rule against both parties on grounds of church and state by saying that VA has to recognise the marraige and declaring the marraiges void by declaring the law unconstitutional, its not likely to happen with the pansies on the bench right now, but we can hope that their sense of responsibility leads them to the correct conclusion, anyways this is all off topic, back to the civil war.

Eh hmmm LIFE, LIBERTY and the persuit of happyness... I realy do think the right to live free is somewhere in there

Declaration of Independence, it has no force of law.

Won't they? The point is that Virginia isn't (going into pain in the ass mode here) technically a state but instead a commonwealth, as such the laws that require state cooperation do not apply. Now for the serious version of my belief. The point is that the Supreme court can't judge either way without making a position on an issue that they should avoid because of the seperation of powers, if the court supports either side it opens the floodgates, on either extreme, on a different tactic the court could rule against both parties on grounds of church and state by saying that VA has to recognise the marraige and declaring the marraiges void by declaring the law unconstitutional, its not likely to happen with the pansies on the bench right now, but we can hope that their sense of responsibility leads them to the correct conclusion, anyways this is all off topic, back to the civil war.

It's called The State Of Virginia for a reason. They already tried to secede once, and it didn't work.

Tenth ammendment, the right of the states to all of the rights not contained in the constitution, its a wonderful thing, you see the tenth ammendment allowed the states to do things not stated in the constitution, therefore since the sates were not barred from seceding by any law or ammendment of the constitution they had the right to do so,

Boy, that dog won't hunt.

The Tenth Amendment states merely:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is a mere truism. That not delegated or prohibited is reserved. ''From the beginning and for many years the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.'' United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).

It changes neither Article VI of the Constitution or the outcome of Gibbons. The Constitution direct contradicts your position, as does the decisions of the Supreme Court.

But, to futher explain Consitutional Law 101:

McCulloch v. Maryland (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/17/316.html ), 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (emphasis added):

In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument, not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.' This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states-and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.

From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is 'ordained and established,' in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.' The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied, in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.

It has been said, that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the state sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But, surely, the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to government, does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the general government be doubted, had it been created by the states. The powers delegated to the state sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty, created by themselves. To the formation of a league, such as was the confederation, the state sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, 'in order to form a more perfect union,' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all. The government of the Union, then ( whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.
...

If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this-that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason: the people have, in express terms, decided it, by saying, 'this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,' 'shall be the supreme law of the land,' and by requiring that the members of the state legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the states, shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, 'anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.'

Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;' thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably omitted it, to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would, probably, never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the 9th section of the 1st article, introduced? It is also, in some degree, warranted, by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.

....

I know of the supreme court case because of VA's marraige recognition laws, specifically that we don't recognise marraiges or civil unions to members of the same sex, the Federal law requires recognition of other states marraiges, but we don't why could that be, its because undr certain circumstances state law can trump federal law.

I'd love for you to find that alleged case. That should keep you busy.

Actually, the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV) is what requires marriages in one state to be recognized in another. But there are exceptions.

Moreover, you have the status of federal wrong backward (like you have most things backwards). The Defense of Marriage Act specifically allows states to decide for themselves whether to recognize same-sex unions.

Puppy juice huh? Does it taste as bad as it smells?

Wow, misguided again. ;)

Not puppy waste. Juice made from fresh, organic puppies - like carrot juice. :D

I remember reading once that one side named battles after the closes body of water, and the other named it... after something else? Towns? I can't remember who got to name it, but it was probably whoever won the battle. I read it in 'Tietam Brown', but otherwise, it is a war that does not interest me because it was not fought in the ancient days and it was not fought by the English or any country which makes me go 'Oooooh'. Yeah, I respect America, but it does not really interest me that much.

PS: If you could clear it up for me, I'd be happy. I'll probably remember it second time around too.
The Southerners named it from the town names, the North named it from nearby bodies of water (I think...if thats wrong than my American History teacher was wrong)

Working on finding the case, post again around 5 eastern

Actually, the war had nothing to do about slavery. Up North the slaves worked in industry, etc., the South primarily agriculture, even Lincoln himself was not opposed to slavery, if ya check your homework. It all had to do with the North wanting to annex the South, and the South wouldn't do it. Now we are one big United States, and idiots have continued to run our country and serve their self-interest ever since. My flights leaving, later! :fluffle:

Wow, misguided again. ;)

Not puppy waste. Juice made from fresh, organic puppies - like carrot juice. :D


Once again, Puppy juice huh? Does it taste as bad as it smells?

Actually, the war had nothing to do about slavery. Up North the slaves worked in industry, etc., the South primarily agriculture, even Lincoln himself was not opposed to slavery, if ya check your homework. It all had to do with the North wanting to annex the South, and the South wouldn't do it. Now we are one big United States, and idiots have continued to run our country and serve their self-interest ever since. My flights leaving, later! :fluffle:

Among the many flaws in your post is that the South was already part of the United States and didn't need to be annexed. :rolleyes:

The anti-slavery guys? Is that what the American Civil war was about? Or was it about creating a centralized system of government and proving that states no longer had the right of secession if they didn't like it? If it was really about ending slavery, why was a war even necessary? Why couldn't they have done what the rest of the world did in the 19th century and end slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation?
it went to war because the guys with the slaves started it. they are the ones who decided that then was the time to make a stand and secede. they seceded for slavery. not for some stupid test of whether or not it was OK to secede.

Among the many flaws in your post is that the South was already part of the United States and didn't need to be annexed. :rolleyes:

Post secession it would have been necessary, but I think he means that they wanted to make the south another north, with industrialization and the vaarious other things the north was known for.

it went to war because the guys with the slaves started it. they are the ones who decided that then was the time to make a stand and secede. they seceded for slavery. not for some stupid test of whether or not it was OK to secede.

They fired first but the north started the war by blockading southern ports.

They fired first but the north started the war by blockading southern ports.
Where?

Where?

All of the ports in the states that hadd seceded were blockaded along with Va prior to their secession, the fighting started at fort sumpter with the confederate navy firing on the fort to allow merchant ships to get out and bring in more supplies for the beleagured city, the north had even given the confederates validity as a nation by blockading the ports instead of simply declaring them closed.

Working on finding the case, post again around 5 eastern

Any luck?

Not yet, I'm busy on II and a couple other sites\threads, but I did find one case in support of my position, I promptly lost it about a minute later when the computer locked up.

They fired first but the north started the war by blockading southern ports.

Becuse the north was charging outrages prices for manufactured goods that the south could get from europe for less than a third of the cost. The north tried to raise import taxes but where unsuccesful. That is when the US navy Illeagaly blockaded the southern ports. The South then responded in self defence.

Also remeber that history is writen by the victor. That is why the history books say that the war was about slavery when it was not.
And also the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves! the 14th amendment did.

Becuse the north was charging outrages prices for manufactured goods that the south could get from europe for less than a third of the cost. The north tried to raise import taxes but where unsuccesful. That is when the US navy Illeagaly blockaded the southern ports. The South then responded in self defence.

Also remeber that history is writen by the victor. That is why the history books say that the war was about slavery when it was not.
And also the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves! the 14th amendment did.

Meh.

Again, there is an entire string of events that led up to the war. Primary among the causes of the war was the dispute over slavery, the economics of slavery, etc. Isolating a single point in time as the start of the war is hardly helpful.

The Emancipation Proclamation was of disputed legality and duration, but it did have the declared effect of freeing the slaves in designated states.

The Thirteenth Amendment, not the Fourteenth, abolished slavery. (Which raises the question of, if the the war had nothing to do with slavery, why were the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments passed immediately after the war?)

Meh.

Again, there is an entire string of events that led up to the war. Primary among the causes of the war was the dispute over slavery, the economics of slavery, etc. Isolating a single point in time as the start of the war is hardly helpful.

The Emancipation Proclamation was of disputed legality and duration, but it did have the declared effect of freeing the slaves in designated states.

The Thirteenth Amendment, not the Fourteenth, abolished slavery. (Which raises the question of, if the the war had nothing to do with slavery, why were the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments passed immediately after the war?)

The states of the confederacy were not in rebellion,but instead a seperate nation, the act of blockading, instead of closing their ports gave them legitimacy as a nation, that means they weren't under the law of the union and were exempt from the emancipation proclamation.

The states of the confederacy were not in rebellion,but instead a seperate nation, the act of blockading, instead of closing their ports gave them legitimacy as a nation, that means they weren't under the law of the union and were exempt from the emancipation proclamation.

Begs the question of the legitimacy of the rebellion and the Confederacy.

Blockades in no way gave legitimacy to the Confederacy. That simply doesn't follow.

Still waiting on that case ... any case ....

Begs the question of the legitimacy of the rebellion and the Confederacy.

Blockades in no way gave legitimacy to the Confederacy. That simply doesn't follow.

Still waiting on that case ... any case ....


Blocades are a military act, they are done against other nations, you close friendly ports or those of a rebellious province. thats all for today, I'll give you the case tomorrow.

As a civil war buff (retired) I have been watching this thread with interest. It is a heck of a lot better than the usual political rant crap threads.
I was part of a civil war buff minority, pro-Union. I'd say at least 75% of buffs are Rebs at heart. It has something to do with the romantic notion of the lost cause I think. They generally gloss over any Confederate wrongs and blather on about legitimacy and state's rights. I've always got a laugh out of the pro-rebs who talk about how slavery really wasn't so bad. (Admittedly they are a minority of rebs but I have met them on several occasions) I would think, if you were one of the slaves, would you be so "open minded" as to know that you life wasn't so bad?
It was always quite simply for me.
The south wanted states rights in order to preserve slavery. Yes, yes the north was begining to economically dominate. . .but rather than attempt to compete in a healthy manner with the north ,the south threw a fit like a child and tried to take its toys and leave.
Fortunately the Union had the strength to perserver three and a half years of idiot commanders and finally crush the Confederacy. I feel no pity and no kinship for the south. They cost us 600,000 US lives with their succesh.
And that's is what it really boils down to for me, 600,000 dead for a piss poor cause.

and several days ago i rented this movie from video easy, dont know if it exsists in america. but it was about a bunch of black guys who fought for the dudes in blue, dont know there names but the movie was called "Glory" can someone plz explain the civil war to me as i know nothing on the topic, but the again, no one from australia does, arr but u dont know about the eureka stockade do u, see u dont know about it and i dont know about the american civil war

In this limited forum, no one can explain the American Civil War. The issues were very complicated; slavery was not the major issue, as some would have you believe.

P.S. As you are from Australia, I presume English is your first language. It would make your posts easier to read if you used capitalization, better spelling instead of abbreviations, and punctuation. Just a suggestion. If I have trouble reading it, just imagine how much trouble people who have English as a second language have understanding what you are trying to say.

In this limited forum, no one can explain the American Civil War. The issues were very complicated; slavery was not the major issue, as some would have you believe.

Slavery was the major issue. You are simply wrong.

It's a loaded question. Which right?


I'd like you to say it. I know the answer.

No, it is not a loaded question. If you know the answer, post it.

Slavery was the major issue. You are simply wrong.

Amen, although other issues influenced things, slavery was the underlying basis for most disagreements. If there had been no slavery in the south, there would have been no civil war.

The war was about economics, yes, among other things -- it was not about state's rights, though, any more than it was specifically about slavery. I find it funny that people who claim to be "setting the record straight" by showing that slavery as a cause was just a convenient cover for the Northern agenda completely ignore the fact that "state's rights" was, itself, just a cover for the Southern agenda.

The civil war was a power struggle between two blocs of states with increasingly divergent economic systems (one based on SLAVERY, the other on industrialization and wage labor), both of whose elites believed the key to their political and economic future lay in disputed western territories. The civil war represented the breakdown of the purely political struggle.

I bolded "slavery" not to make a moral point, but to point out the idiocy of claiming that the civil war could be about economics without also being about slavery. It was about slavery, just as it was about wage labor, just as it was about the political power.

It was not about "state's rights." Face it: in November of 1860 there was no specific or implied threat to the right of any state, northern or southern. Lincoln wanted to prevent slavery spreading to territories beyond the slave states, not interfere with the South itself; thus there was no threat to their "rights", but to their political power, which is hardly unacceptable in a democracy.

The only thing that happened in that month was that a man with a take on national issues that was decidedly Northern in outlook and interests was rightfully elected president under the mechanisms prescribed by the United States constitution, itself ratified by every state, North and South. This sort of thing had happened several times in the past, often with southerners reaping the biggest rewards.

But rather do what every losing side in a functioning democracy must do -- accept the valid results of a legal election and work to reestablish your side the next time 'round -- a group of elite extremists in the southern states decided that they could up and take by force what they had failed to take via political means. Secession violated the rights of every man of every state who voted in 1860.

Lastly -- the confederate battle flag is no less racist a symbol than the swastika. It hardly matters that some southerners consider it a part of their "heritage." A man's heritage can still be wrong.

So this is the reviosionist history they are teaching in America.

Amen, although other issues influenced things, slavery was the underlying basis for most disagreements. If there had been no slavery in the south, there would have been no civil war.

There would not have been a South if there wasn't slavery, at least not an agricultural cash crop society. Indentured servitude would have been as far as it went, and that was much more expensive than slavery, so in fact the entire history of the US would have been different.

There would not have been a South if there wasn't slavery, at least not an agricultural cash crop society. Indentured servitude would have been as far as it went, and that was much more expensive than slavery, so in fact the entire history of the US would have been different.

yeah. . .umm, are you disagreeing with me, agreeing with me or neither? In fact I am not sure how to respond to this. Help me out here, perty please. . . :)

No, it is not a loaded question. If you know the answer, post it.
Right to own slaves. That's about it.


No state has the right to allow the right to enslave another human being. Your 'states' right' does not exist.

yeah. . .umm, are you disagreeing with me, agreeing with me or neither? In fact I am not sure how to respond to this. Help me out here, perty please. . . :)

Agreeing. :)

Sorry, started to diverge. I just was thinking about the effects on the South would be if slavery had never occured, and went back further. In fact, the entire economy of the colonies would have been a lot different because of the colossal shift in the trade pattern. African coloniztion would have been useless and on and on. I wish I had more time and room...

Agreeing. :)

Sorry, started to diverge. I just was thinking about the effects on the South would be if slavery had never occured, and went back further. In fact, the entire economy of the colonies would have been a lot different because of the colossal shift in the trade pattern. African coloniztion would have been useless and on and on. I wish I had more time and room...

Okie doke. :)
But if there had been no slavery then Liberia would have never existed! Think of the poor Liberians, where would they live?
I am shocked I haven't been hit by some pro-rebs. They usually rally round the stars n bars quickly.

I do know this about the Civil War: most of the battles in which the Union used black regiments ended in defeat. Why? Because when the southerners found out they would be fighting blacks, it infuriorated them. The Confederacy did not take black prisoners.

The most pointed example of this was the Battle of the Crater at Petersburg Virginia, in which 4200 blacks from the Union's 4th Colored Division took part. The Confederates got riled up when they learned that freed slaves were attacking them. The Confederate counterattack, led by Carolinians and Virginians, routed the Union troops after they had gained only 150 yards.

Eyewitness accounts tell of no less than four separate massacres of black prisoners. George Bernard of the 12th Virginia noted:
"...A minute later I witnessed another deed which made my blood run cold. Just about the outer end of the ditch by which I had entered stood a negro soldier, a non-commissioned officer (I noticed distinctly his chevrons) begging for his life of two Confederate soldiers who stood by him, one of them striking the poor wretch with a steel ramrod, the other holding a gun in his hand, with which he seemed to be trying to get a shot at the negro. The man with the gun fired at the negro, but did not seem to seriously injure him, as he only clapped his hand to his hip, when he appeared to have been shot, and continued to beg for his life. The man with the ramrod continued to strike the negro therewith, whilst the fellow with the gun deliberately reloaded it, and, placing its muzzle close against the stomach of the poor negro, fired, at which the latter fell limp and lifeless at the feet of the two Confederates. It was a brutal, horrible act, and those of us who witnessed it from our position in the trench a few feet away could but claim: That is too bad! It is shocking!
Yet this, I have no doubt from what I saw and afterwards heard, was but a sample of many other bloody tragedies during the first 10 minutes after our men got into the trench, many of whom seemed infuriated at the idea of having to fight negroes.
Within 10 minutes the whole floor of the trench was strewn with the dead bodies of negroes, in some places in such numbers that it was difficult to make one's way along the trench without stepping upon them."

All four massacres occurred between 10:00 that morning and noontime. As to the weeding out of black from white prisoner, Colonel Pegram wrote:"I think over two hundred negroes got into our lines, by surrendering and running in, along with the whites, while the fighting was going on. I don't believe that much over half of these ever reached the rear. You could see them lying dead all along the route to the rear. There were hardly less than six hundred dead--four hundred of whom were negroes. As soon as we got upon them, they threw down their arms in surrender, but were not allowed to do so. Every bomb proof I saw, had one or two dead negroes in it, who had skulked out the fight & been found & killed by our men. This was perfectly right, as a matter of policy."

A soldier from the 49th North Carolina described the method by which blacks were systematically weeded from their white compatriots:"They rushed up to the works which we [sic] alive with Yankees both white and black. They halted on the brink and fired one volley into the surging mass, and then turned the butts of their guns and jumped in among them. How the negro's skulls cracked under the blows. Some of them run over on our side and started for the rear, while others made a dash for their own lines, and a great many of them made their escape. I, boy like, ran up the line to see them. When I got there they had the ground covered with broken headed negroes and were searching about among the bomb proofs for more, the officers were trying to stop them but they kept on until they finished up."


Wait, what was that? The Civil War wasn't about race or slavery? :confused: I think most people would have a pretty hard time believing that one.

So I say the confederate battle flag is not offensive or racist, the civil war was not about slavery, and the south was right, lets see what you have to say.
If you're looking from the east towards the west, the south is left :D
Let's see you argue against that!

If you're looking from the east towards the west, the south is left :D
Let's see you argue against that!

Okay.

Let's say I'm in Brazil. And still talking about the south in reference to the former Confederacy.

Okay.

Let's say I'm in Brazil. And still talking about the south in reference to the former Confederacy.
Then the south would be north. So you'd be saying the north is right.

This thread and every topic on this subject still makes me giggle.

Poster: The South was wrong!
Response: REVISIONIST!

Poster: The South was right!
Response: RACIST!

What shall we argue next? How about the Crimean War? It's a good Muslim vs. Christian war that has absolutely no basis in current reality. Who wants to argue that the Ottoman Empire should be abolished? Choose up sides!

Okay.

Let's say I'm in Brazil. And still talking about the south in reference to the former Confederacy.

Interestingly, there was quite a bit of emigration from the CSA to Brazil.
http://patsabin.com/lowcountry/confederados.htm

...and their decendents still celebrate Dixie heritage at a festival every year.

it went to war because the guys with the slaves started it. they are the ones who decided that then was the time to make a stand and secede. they seceded for slavery. not for some stupid test of whether or not it was OK to secede.

They weren't trying to secede just for the heck of it, and it wasn't completely over the slavery issue. Lincoln wanted the Federal government to have more power over the states than what it was originally intended to have and the Southern states rebelled. Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the slaves. His idea of ending slavery was to send all blacks back to their so-called "homeland" in Liberia. He also considered other locations, as long as they were all outside of the United States, of course. The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move on his part to end slavery only in the "rebel states" which were outside of his reach. He hoped to cause a slave revolt in those states while the men were busy fighting the war, but it was otherwise pointless.

The reasons the Northern states wanted to end slavery were mainly economic, because the white man couldn't really compete in the job market as long as slavery existed. Except for the Abolitionists (which group accounted for about 1% of the Northern population), the Northern states didn't care about the blacks either. After the Emancipation Proclamation, many Northerners became draft evaders, because that wasn't the reason they were originally given for fighting the war in the first place. They hated the blacks at least as much as anyone, and certainly didn't want to die fighting for them.

No, the Civil War was not about any altruistic anti-slavery/pro-human rights sentiments on the part of the Northerners, as your elementary school teachers would have you think - as comforting as it might be to believe that. It was all about money and power - as usual.

I'd love for you to find that alleged case. That should keep you busy.

Actually, the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV) is what requires marriages in one state to be recognized in another. But there are exceptions.

Moreover, you have the status of federal wrong backward (like you have most things backwards). The Defense of Marriage Act specifically allows states to decide for themselves whether to recognize same-sex unions.

The Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional. I don't believe it would survive a real challenge.

They weren't trying to secede just for the heck of it, and it wasn't completely over the slavery issue. Lincoln wanted the Federal government to have more power over the states than what it was originally intended to have and the Southern states rebelled. Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the slaves. His idea of ending slavery was to send all blacks back to their so-called "homeland" in Liberia. He also considered other locations, as long as they were all outside of the United States, of course. The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move on his part to end slavery only in the "rebel states" which were outside of his reach. He hoped to cause a slave revolt in those states while the men were busy fighting the war, but it was otherwise pointless.

The reasons the Northern states wanted to end slavery were mainly economic, because the white man couldn't really compete in the job market as long as slavery existed. Except for the Abolitionists (which group accounted for about 1% of the Northern population), the Northern states didn't care about the blacks either. After the Emancipation Proclamation, many Northerners became draft evaders, because that wasn't the reason they were originally given for fighting the war in the first place. They hated the blacks at least as much as anyone, and certainly didn't want to die fighting for them.

No, the Civil War was not about any altruistic anti-slavery/pro-human rights sentiments on the part of the Northerners, as your elementary school teachers would have you think - as comforting as it might be to believe that. It was all about money and power - as usual.
oh im not disagreeing wtih anything you said above

the north had many many abolitionists for whom the issue was totally slavery but that wasnt the average northerner. the average notherner found slavery distasteful but not enough to go to war over it. not enough to START a war over it. just enough to feel good about the war that they were dragged into by national politics.

for the average "soldier on the street" the war was about supporting what you saw as your duty to your people. southerners were extremely identified with their states, which is the reason lee gave for joining the confederacy. they fought because virginia, georgia, north carolina etc was at war and it was their job to fight. the average southern soldier didnt own slaves and didnt have much hope of ever owning slaves should the south prevail.

the southerners in power DID own slaves and for them it was very much a matter of tradition and economics. they were looking toward the future and decided that it was time to fight. they dragged the rest of the south in with them.

im very glad they lost.

The Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional. I don't believe it would survive a real challenge.

I agree completely. I raised it as evidence that the federal statute was the opposite of what Miehm asserted.

They weren't trying to secede just for the heck of it, and it wasn't completely over the slavery issue. Lincoln wanted the Federal government to have more power over the states than what it was originally intended to have and the Southern states rebelled. Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the slaves. His idea of ending slavery was to send all blacks back to their so-called "homeland" in Liberia. He also considered other locations, as long as they were all outside of the United States, of course. The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move on his part to end slavery only in the "rebel states" which were outside of his reach. He hoped to cause a slave revolt in those states while the men were busy fighting the war, but it was otherwise pointless.

The reasons the Northern states wanted to end slavery were mainly economic, because the white man couldn't really compete in the job market as long as slavery existed. Except for the Abolitionists (which group accounted for about 1% of the Northern population), the Northern states didn't care about the blacks either. After the Emancipation Proclamation, many Northerners became draft evaders, because that wasn't the reason they were originally given for fighting the war in the first place. They hated the blacks at least as much as anyone, and certainly didn't want to die fighting for them.

No, the Civil War was not about any altruistic anti-slavery/pro-human rights sentiments on the part of the Northerners, as your elementary school teachers would have you think - as comforting as it might be to believe that. It was all about money and power - as usual.

This is only partially true. Your cynicism would be accurate if it were not slanted.

Lincoln was less than enlightened on the subject of race, but that does not mean he was any less opposed to slavery. Slavery as an institution was evil, beyond its subjugation of a particular people. To say Lincoln "couldn't have cared less about the slaves" is simple revisionism. Lincoln was an outspoken opponent of slavery from the start of his political career. That he was still a racist by modern day standards is of little relevance.

Similarly, those that assert that secession was not about slavery face the slight problem that the declarations of causes of secession of those states that published such causes put slavery first and foremost among the reasons for secession. Inconvenient historical documents make re-writing history a tad more difficult.

That secession cannot be laid to any abuse of power by Lincoln is further evidence by the fact that South Carolina formed a convention for sucession in 1852 and seceeded immediately after Lincoln's election in 1860. Before Linclon was sworn in as President on March 4, 1861, seven Southern states had seceeded and had formed the Confederate States of American -- with the preservation of slavery a prominent feature in their new constitution. Little over a month later, Confederate guns opened fire on Federal troops at Fort Sumter.

The claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a cynical ploy is belied both by Lincoln's long history of opposition to slavery -- which was the primary reason his election was opposed by the South -- and by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment after the war. The Proclamation was, no doubt, largely tactical -- particularly in timing -- but that does not render it wholly so.

Issues like tariffs, banks, and land grants had proponents and opponents in both the South and the North. The preeminent division between the South and the North -- in some cases the only significant distinction between some states -- was the institution of slavery -- the ubiquitousness of which defined the South.

Southern politicians at the time were unashamed to declare the defense of slavery the primary object of secession. Preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery were declared the just causes behind the war by leading Northern politicians at that time.

Shake your little fists at history if you must. The evidence is there. Attempts to sweep the evil of slavery under the rug suceed only in tarnishing the reputation of the revisionists.

I do know this about the Civil War: most of the battles in which the Union used black regiments ended in defeat. Why? Because when the southerners found out they would be fighting blacks, it infuriorated them. The Confederacy did not take black prisoners.

The most pointed example of this was the Battle of the Crater at Petersburg Virginia, in which 4200 blacks from the Union's 4th Colored Division took part. The Confederates got riled up when they learned that freed slaves were attacking them. The Confederate counterattack, led by Carolinians and Virginians, routed the Union troops after they had gained only 150 yards.

Eyewitness accounts tell of no less than four separate massacres of black prisoners. George Bernard of the 12th Virginia noted:
"...A minute later I witnessed another deed which made my blood run cold. Just about the outer end of the ditch by which I had entered stood a negro soldier, a non-commissioned officer (I noticed distinctly his chevrons) begging for his life of two Confederate soldiers who stood by him, one of them striking the poor wretch with a steel ramrod, the other holding a gun in his hand, with which he seemed to be trying to get a shot at the negro. The man with the gun fired at the negro, but did not seem to seriously injure him, as he only clapped his hand to his hip, when he appeared to have been shot, and continued to beg for his life. The man with the ramrod continued to strike the negro therewith, whilst the fellow with the gun deliberately reloaded it, and, placing its muzzle close against the stomach of the poor negro, fired, at which the latter fell limp and lifeless at the feet of the two Confederates. It was a brutal, horrible act, and those of us who witnessed it from our position in the trench a few feet away could but claim: That is too bad! It is shocking!
Yet this, I have no doubt from what I saw and afterwards heard, was but a sample of many other bloody tragedies during the first 10 minutes after our men got into the trench, many of whom seemed infuriated at the idea of having to fight negroes.
Within 10 minutes the whole floor of the trench was strewn with the dead bodies of negroes, in some places in such numbers that it was difficult to make one's way along the trench without stepping upon them."

All four massacres occurred between 10:00 that morning and noontime. As to the weeding out of black from white prisoner, Colonel Pegram wrote:"I think over two hundred negroes got into our lines, by surrendering and running in, along with the whites, while the fighting was going on. I don't believe that much over half of these ever reached the rear. You could see them lying dead all along the route to the rear. There were hardly less than six hundred dead--four hundred of whom were negroes. As soon as we got upon them, they threw down their arms in surrender, but were not allowed to do so. Every bomb proof I saw, had one or two dead negroes in it, who had skulked out the fight & been found & killed by our men. This was perfectly right, as a matter of policy."

A soldier from the 49th North Carolina described the method by which blacks were systematically weeded from their white compatriots:"They rushed up to the works which we [sic] alive with Yankees both white and black. They halted on the brink and fired one volley into the surging mass, and then turned the butts of their guns and jumped in among them. How the negro's skulls cracked under the blows. Some of them run over on our side and started for the rear, while others made a dash for their own lines, and a great many of them made their escape. I, boy like, ran up the line to see them. When I got there they had the ground covered with broken headed negroes and were searching about among the bomb proofs for more, the officers were trying to stop them but they kept on until they finished up."


Wait, what was that? The Civil War wasn't about race or slavery? :confused: I think most people would have a pretty hard time believing that one.


I hate to say it, but there were quite a few southerners that had been captured by black rgeiments, they were more afraid of one black regiment than they were of a regular division, the 54th massachusetts is a perfect example, they fought ten times better than the forces that were supposed to reinforce them, to quote the book undying glory "they fought like tigers or men possessed of a feral rage, the white regiments could not keep up, and in fact were not prepared for the ferocity of the 54ths charge" blacks were undoubtedly more valiant than the unions white regiments, they were great fighters, so great the confederacy even had a single black regiment, the 1st louisianna home guards.

and several days ago i rented this movie from video easy, dont know if it exsists in america. but it was about a bunch of black guys who fought for the dudes in blue, dont know there names but the movie was called "Glory" can someone plz explain the civil war to me as i know nothing on the topic, but the again, no one from australia does, arr but u dont know about the eureka stockade do u, see u dont know about it and i dont know about the american civil war

I can honestly and proudly say that Glory (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/) made me cry.

This thread and every topic on this subject still makes me giggle.

Poster: The South was wrong!
Response: REVISIONIST!

Poster: The South was right!
Response: RACIST!

What shall we argue next? How about the Crimean War? It's a good Muslim vs. Christian war that has absolutely no basis in current reality. Who wants to argue that the Ottoman Empire should be abolished? Choose up sides!


you are an ignorant bastard and will henceforth be ignored. There is no racism in my remarks, only truth, my friend Omar would most likely agree with me. If Omars opinion is not enough read this : http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/heritage/newsarticle2.php?an=280
or this: http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/heritage/newsarticle2.php?an=237
or most importantly this: http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/heritage/newsarticle2.php?an=324

I can honestly and proudly say that Glory (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/) made me cry.


They were great men. I believe they were more honorable than any other unit, union or confederacy, except for, maybe, and thats a big maybe, Stonewalls cavalry.

you are an ignorant bastard and will henceforth be ignored.


Ermmm ... ok. Where did I call you a racist?

"Response" = "Standard response to any mention of above statement by knee-jerk reactionaries".

And you call me ignorant? Sheesh. At least I can read.

Ermmm ... ok. Where did I call you a racist?

"Response" = "Standard response to any mention of above statement by knee-jerk reactionaries".

And you call me ignorant? Sheesh. At least I can read.


You called me racist by implication, your statement that the south was right is racist implicates me as a racist since that was one of my opening arguments, that is why I'm calling you an ignorant bastard and ignoring you, now get off my thread.

You called me racist by implication, your statement that the south was right is racist implicates me as a racist since that was one of my opening arguments, that is why I'm calling you an ignorant bastard and ignoring you, now get off my thread.

Miehm, you have Keruvalia all wrong.

He was parodying both sides - saying that the response of others (such as myself) to your assertion that the south was right is to call you a racist.

He was not calling you a racist. He was making fun of the fact that others would call you racist. The comment that you were offended by was more directed at me than at you!!!

On a separate note, you have yet to explain what you meant by that statement and you it is anything other than racist.

Also, still waiting on that case .....

EDIT: You also have no power to order anyone off "your" thread. It's not your forum.

You called me racist by implication, your statement that the south was right is racist implicates me as a racist since that was one of my opening arguments, that is why I'm calling you an ignorant bastard and ignoring you, now get off my thread.

Huh... So in other words you want don't really want to discuss this. Whoa! Easy there...

Miehm, you have Keruvalia all wrong.

He was parodying both sides - saying that the response of others (such as myself) to your assertion that the south was right is to call you a racist.

He was not calling you a racist. He was making fun of the fact that others would call you racist. The comment that you were offended by was more directed at me than at you!!!

On a separate note, you have yet to explain what you meant by that statement and you it is anything other than racist.

Also, still waiting on that case .....


As for it not being racist see the news posts on the last page.

Huh... So in other words you want don't really want to discuss this. Whoa! Easy there...


No I do not want to be called a racist, if I am called a racist there will be no discussion, only reaction, I am willing to discuss this in a calm and rational manner without using words that provoke an emotional response in the reader, the word "racist" in modern america is nearly as destructive as the word "witch" was in the 1400's, so I don't appreciate being called a racist.

As for it not being racist see the news posts on the last page.

I don't care if you claim to be friends with Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela -- doesn't mean your views cannot be racist.

One black man likes the Confederate flag. So?

What was the South allegedly right about?

You've never answered the question.

And still waiting on the case ....

No I do not want to be called a racist, if I am called a racist there will be no discussion, only reaction, I am willing to discuss this in a calm and rational manner without using words that provoke an emotional response in the reader, the word "racist" in modern america is nearly as destructive as the word "witch" was in the 1400's, so I don't appreciate being called a racist.

Tough.

Perhaps if one was not an apoligist for the Confederacy and slavery, one might not get accused of racism.

"The South was right."

"The Civil War wasn't about slavery."

"Yeah for the Confederate flag."

Those are words that provoke an emotional response from any reader with a knowledge of history and a sense of decency.

And still waiting on a case ....

I don't care if you claim to be friends with Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela -- doesn't mean your views cannot be racist.

One black man likes the Confederate flag. So?

What was the South allegedly right about?

You've never answered the question.

And still waiting on the case ....

One black man, who used to be a leader of an NAACP chapter, his family and friends, and a good portion of his community. The south was about freedom, not slavery, not freeing the slaves, but the choice of wether or not to do so, that was the freedom they sought.

One black man, who used to be a leader of an NAACP chapter, his family and friends, and a good portion of his community. The south was about freedom, not slavery, not freeing the slaves, but the choice of wether or not to do so, that was the freedom they sought.

Yes, the freedom to own slaves.

Pretty nasty view of freedom isn't it? Freedom = slavery. Read any Orwell?

To defend "the freedom to own slaves" is hardly a moral step above defending slavery itself. Part of the point was to deny that a large portion of the population had any freedoms whatsoever. That's the racist part.

Even by your own account, then, the South was not right -- it's "freedom" was slavery. How can you possibly defend it?

Tey were wrong in their reason but right in the actions they took to defend their beliefs, a man may be a consumate bastard, but if he stands up for what he believes in, to the point that even armed conflict is acceptable, regardless of what that belief is, he will have my respect. I respect those who will not change their convictions, though the whole world stands against them, for that is a quality all too lacking in todays PC, don't offend anyone society, I believe that if you treat every man as a gentleman, but leave the ivory grips of your revolver in sight, then you will be a true man, willing to fight for your beliefs, but polite to those who disagree with you.

Tey were wrong in their reason but right in the actions they took to defend their beliefs, a man may be a consumate bastard, but if he stands up for what he believes in, to the point that even armed conflict is acceptable, regardless of what that belief is, he will have my respect. I respect those who will not change their convictions, though the whole world stands against them, for that is a quality all too lacking in todays PC, don't offend anyone society, I believe that if you treat every man as a gentleman, but leave the ivory grips of your revolver in sight, then you will be a true man, willing to fight for your beliefs, but polite to those who disagree with you.

Your vision of "manhood" is sadly lacking of virtue.

Those who will not change their views no matter how wrong they are -- despite the amble evidence of human suffering and degredation they are responsible for -- are the worst kind of zealots.

Over 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War. Was that worth the South "standing up for their beliefs"? Their belief in slavery?

That you would suggest a thing suggests you have much to learn about being a good person. Good people don't kill in the name of unflinching loyalty to bad ideas. At the very least they try avoiding it. And they are shamed and disgusted if they discover they have done so.

Good people don't kill in the name of unflinching loyalty to bad ideas. At the very least they try avoiding it. And they are shamed and disgusted if they discover they have done so.

I haven't killed in the name of any ideas. I, like most people, will kill to save my own ass, and would not be shamed or disgusted to have done so.

I haven't killed in the name of any ideas. I, like most people, will kill to save my own ass, and would not be shamed or disgusted to have done so.

I didn't say otherwise.

Your vision of "manhood" is sadly lacking of virtue.

Those who will not change their views no matter how wrong they are -- despite the amble evidence of human suffering and degredation they are responsible for -- are the worst kind of zealots.

Over 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War. Was that worth the South "standing up for their beliefs"? Their belief in slavery?

That you would suggest a thing suggests you have much to learn about being a good person. Good people don't kill in the name of unflinching loyalty to bad ideas. At the very least they try avoiding it. And they are shamed and disgusted if they discover they have done so.

My vision of manhood has all the virtues our society lacks, honor, integrity, and a willingness to fight and, if necessary, die for what you believe in, regardless of public opinion.

I didn't say otherwise.

I believe that larger organizations (and those who run them) put men into those positions, and say it was for some greater good, or even some secret cause. But the main reason that men in combat kill is because of small group dynamics - they are saving their lives and the lives of their immediate circle of friends.

Just trying to make the distinction.

I believe that larger organizations (and those who run them) put men into those positions, and say it was for some greater good, or even some secret cause. But the main reason that men in combat kill is because of small group dynamics - they are saving their lives and the lives of their immediate circle of friends.

Just trying to make the distinction.

Thats the truth.

My vision of manhood has all the virtues our society lacks, honor, integrity, and a willingness to fight and, if necessary, die for what you believe in, regardless of public opinion.

Integrity is more than stubborness.

Honor is a sense of ethical conduct -- not an eagerness to fight.

What about trust, justice, prudence, hope, temperance, and charity?

What about reason and compassion?

What about having real values and a willingess to examine ones values rather than blind devotion to false ideals?

Your vision of manhood is blindness.

That your ideal man is one willing to kill in order to keep his slaves speaks volumes.

Integrity is more than stubborness.

Honor is a sense of ethical conduct -- not an eagerness to fight.

What about trust, justice, prudence, hope, temperance, and charity?

What about reason and compassion?

What about having real values and a willingess to examine ones values rather than blind devotion to false ideals?

Your vision of manhood is blindness.

That your ideal man is one willing to kill in order to keep his slaves speaks volumes.

My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect. Trust? Who in this world is trustworthy?, Justice? Who in this world may mete out justice?, Prudence? I'm wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole and full plate mail., Hope? My ideal person is hope., Temperance? Temperance is not having a beer with breakfast., Charity? Who is there that deserves my charity that I have not given it too?, Reason? There is no reason left in these fallen times, all reason fled the world four years ago in september., Compassion? For who, those who would deride me and make mock of my ideals, or those who do not try, or maybe those who are "discriminated against", compassion is as gone as reason from this world.

My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect. Trust? Who in this world is trustworthy?, Justice? Who in this world may mete out justice?, Prudence? I'm wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole and full plate mail., Hope? My ideal person is hope., Temperance? Temperance is not having a beer with breakfast., Charity? Who is there that deserves my charity that I have not given it too?, Reason? There is no reason left in these fallen times, all reason fled the world four years ago in september., Compassion? For who, those who would deride me and make mock of my ideals, or those who do not try, or maybe those who are "discriminated against", compassion is as gone as reason from this world.

You just did a very nice job of illustrating complete ignorance of the meaning of the virtues I listed -- let alone the concepts of virtue or ethics.

And I'm still waiting on that case ...

You just did a very nice job of illustrating complete ignorance of the meaning of the virtues I listed -- let alone the concepts of virtue or ethics.

And I'm still waiting on that case ...

My understanding of those virtues is complete, I disagree with your definitions, that is all.

My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect. Trust? Who in this world is trustworthy?, Justice? Who in this world may mete out justice?, Prudence? I'm wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole and full plate mail., Hope? My ideal person is hope., Temperance? Temperance is not having a beer with breakfast., Charity? Who is there that deserves my charity that I have not given it too?, Reason? There is no reason left in these fallen times, all reason fled the world four years ago in september., Compassion? For who, those who would deride me and make mock of my ideals, or those who do not try, or maybe those who are "discriminated against", compassion is as gone as reason from this world.
So, your ideal person would climb aboard an airplane, hijack it and then crash it against a building full of people. Right?

My understanding of those virtues is complete, I disagree with your definitions, that is all.

Really?

I offered no definitions.

Nonetheless, what is prudence?

Without the slavery issue, the South doesn't want to secede, and the American Civil War doesn't happen. Period.

While I believe the South fought for a bad cause, I think it's inane to compare the Confederacy with Nazi Germany.

So, your ideal person would climb aboard an airplane, hijack it and then crash it against a building full of people. Right?

Excellent point. Thank you.

Nonetheless, what is prudence?

Knowing when to take cover.

So, your ideal person would climb aboard an airplane, hijack it and then crash it against a building full of people. Right?

Thats another kettle of fish entirely, my ideal person is honorable, to do as was done on 9\11 lacked honor, therefore no, they would not.

Knowing when to take cover.

We have a winner! :D

Thats another kettle of fish entirely, my ideal person is honorable, to do as was done on 9\11 lacked honor, therefore no, they would not.

"My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect."

You clearly support those who did what they did on 9/11. How does that crow taste?

Knowing when to take cover.

Thats for sure, and I still haven't figured that out, as my broken leg will attest.

"My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect."

You clearly support those who did what they did on 9/11. How does that crow taste?

Tastes like misunderstanding, my ideal person acts with honor, if they had killed those people in a military role with those people as soldiers it would be acceptable, as it stands their attack was that of a coward and a dishonorable worm.

Tastes like misunderstanding, my ideal person acts with honor, if they had killed those people in a military role with those people as soldiers it would be acceptable, as it stands their attack was that of a coward and a dishonorable worm.

"My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect."

"My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect."

An honorable death is to be respected, a suicide bomber has no honor, get it through your head.

An honorable death is to be respected, a suicide bomber has no honor, get it through your head.
Suicide bombers are respected.

Suicide bombers are respected.

But I do not respect them because they have no honor, that is a pre requisite for my respect, that is the issue at debate, not wether or not others respect them.

But I do not respect them because they have no honor, that is a pre requisite for my respect, that is the issue at debate, not wether or not others respect them.
But according to others they have honor. They prefered death for an ideal rather than living comfortably as they could have done.

And they took a few infidels with them.

Is being a slavemaster honorable?

But I do not respect them because they have no honor, that is a pre requisite for my respect, that is the issue at debate, not wether or not others respect them.
As opposed to someone who bombs abortion clincs, who has tons of honor.

Has anyone noticed that Lincoln's inaugural adress is NEVER in history books? Here's why:



and:



Interesting, no? I am staunchly against slavery, but I am against hypocrisy too. That promise should never have been made, especially if he had not planned to keep it. He may have done the right thing when he freed the slaves, but he did it for the wrong reasons, and the border states that still had slaves were allowed to keep them until later, when a full amendment was passed. The North was in error; the 'protective' tariffs were so high, they did severe damage to the Southern Economy. Also, I think that the states were wrong to claim the right to simply waive out of any federal law they felt like. Neither side was out and out right, but in the end, I think that is was for the best that things ended up how they did - imagine the Soviet Union with UNILATERAL hegemony? A bipolar system kept both sides in check - a divided USA into a north and south would have given the USSR complete control when it rose - and any nation having that kind of power is extremely dangerous.

Obviuosly you've totally misinterpreted Lincolns intentions... you say he did the right thing when he freed the slaves.. Tehcnically he didn't free the slaves.. he only gave freedom to those slaves outside of the Union. And for good cause. He did not want to arbritrarily create a law which could then be thought of as contrary to the Constitution. He purposefully witheld the imanicpation of the slaves so that an amendment could be passed legally enshrining this ideology in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. In fact he was a genious in doing this because he better preserved the authority of the Constitution by allowing it to be changed before he he arbitrarily created a law. It was not hipocracy.. he had every intention of having the slaves freed under his presidency.

As opposed to someone who bombs abortion clincs, who has tons of honor.

That is not combat, outside of combat military actions are dishonorable, they also lack honor.

An honorable death is to be respected, a suicide bomber has no honor, get it through your head.

"My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect."

They believe that it is honourable.

But according to others they have honor. They prefered death for an ideal rather than living comfortably as they could have done.

And they took a few infidels with them.

Is being a slavemaster honorable?

See my post about the abortion clinics, that answers your question about my definition of honor and the ways to lose it. If a slavemaster treats his slaves well, then yes he is, because he is an exemplary individual among beasts, if not he is a man who enjoys power and nothing more. The act of owning slaves does not affect his honor, the treatment of the slaves determines his honor in this case.

See my post about the abortion clinics, that answers your question about my definition of honor and the ways to lose it. If a slavemaster treats his slaves well, then yes he is, because he is an exemplary individual among beasts, if not he is a man who enjoys power and nothing more. The act of owning slaves does not affect his honor, the treatment of the slaves determines his honor in this case.


You have not actually defined honor.

Regardless, you have a warped view of virtue.

And I'm still waiting on that case you said you had yesterday .....

"My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect."

They believe that it is honourable.

Again, their opinion is of no consequence, the one that is being questioned is mine, since the people they killed were non combatants and were killd by a suicide bomb they have no honor, in the civil war civilians were rarely massacred unlike in 9\11. The men of flight 91 had honor and deserve the respect of all, they fought and died that others might live, the men they killed would have killed thousands, they died for their beliefs, specifically that their lives were not worth the lives of thousands of others, that was an honorable death.

Obviuosly you've totally misinterpreted Lincolns intentions... you say he did the right thing when he freed the slaves.. Tehcnically he didn't free the slaves.. he only gave freedom to those slaves outside of the Union. And for good cause. He did not want to arbritrarily create a law which could then be thought of as contrary to the Constitution. He purposefully witheld the imanicpation of the slaves so that an amendment could be passed legally enshrining this ideology in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. In fact he was a genious in doing this because he better preserved the authority of the Constitution by allowing it to be changed before he he arbitrarily created a law. It was not hipocracy.. he had every intention of having the slaves freed under his presidency.

Correct. And well said.

Again, their opinion is of no consequence, the one that is being questioned is mine, since the people they killed were non combatants and were killd by a suicide bomb they have no honor, in the civil war civilians were rarely massacred unlike in 9\11. The men of flight 91 had honor and deserve the respect of all, they fought and died that others might live, the men they killed would have killed thousands, they died for their beliefs, specifically that their lives were not worth the lives of thousands of others, that was an honorable death.

You've spent this whole thread trying to argue that beliefs are inconsequential and that honour comes from acting upon your belief, dying for it, "no matter how wrong it may be, and now you're saying that it indeed is dishonourable to die for what you believe in. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

Again, their opinion is of no consequence, the one that is being questioned is mine, since the people they killed were non combatants and were killd by a suicide bomb they have no honor, in the civil war civilians were rarely massacred unlike in 9\11. The men of flight 91 had honor and deserve the respect of all, they fought and died that others might live, the men they killed would have killed thousands, they died for their beliefs, specifically that their lives were not worth the lives of thousands of others, that was an honorable death.

Let us imagine that a slave might not like her present conditions and tries to escape. Is killing her honorable?

EDIT: And I'm still waiting on that case you said you had ....

You have not actually defined honor.

Regardless, you have a warped view of virtue.

And I'm still waiting on that case you said you had yesterday .....

Owning slaves is not dishonorable in and of itsel, the treatment of the slaves is what matters, if he treats them well he is a good and honorable man, if he treats them poorly he's not worth the 75 cents to get a bullet to kill him with. If a man is a good man he will treat his slaves well, no matter what, if he is not a good man then he will act dishonorably towards his slaves, remember that the best way to judge a mans character is not to see how he treats his betters or equals, but instead how he treats those below him in society, if he treats them well he is good, if not, well then... :sniper:

Suicide bombers are respected.

Respected by whom... other terrorists? They sure as hell aren't respected by me or anyone I *know*.

Owning slaves is not dishonorable in and of itsel, the treatment of the slaves is what matters, if he treats them well he is a good and honorable man, if he treats them poorly he's not worth the 75 cents to get a bullet to kill him with. If a man is a good man he will treat his slaves well, no matter what, if he is not a good man then he will act dishonorably towards his slaves, remember that the best way to judge a mans character is not to see how he treats his betters or equals, but instead how he treats those below him in society, if he treats them well he is good, if not, well then... :sniper:

Are you a Republican?

IF so, then you do know that it was the Republicans who carried the abolitionist movement... the idea that slavery is not right, that people should all be free. If someone works for you, fine, but you PAY THAT PERSON for his time... you cannot demand that he work for you, nor can you keep him from leaving. People must be free.

(see "Trial By Fire" by Paige Smith)

Owning slaves is not dishonorable in and of itsel, the treatment of the slaves is what matters, if he treats them well he is a good and honorable man, if he treats them poorly he's not worth the 75 cents to get a bullet to kill him with. If a man is a good man he will treat his slaves well, no matter what, if he is not a good man then he will act dishonorably towards his slaves, remember that the best way to judge a mans character is not to see how he treats his betters or equals, but instead how he treats those below him in society, if he treats them well he is good, if not, well then... :sniper:

My how we equivocate.

His "betters or equals" verses "those below him."

Pray tell, what counts as "treat[ing your slaves] well"?

Only killing some of them? Only raping a few?

And I'm still waiting on that case .... You were acting honorably when you said you had it yesterday, right?

Are you a Republican?

IF so, then you do know that it was the Republicans who carried the abolitionist movement... that it was democrats who wanted to just let the South go do their thing after our ineffective generals lost the early battles.

(see "Trial By Fire" by Paige Smith)

I know, I'm independent, I vote for the lesser of two evils.

My how we equivocate.

His "betters or equals" verses "those below him."

Pray tell, what counts as "treat[ing your slaves] well"?

Only killing some of them? Only raping a few?

And I'm still waiting on that case .... You were acting honorably when you said you had it yesterday, right?

Treating them well is doing none of those things, having sex only by consent of the other involved, and realizing that force is unnessecary if discipline can be maintained through less violent measures, like treating them like your equals, the few masters who did so often had much better results than the violent ones. As for the case I found out that it was later over turned, so it doesn't apply.

Owning slaves is not dishonorable in and of itsel, the treatment of the slaves is what matters, if he treats them well he is a good and honorable man, if he treats them poorly he's not worth the 75 cents to get a bullet to kill him with. If a man is a good man he will treat his slaves well, no matter what, if he is not a good man then he will act dishonorably towards his slaves, remember that the best way to judge a mans character is not to see how he treats his betters or equals, but instead how he treats those below him in society, if he treats them well he is good, if not, well then... :sniper:
i know i shouldnt jump in to heap abuse on you but really

there is no way to HONORABLY own slaves under the american system of slavery. some slave owners were nicer than others, some were even kind to their property. but it was never honorable, just profitable.

i know i shouldnt jump in to heap abuse on you but really

there is no way to HONORABLE own slaves under the american system of slavery. some slave owners were nicer than others, some were even kind to their property. but it was never honorable, just profitable.

The actions towards the slaves determine honor, not the act of owning slaves, that is the point I am trying to make. If you treat a Slave as a person instead of property, that shows honor, there were few who did so but the few who did were honorable, the rest were beneath comtempt.

The actions towards the slaves determine honor, not the act of owning slaves, that is the point I am trying to make. If you treat a Slave as a person instead of property, that shows honor, there were few who did so but the few who did were honorable, the rest were beneath comtempt.
the only way to treat a slave as a person rather than property is through manumission. and yes, those slave owners who took a financial loss and faced intense public scorn for freeing their slaves were very honorable people.

the only way to treat a slave as a person rather than property is through manumission. and yes, those slave owners who took a financial loss and faced intense public scorn for freeing their slaves were very honorable people.

That was my point the whole time.

R.E. Lee lost the war for the south

Picket and the death of Stonewall Jackson lost the war for the south, Lee fought harder than anyone else towards the end. Thats all for today.

Respected by whom... other terrorists? They sure as hell aren't respected by me or anyone I *know*.
The world is larger than you know. Some non terrorists also respect suicide bombers, just like our friend respects slavists.

Oh, and the Confederate flag, though once a symbol of rebellion, has been so abused by white supremacist groups as to take a racist meaning. Sorry guys, the stars and bars are a racist symbol.

actually i think the flag you're talking about is the Confederate Battle Flag. although the 'Stars and Bars' was the official flag of the CSA, the battle flag is the one generally associated with various racist groups. even so, before the 1960's the flag predominately flown by the Ku Klux Klan was the 'Stars and Stripes'.

Owning slaves is not dishonorable in and of itsel, the treatment of the slaves is what matters, if he treats them well he is a good and honorable man, if he treats them poorly he's not worth the 75 cents to get a bullet to kill him with. If a man is a good man he will treat his slaves well, no matter what, if he is not a good man then he will act dishonorably towards his slaves, remember that the best way to judge a mans character is not to see how he treats his betters or equals, but instead how he treats those below him in society, if he treats them well he is good, if not, well then... :sniper:
Actually, owning slaves is dishonorable in and of itself. Why? Because a honorable man will pay what's fair to those who work for him and will respect their freedoms and regard them as equals. A slavist did no such thing, therefore they were dishonorable, even if they gave good treatment to their slaves.

That was my point the whole time.

No.

Keeping slaves and treatin' 'em nice-like is different than freeing all your slaves.

Of course, so long as you fought to preserve the institution of slavery under Dred Scott your slaves were still slaves even if you freed them.

And no one kept slaves in the South without the use or threat of violence -- if not by the owner than by others. Slaves were not slaves by choice.

To talk about honorable slavemasters is sickening.

So, what have we learned:

1. The Confederate flag is racist.

2. The Civil War was primarily about slavery.

3. The South was very, very, very wrong.

Picket and the death of Stonewall Jackson lost the war for the south, Lee fought harder than anyone else towards the end. Thats all for today.

No, the blockade, the lack of international recognition and the coming of Grant and Sherman lost the war for the Confederacy. I agree with Shelby Foote's assesment that the COnfederacy never had a chance in the war. The Union fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. If it had lost a few more battles it would have brought out the other hand and finished the job.

So, what have we learned:

1. The Confederate flag is racist.

2. The Civil War was primarily about slavery.

3. The South was very, very, very wrong.

You forgot something.

4. The South lost the war a long, long time ago. Case closed.

This is only partially true. Your cynicism would be accurate if it were not slanted.

Lincoln was less than enlightened on the subject of race, but that does not mean he was any less opposed to slavery. Slavery as an institution was evil, beyond its subjugation of a particular people. To say Lincoln "couldn't have cared less about the slaves" is simple revisionism. Lincoln was an outspoken opponent of slavery from the start of his political career. That he was still a racist by modern day standards is of little relevance.

Like any true politician, Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth. If he was so anti-slavery, then why did he support the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850? Why did he denounce the abolitionists as zealots who "would shiver into fragments the Union of these States; tear to tatters its now venerated constitution, and even burn the last copy of the Bible, rather than slavery should continue a single hour"?

On October 16, 1854 in Peoria, Illinois, he made this statement:

"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them. Slave states are the places for poor white people to move from...New free states are the places for poor people to go and better their condition."

Although he gave lip service to the idea of extending the basic protections of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to freed blacks, he contradicted himself by opposing black citizenship.

Similarly, those that assert that secession was not about slavery face the slight problem that the declarations of causes of secession of those states that published such causes put slavery first and foremost among the reasons for secession. Inconvenient historical documents make re-writing history a tad more difficult.

I don't think anyone is claiming that slavery wasn't an issue - what I'm saying is that the slavery issue was spotlighted and used by Lincoln as an excuse to take the country to war, even though he couldn't have cared less about the black race himself. It was kind of like a magician's sleight of hand trick to divert attention away from his real agenda. Surely you are not unaware that this is a common ploy used by politicians everywhere?

That secession cannot be laid to any abuse of power by Lincoln is further evidence by the fact that South Carolina formed a convention for sucession in 1852 and seceeded immediately after Lincoln's election in 1860. Before Linclon was sworn in as President on March 4, 1861, seven Southern states had seceeded and had formed the Confederate States of American -- with the preservation of slavery a prominent feature in their new constitution. Little over a month later, Confederate guns opened fire on Federal troops at Fort Sumter.

Actually, South Carolina first threatened to secede over the 1928 "Tariff of Abominations," sponsored by Lincoln's idol, Henry Clay. Again, I won't say that slavery wasn't an issue - but there was a pre-existing history of economic issues that you seem to be completely ignoring.

The claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a cynical ploy is belied both by Lincoln's long history of opposition to slavery -- which was the primary reason his election was opposed by the South -- and by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment after the war. The Proclamation was, no doubt, largely tactical -- particularly in timing -- but that does not render it wholly so.

Then why was he only proclaiming emancipation of slaves in the rebel states?

Issues like tariffs, banks, and land grants had proponents and opponents in both the South and the North. The preeminent division between the South and the North -- in some cases the only significant distinction between some states -- was the institution of slavery -- the ubiquitousness of which defined the South.

Could it be that they couldn't see their way clear to make a living with the high tariffs being imposed on them, without slavery? I'm not saying they were right - I'm just saying that they had some unfair economic burdens placed on them, and they saw comfort in maintaining what little control they had over their economic situation (which wasn't much). They might have been willing to give up their slaves if the U.S. had done what Great Britain had done - that is, if they had paid the slave-owners 40% of the value of their slaves and emancipated the slaves. Great Britain succeeded in the peaceful emancipation of their slaves in about 6 years by this method, at a cost that was significantly less than what the Civil War cost this nation.

Southern politicians at the time were unashamed to declare the defense of slavery the primary object of secession. Preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery were declared the just causes behind the war by leading Northern politicians at that time.

It seems there was little shame on either side for any feelings of racial superiority or hatred of the black race. What was declared and what was true may have been two different things. Not only that, but the reasons for wanting to end slavery were not exactly altruistic - as I previously mentioned (except in the case of the abolitionists, who were indeed a rare breed of human at the time).

Shake your little fists at history if you must. The evidence is there. Attempts to sweep the evil of slavery under the rug suceed only in tarnishing the reputation of the revisionists.

Bringing to light the evil attitudes of those responsible for the Civil War is sweeping the evils of slavery under the rug? Is this more smoke and mirrors from the pro-Lincoln cheerleading section? Here I am protesting the bigotry of Lincoln and his ilk, and his use of the black race to further his political and economic agenda - and you're using this as an excuse to paint me with the same brush as the slaveholders of Lincoln's time??? Why? Because I'm exposing the truth??? Sheeesh!!

You forgot something.

4. The South lost the war a long, long time ago. Case closed.


I suspect we'll see a restored Habsburg Monarchy before the South rises again. ;)

I suspect we'll see a restored Habsburg Monarchy before the South rises again. ;)
Well, if we're going back in time to re-fight lost causes, I'm sure Osama would like to go back and re-fight the Battle of Lepanto.

Well, if we're going back in time to re-fight lost causes, I'm sure Osama would like to go back and re-fight the Battle of Lepanto.

Somehow, I don't see him on the side of the Holy League, tho... :D

I don't think there's any general 'right to live freely' in the constitution. If you can point it out, please do so.

Note: I mean when the states started seceding.

I have no idea about the American Constitution, but the Human Right that No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade is in the UN declaration of Human Rights. And even though the UN wasn't established then, it doesn't stop the rights themselves existing

You forgot something.

4. The South lost the war a long, long time ago. Case closed.

that might be so, but this thread is about the civil war, i.e., something that happened "a long, long time ago"

*snip*

So your important points are:

1. History didn't start in 1860.

2. Historical events on a national level are complex, involving many factors.

3. Not everyone is altruistic all the time.

4. Lincoln was not a saint.

Agreed.

Does any of that effect the following:

1. The Confederate flag is a racist symbol.

2. The Civil War was primarily about slavery.

3. The South was very, very, very wrong.

4. The South lost the war a long, long time ago.

No? I didn't think so.

Anything else?

1. The Confederate flag is a racist symbol.

2. The Civil War was primarily about slavery.

3. The South was very, very, very wrong.

4. The South lost the war a long, long time ago.
1. The Confederate flag is only a racist symbol to those who make it a racist symbol. To many people it simply represents southern pride, pride in one's land and country, pride in your state and your community. Granted some people out there choose to use it as a racist symbol.
2. The Civil War was mostly about state's rights. One of those rights was slavery (granted the most important right).
3. The South was doing what it thought was right. I happen to agree that rights for states is a "right" thing. Slavery is wrong. Please don't confuse slavery and the South. They are not synonymous.
4. Again, this entire thread is about the Civil War. It is not a valid point to say it was long ago if that is what we are talking about. It is granted that the South lost the war a long time ago, but the issues about states rights will always stand.

I have no idea about the American Constitution, but the Human Right that No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade is in the UN declaration of Human Rights. And even though the UN wasn't established then, it doesn't stop the rights themselves existing

Given the UN doesn't actually enforce it today (Sudan, anyone?), it's not a very good example. You can't "backdate" rights. If you said, for example, that there should even BE voting, much less women voters in 1066, you'd be derided and likely hung as a traitor.

1. The Confederate flag is only a racist symbol to those who make it a racist symbol. To many people it simply represents southern pride, pride in one's land and country, pride in your state and your community. Granted some people out there choose to use it as a racist symbol.
2. The Civil War was mostly about state's rights. One of those rights was slavery (granted the most important right).
3. The South was doing what it thought was right. I happen to agree that rights for states is a "right" thing. Slavery is wrong. Please don't confuse slavery and the South. They are not synonymous.
4. Again, this entire thread is about the Civil War. It is not a valid point to say it was long ago if that is what we are talking about. It is granted that the South lost the war a long time ago, but the issues about states rights will always stand.

<sigh>

All but the last was asked and answered multiple times above.

What land and country does the Confederate flag stand for? Not the United States. It was the flag of treason. Used to defend slavery. It was then used to terrorize blacks and as a symbol of segregation.

I can flay the flag of the former Soviet Union and say that, to me, it represents my love for my cats. Doesn't change the symbol one bit.

The declarations of secession focus first and foremost on slavery. To say it was about "state's rights" when you admit the primary right in question was slavery is to dissemble.

Doing what you think is right doesn't make you right. Think 9/11 bombers. If you happen to have a view of the Constitution that is outdated by at least 170 years, that is fine. Still wrong. And slavery and the South were essentially synonymous at the time in question. As the seceeding states themselves proudly declared.

The point about the South losing long ago is two-fold. First, you should get over it. It happened long ago. The Confederacy lost. To fly the flag of a long dead pseudo-country is silly, as well as repugnant. Second, the "state's right" argument in question then is completely dead. Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments are just a few examples of the change in the Constitutional landscape. The argument was wrong to begin with and is only ridiculous now.

<sigh>

All but the last was asked and answered multiple times above.

What land and country does the Confederate flag stand for? Not the United States. It was the flag of treason. Used to defend slavery. It was then used to terrorize blacks and as a symbol of segregation.

I can flay the flag of the former Soviet Union and say that, to me, it represents my love for my cats. Doesn't change the symbol one bit.

The declarations of secession focus first and foremost on slavery. To say it was about "state's rights" when you admit the primary right in question was slavery is to dissemble.

Doing what you think is right doesn't make you right. Think 9/11 bombers. If you happen to have a view of the Constitution that is outdated by at least 170 years, that is fine. Still wrong. And slavery and the South were essentially synonymous at the time in question. As the seceeding states themselves proudly declared.

The point about the South losing long ago is two-fold. First, you should get over it. It happened long ago. The Confederacy lost. To fly the flag of a long dead pseudo-country is silly, as well as repugnant. Second, the "state's right" argument in question then is completely dead. Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments are just a few examples of the change in the Constitutional landscape. The argument was wrong to begin with and is only ridiculous now.
A flag does not have to stand for a country. A flag always stands for an idea (and often a country). I have a flag in my room that stands for a lot of things, among them friendliness and good people. It doesn't represent any (current) country. The point is that it used to terrorize blacks. It is not used in that manner anymore (granted, some may still).
I'm not picking an arbitrary flag and arbitrary meaning. This flag did represent those things and to some people they still do.
I'm not attempting to ignore anything. I am purporting that there is more at stake than just slavery.
The entire purpose of this thread (I think) is to determine if the South was "right" or wrong.
I think it is unfair to assume because I posted this that I live in the past. I wouldn't consider myself a gun-toting redneck hillbilly. I agree that the South lost. The flag I fly in my room is of a "long dead pseudo-country. I see many people fly it also. In fact, it is flown in front of the capitol building of the state that it now represents. Flags do not always represent countries. Flags represent ideas. Flags represent different things to different people.
Granted, amendments have been passed to add and remove rights. That's what amendments are for. And given the structure of the constitution, there will be additional amendments. It's naive to assume that the issue of "states rights" will ever disappear. As long as there are states, there will be states rights.

You've spent this whole thread trying to argue that beliefs are inconsequential and that honour comes from acting upon your belief, dying for it, "no matter how wrong it may be, and now you're saying that it indeed is dishonourable to die for what you believe in. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

It is dishonorable to die in a dishonorable act, since the 9\11 terrorists were not soldiers and their victims were not soldiers their deaths lacked honor because they did not fight someone who could fight back, where is the honor in shooting an unarmed man?, a man who has done you no harm is not an honorable target, a soldier who is trying to kill you is. The reason for their actions and the target of those actions is paramount in determining wether or not those actions were honorable, a civilian is not a legitimate target, a soldier is, it's that simple, a fair fight is honorable, a fight against someone weaker than you is not. Do you brag for kicking the ass of a 95 pound weakling, no, you brag about kicking the ass of the three hundred pound linebacker who could probably put you through a wall, because it is an act to take pride in, assaulting those weaker than you is in and ofitsel a sign of weakness.

<sigh>
The point about the South losing long ago is two-fold. First, you should get over it. It happened long ago.

Exactly! Everyone's gotten over the 2000 election, and that only took 7 years. ;)

(yes, this is meant tongue in cheek).

The world is larger than you know. Some non terrorists also respect suicide bombers, just like our friend respects slavists.

You know what, this is officially no holds barred. You dirty, arrogant, self righteous, holier than thou, supercilious piece of amphibian shit, you have made what is quite possibly the biggest mistake of your life, I am now going to proceed to, in the most disgusting and obscene words I can think of, describe your family. Your mother was a fat old whore with AIDs that popped you out in a public toilet and forgot to flush, your dad wasn't even human, seeing as he was the neighbors german shephard, and you're more idiotic and illogical about life in general than sarah brady.

Actually, owning slaves is dishonorable in and of itself. Why? Because a honorable man will pay what's fair to those who work for him and will respect their freedoms and regard them as equals. A slavist did no such thing, therefore they were dishonorable, even if they gave good treatment to their slaves.

Leave, now.

No.

Keeping slaves and treatin' 'em nice-like is different than freeing all your slaves.

Of course, so long as you fought to preserve the institution of slavery under Dred Scott your slaves were still slaves even if you freed them.

And no one kept slaves in the South without the use or threat of violence -- if not by the owner than by others. Slaves were not slaves by choice.

To talk about honorable slavemasters is sickening.

So, what have we learned:

1. The Confederate flag is racist.

2. The Civil War was primarily about slavery.

3. The South was very, very, very wrong.


You may also leave, if you are unable to consider the issue at hand with logic and reason.

A flag does not have to stand for a country. A flag always stands for an idea (and often a country). I have a flag in my room that stands for a lot of things, among them friendliness and good people. It doesn't represent any (current) country. The point is that it used to terrorize blacks. It is not used in that manner anymore (granted, some may still).
I'm not picking an arbitrary flag and arbitrary meaning. This flag did represent those things and to some people they still do.
I'm not attempting to ignore anything. I am purporting that there is more at stake than just slavery.
The entire purpose of this thread (I think) is to determine if the South was "right" or wrong.
I think it is unfair to assume because I posted this that I live in the past. I wouldn't consider myself a gun-toting redneck hillbilly. I agree that the South lost. The flag I fly in my room is of a "long dead pseudo-country. I see many people fly it also. In fact, it is flown in front of the capitol building of the state that it now represents. Flags do not always represent countries. Flags represent ideas. Flags represent different things to different people.
Granted, amendments have been passed to add and remove rights. That's what amendments are for. And given the structure of the constitution, there will be additional amendments. It's naive to assume that the issue of "states rights" will ever disappear. As long as there are states, there will be states rights.

You said the Confederate flag represented "southern pride, pride in one's land and country..."

The ideas for which that flag stood were (1) treason and (2) slavery. That was its original purpose. It was then used for decades as a symbol of racism and segregation. Pray tell, when did it get washed clean?

The "states rights" in question (1) never existed and (2) have even less claim to exist now. So, are you advocating a whole scale re-writing of the Consitution? Plan to seceed again?

I did not call you a redneck hillbilly. I did say that your views of the Constitution appear outdated.

You know full well that flying of the Confederate flag is controversial and that whether or not some people do it does not make it right.

Pray tell, what more was or is at stake than slavery?

No, the blockade, the lack of international recognition and the coming of Grant and Sherman lost the war for the Confederacy. I agree with Shelby Foote's assesment that the COnfederacy never had a chance in the war. The Union fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. If it had lost a few more battles it would have brought out the other hand and finished the job.

Had Stonewall lived and had Pickett not charged the odds are that the confederacy would have won gettysburg, actually, had Stonewall lived there is a good chance that gettysburg would never have happened, since Jackson was almost always Lee's cavalry screen the union forces would have been found and most likely defeated in open field combat, even if that had not happened Jacksons survival might well have meant that they never had to even enter pennsylvania.

*a bunch of stuff*

To address your points:

1. The Confederate flag is a racist symbol.

Which one? The Stars and Bars or the Southern Cross? In either case, I do not agree. To the South, the flags represented freedom from tyranny.

2. The Civil War was primarily about slavery.

I disagree. That's what Lincoln decided to make it about - to the surprise of those fighting this war.

3. The South was very, very, very wrong.

About slavery? Most assuredly. About tyranny? Absolutely not.

4. The South lost the war a long, long time ago.

And your point? If tyranny was wrong then, what makes it any better now? Are you saying that because they were wrong about slavery, they were automatically wrong about everything else, too? Way to tackle the issues. :rolleyes:

You said the Confederate flag represented "southern pride, pride in one's land and country..."

The ideas for which that flag stood were (1) treason and (2) slavery. That was its original purpose. It was then used for decades as a symbol of racism and segregation. Pray tell, when did it get washed clean?

The "states rights" in question (1) never existed and (2) have even less claim to exist now. So, are you advocating a whole scale re-writing of the Consitution? Plan to seceed again?

I did not call you a redneck hillbilly. I did say that your views of the Constitution appear outdated.

You know full well that flying of the Confederate flag is controversial and that whether or not some people do it does not make it right.

Pray tell, what more was or is at stake than slavery?

The states right of choice still exists, it is merely hidden beneath a veneer of law and specious reasoning, were the Confederacy to rise again the north could not win, period.

You may also leave, if you are unable to consider the issue at hand with logic and reason.

I will continue to oppose your revisionism with reason and evidence.

If you wish to discuss the matter do so, insults are not helpful.

And I thought you rejected reason:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8679846&postcount=168

My ideal person will die for whatever they believe in, no matter how wrong it may be, that is a person with such a deep faith that it is unshakable and that is an attribute worthy of respect. Trust? Who in this world is trustworthy?, Justice? Who in this world may mete out justice?, Prudence? I'm wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole and full plate mail., Hope? My ideal person is hope., Temperance? Temperance is not having a beer with breakfast., Charity? Who is there that deserves my charity that I have not given it too?, Reason? There is no reason left in these fallen times, all reason fled the world four years ago in september., Compassion? For who, those who would deride me and make mock of my ideals, or those who do not try, or maybe those who are "discriminated against", compassion is as gone as reason from this world.

To address your points:

1. The Confederate flag is a racist symbol.

Which one? The Stars and Bars or the Southern Cross? In either case, I do not agree. To the South, the flags represented freedom from tyranny.

2. The Civil War was primarily about slavery.

I disagree. That's what Lincoln decided to make it about - to the surprise of those fighting this war.

3. The South was very, very, very wrong.

About slavery? Most assuredly. About tyranny? Absolutely not.

4. The South lost the war a long, long time ago.

And your point? If tyranny was wrong then, what makes it any better now? Are you saying that because they were wrong about slavery, they were automatically wrong about everything else, too? Way to tackle the issues. :rolleyes:

Have you read the Declarations of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)? They make it very clear that the primary issue was slavery. That was not some fiction that Lincoln sprung on the South -- it was the reason for the Confederacy.

What issues? What tyranny? You have yet to identify any.

I dont really understand how people can be so offened by the confederate battle flag - any not then american flag - i mean one instituded slavery for 4 years - the other instituded it for almost 100 - im not saying they should hate the american flag too - thats another thread - but it doesnt really seem to make sense

The states right of choice still exists, it is merely hidden beneath a veneer of law and specious reasoning, were the Confederacy to rise again the north could not win, period.

We've been over this before.

Please identify the basis for "[t]he state's right of choice."

We've already established that no such thing -- at least as you describe it -- has any basis going back to the founding of the Republic.

You said the Confederate flag represented "southern pride, pride in one's land and country..."

The ideas for which that flag stood were (1) treason and (2) slavery. That was its original purpose. It was then used for decades as a symbol of racism and segregation. Pray tell, when did it get washed clean?

The "states rights" in question (1) never existed and (2) have even less claim to exist now. So, are you advocating a whole scale re-writing of the Consitution? Plan to seceed again?

I did not call you a redneck hillbilly. I did say that your views of the Constitution appear outdated.

You know full well that flying of the Confederate flag is controversial and that whether or not some people do it does not make it right.

Pray tell, what more was or is at stake than slavery?
Yes, I said that the flag represents pride... ? I think I am missing your point. I think pride in Southern ideals is an idea that can be represented with a flag... ?

stood is the word in question. It no longer stands for that. It was washed clean recently, when it began to stand, again, for freedom from tyranny. Just like a few hundred years ago the US flag "stood" for treason. It no longer does.

I am curious to know what "state rights" you are talking about. I am talking about state rights in general. The rights of states to create their own laws, to govern their own people.

I apologize for the confusion. I feel that the Constitution is a dynamic document. It was designed to change. I know it has changed in the past and will likely change in the future.

I agree that flying the flag is controversial. My question is why? To one group, it means slavery; to another group it means freedom from tyranny. It is true that because people fly it does not make it right, what makes it right is flying it for the right reasons.

Previous posts have mentioned that states rights were at stake. Is this a difficult concept? Rights of states to decide on a state by state basis what laws should apply to that state. Instead of a blanket law that applies to all persons in the US, why not let the state choose what laws best fit its people? That is what is at stake.

I dont really understand how people can be so offened by the confederate battle flag - any not then american flag - i mean one instituded slavery for 4 years - the other instituded it for almost 100 - im not saying they should hate the american flag too - thats another thread - but it doesnt really seem to make sense

Amen.

We've been over this before.

Please identify the basis for "[t]he state's right of choice."

We've already established that no such thing -- at least as you describe it -- has any basis going back to the founding of the Republic.

What Spizzo said.

Have you read the Declarations of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)? They make it very clear that the primary issue was slavery. That was not some fiction that Lincoln sprung on the South -- it was the reason for the Confederacy.

What issues? What tyranny? You have yet to identify any.
Have you read the Declarations of Secessions? They make it very clear that they were being treated unfairly and their ideas not heard in a national government setting.

Slavery was an issue. It was not the only issue or even the largest issue. The largest issue was the right of the state to choose what is best for its citizens.

Yes, I said that the flag represents pride... ? I think I am missing your point. I think pride in Southern ideals is an idea that can be represented with a flag... ?

Actually, as I quoted, you said it stood for pride in your land and country. When I pointed out that to say it stood for pride in your country was absurd, you retreated to ideas.

Granted. A flag can stand for ideas. What ideas do the Confederate flags stand for? Since when?

stood is the word in question. It no longer stands for that. It was washed clean recently, when it began to stand, again, for freedom from tyranny. Just like a few hundred years ago the US flag "stood" for treason. It no longer does.

Stood for treason and slavery when created.

Stood for racism and segregation -- in the very recent past to the present.

When -- when -- did it begin to stand for "freedom from tyranny"?

How did this magic transformation occur?

I am curious to know what "state rights" you are talking about. I am talking about state rights in general. The rights of states to create their own laws, to govern their own people.

I apologize for the confusion. I feel that the Constitution is a dynamic document. It was designed to change. I know it has changed in the past and will likely change in the future.

Actually, I'm glad you asked for specificity.

States have a degree of sovereignty under the Constitution. They do make their own laws and govern their own people -- subject to the constraints of the Constitution and federal law made pursuant to the Constitution.

I agree that flying the flag is controversial. My question is why? To one group, it means slavery; to another group it means freedom from tyranny. It is true that because people fly it does not make it right, what makes it right is flying it for the right reasons.

How does "flying it for the right reasons" look different than flying it for racism?

How does anyone know you've taken a traditionally ugly symbol and cleaned it up in your own mind?

A symbol doesn't mean anything if it means only what you say it means in your own mind.

Previous posts have mentioned that states rights were at stake. Is this a difficult concept? Rights of states to decide on a state by state basis what laws should apply to that state. Instead of a blanket law that applies to all persons in the US, why not let the state choose what laws best fit its people? That is what is at stake.

Again, what state's rights?

What exactly are you talking about?

The "state's rights" issue represented by the Confederate flags then was the right to slavery -- and to the expansion of slavery to new territory and to have slaves returned from free states.

The "state's rights" represented by the Confederate flags recently was the right to segregrate the races.

What is the "state's right" issue now that is represented by the flag?

And what are the arguments that such a state's right should exist.

Actually, as I quoted, you said it stood for pride in your land and country. When I pointed out that to say it stood for pride in your country was absurd, you retreated to ideas.

Granted. A flag can stand for ideas. What ideas do the Confederate flags stand for? Since when?



Stood for treason and slavery when created.

Stood for racism and segregation -- in the very recent past to the present.

When -- when -- did it begin to stand for "freedom from tyranny"?

How did this magic transformation occur?



Actually, I'm glad you asked for specificity.

States have a degree of sovereignty under the Constitution. They do make their own laws and govern their own people -- subject to the constraints of the Constitution and federal law made pursuant to the Constitution.



How does "flying it for the right reasons" look different than flying it for racism?

How does anyone know you've taken a traditionally ugly symbol and cleaned it up in your own mind?

A symbol doesn't mean anything if it means only what you say it means in your own mind.



Again, what state's rights?

What exactly are you talking about?

The "state's rights" issue represented by the Confederate flags then was the right to slavery -- and to the expansion of slavery to new territory and to have slaves returned from free states.

The "state's rights" represented by the Confederate flags recently was the right to segregrate the races.

What is the "state's right" issue now that is represented by the flag?

And what are the arguments that such a state's right should exist.


The nebulous states right you're speaking of, at least one I can think of, is the right to own arms and defend yourself, another is to prevent gay unions, or maybe the right to choose what rights you might need in the future, is that an important enough right for you? The confederate battle flag stands for all of these and more, it stands for the last bastion of christian morality in a nation that has lost its morals.

The "state's rights" issue represented by the Confederate flags then was the right to slavery -- and to the expansion of slavery to new territory and to have slaves returned from free states.

The "state's rights" represented by the Confederate flags recently was the right to segregrate the races.

What is the "state's right" issue now that is represented by the flag?

And what are the arguments that such a state's right should exist.
Again, the "states rights" issue is a very broad issue. There are no current "states rights" that are being fought for (maybe gay marriage). The issue is why does the US government have the authority to blanket the entire country with rules and regulations when the state is more in touch with its population and likely meet their needs better. I am not saying that there should be no federal government laws. I'm saying that the issue is that states should be the ones making the laws pertaining to their citizen's rights. For example, the right to abortion, the right to legally marry, the right to consume alcohol as a 19 year-old. These are issues that many feel should be established on a state by state basis. Why should the government impose on everyone in the US that marriage is only between a man and woman? Or that it is not legal to abort a fetus? Some feel that it is not the national government's place to step in and say those things. That is what the flag stands for.

The image of the flag was recently "cleaned up" when it was brought to light that people were still flying it. Someone said you had to take it down, and this was seen as tyranny. So people began to fly it in protest of tyranny not as a support for slavery. I agree it is very recent and many may still see it as a symbol of racism. But many of those flying now are in defiance of tyranny and oppression (kind of the opposite if you ask me).

You know what, this is officially no holds barred.
No it's not.

Miehm, you are Forumbanned for three days for flaming. You've been pushing the limits of acceptable behavior all through this thread, and you went WAAAY over the line with that one. If you can't learn to live within our ruleset, then you're not welcome here.

Are we clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Have you read the Declarations of Secessions? They make it very clear that they were being treated unfairly and their ideas not heard in a national government setting.

Slavery was an issue. It was not the only issue or even the largest issue. The largest issue was the right of the state to choose what is best for its citizens.


Um, perhaps you should read again. Here are some excerpts:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

....

Georgia
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

....

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

....

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

There is little to support your thesis in these documents. Almost all of the complaints identified are directly related to slavery. Even to the extent some other complaints may be buried in these documents, they are first and foremost about the preservation of the institution of slavery.

Um, perhaps you should read again. Here are some excerpts:







There is little to support your thesis in these documents. Almost all of the complaints identified are directly related to slavery. Even to the extent some other complaints may be buried in these documents, they are first and foremost about the preservation of the institution of slavery.


You specifically ignore anything but the points concerning slavery, why is that?

You specifically ignore anything but the points concerning slavery, why is that?

Please feel free to identify any significant complaints raised that are not related to slavery.

You know what, this is officially no holds barred. You dirty, arrogant, self righteous, holier than thou, supercilious piece of amphibian shit, you have made what is quite possibly the biggest mistake of your life, I am now going to proceed to, in the most disgusting and obscene words I can think of, describe your family. Your mother was a fat old whore with AIDs that popped you out in a public toilet and forgot to flush, your dad wasn't even human, seeing as he was the neighbors german shephard, and you're more idiotic and illogical about life in general than sarah brady.
Oooooh... Now I see what you mean by honorable! If this is the case then, yes, the south was very honorable.

You specifically ignore anything but the points concerning slavery, why is that?
Because slavery is the cause of most of their complaints. The others are "tough luck kiddo, but it doesn't work that way".