|
Post by johnnybgood on Apr 15, 2023 19:29:32 GMT
Only 5% of enslaved blacks were ever brought to North America. But the UK made a fortune getting them there. The UK eventually voluntarily outlawed slavery and the slave trade. CSA was established to preserve and expand the practice. Poor Paleo....dunked on again.... and all Lincoln said was "No expansion". Greedy dummies to attached to slavery in their culture.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 15, 2023 19:45:52 GMT
The UK eventually voluntarily outlawed slavery and the slave trade. CSA was established to preserve and expand the practice. Poor Paleo....dunked on again.... and all Lincoln said was "No expansion". Greedy dummies to attached to slavery in their culture. So, with that in mind, by seceding, the Southerners must have won the right to expand into U.S. territories.....oh, wait.....
Secession damaged slavery and every Southerner of that era knew that it would. By seceding, they ended their own chance at expansion into any other states or territories; by seceding, they also lost any chance to get back slaves that escaped North.
It wasn't about slavery.
The North offered its surrender on slavery in March 1861 with the Corwin Amendment....an amendment that offered permanent slavery protection in the U.S. Constitution in exchange for returning to the Union. If it had all been about slavery, the South had won without a shot fired (well, a few). All they had to do was accept the amendment and declare victory.
The South did not accept the Amendment because their cause was not about slavery.
Many of the 1% Southern elitists, firebrands and "fire eaters" that had squeaked about slavery were shunted aside and forgotten after the war started. If it was all about slavery, those would be the leaders, not the outcasts.
Because it was not about slavery.
Don't fall for the historical trap set to catch malleable fools, the gullible ones who actually believe the Northern lies. The South and that war were far more complex than any of the garbage you'll hear from the leftists on this forum.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,623
|
Post by thor on Apr 15, 2023 20:04:24 GMT
and all Lincoln said was "No expansion". Greedy dummies to attached to slavery in their culture. So, with that in mind, by seceding, the Southerners must have won the right to expand into U.S. territories.....oh, wait.....
Secession damaged slavery and every Southerner of that era knew that it would. By seceding, they ended their own chance at expansion into any other states or territories; by seceding, they also lost any chance to get back slaves that escaped North.
It wasn't about slavery.
The North offered its surrender on slavery in March 1861 with the Corwin Amendment....an amendment that offered permanent slavery protection in the U.S. Constitution in exchange for returning to the Union. If it had all been about slavery, the South had won without a shot fired (well, a few). All they had to do was accept the amendment and declare victory.
The South did not accept the Amendment because their cause was not about slavery.
Many of the 1% Southern elitists, firebrands and "fire eaters" that had squeaked about slavery were shunted aside and forgotten after the war started. If it was all about slavery, those would be the leaders, not the outcasts.
Because it was not about slavery.
Don't fall for the historical trap set to catch malleable fools, the gullible ones who actually believe the Northern lies. The South and that war were far more complex than any of the garbage you'll hear from the leftists on this forum.
Paleo admits that the Civil War was about the preservation and expansion of slavery. Masterful Self-own.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Apr 15, 2023 20:06:29 GMT
and all Lincoln said was "No expansion". Greedy dummies to attached to slavery in their culture. So, with that in mind, by seceding, the Southerners must have won the right to expand into U.S. territories.....oh, wait.....
Secession damaged slavery and every Southerner of that era knew that it would. By seceding, they ended their own chance at expansion into any other states or territories; by seceding, they also lost any chance to get back slaves that escaped North.
It wasn't about slavery.
The North offered its surrender on slavery in March 1861 with the Corwin Amendment....an amendment that offered permanent slavery protection in the U.S. Constitution in exchange for returning to the Union. If it had all been about slavery, the South had won without a shot fired (well, a few). All they had to do was accept the amendment and declare victory.
The South did not accept the Amendment because their cause was not about slavery.
Many of the 1% Southern elitists, firebrands and "fire eaters" that had squeaked about slavery were shunted aside and forgotten after the war started. If it was all about slavery, those would be the leaders, not the outcasts.
Because it was not about slavery.
Don't fall for the historical trap set to catch malleable fools, the gullible ones who actually believe the Northern lies. The South and that war were far more complex than any of the garbage you'll hear from the leftists on this forum.
The south wanted to expand slavery to the west. Lincoln said no. Regardless of what we argue it was about, slavery was a big part of it.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 15, 2023 20:14:52 GMT
So, with that in mind, by seceding, the Southerners must have won the right to expand into U.S. territories.....oh, wait.....
Secession damaged slavery and every Southerner of that era knew that it would. By seceding, they ended their own chance at expansion into any other states or territories; by seceding, they also lost any chance to get back slaves that escaped North.
It wasn't about slavery.
The North offered its surrender on slavery in March 1861 with the Corwin Amendment....an amendment that offered permanent slavery protection in the U.S. Constitution in exchange for returning to the Union. If it had all been about slavery, the South had won without a shot fired (well, a few). All they had to do was accept the amendment and declare victory.
The South did not accept the Amendment because their cause was not about slavery.
Many of the 1% Southern elitists, firebrands and "fire eaters" that had squeaked about slavery were shunted aside and forgotten after the war started. If it was all about slavery, those would be the leaders, not the outcasts.
Because it was not about slavery.
Don't fall for the historical trap set to catch malleable fools, the gullible ones who actually believe the Northern lies. The South and that war were far more complex than any of the garbage you'll hear from the leftists on this forum.
Paleo admits that the Civil War was about the preservation and expansion of slavery. Masterful Self-own. You can't be this f*cking stupid in real life. I admitted exactly the opposite...if Southerners' primary goal had been "preservation and expansion of slavery", why would they secede knowing that secession damaged the institution and ended any chance to expand into territories or get their slaves back from the North?
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.
You truly are a dumbass. I imagine the military was glad to get rid of you.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 15, 2023 20:25:47 GMT
So, with that in mind, by seceding, the Southerners must have won the right to expand into U.S. territories.....oh, wait.....
Secession damaged slavery and every Southerner of that era knew that it would. By seceding, they ended their own chance at expansion into any other states or territories; by seceding, they also lost any chance to get back slaves that escaped North.
It wasn't about slavery.
The North offered its surrender on slavery in March 1861 with the Corwin Amendment....an amendment that offered permanent slavery protection in the U.S. Constitution in exchange for returning to the Union. If it had all been about slavery, the South had won without a shot fired (well, a few). All they had to do was accept the amendment and declare victory.
The South did not accept the Amendment because their cause was not about slavery.
Many of the 1% Southern elitists, firebrands and "fire eaters" that had squeaked about slavery were shunted aside and forgotten after the war started. If it was all about slavery, those would be the leaders, not the outcasts.
Because it was not about slavery.
Don't fall for the historical trap set to catch malleable fools, the gullible ones who actually believe the Northern lies. The South and that war were far more complex than any of the garbage you'll hear from the leftists on this forum.
The south wanted to expand slavery to the west. Lincoln said no. Regardless of what we argue it was about, slavery was a big part of it. *SIGH*. And by seceding, any chance to expand westward was lost. All entreaties to have runaway slaves was lost. It's completely counterintuitaive and contrary to evidnece that slavery was the cause.
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power.
Slavery was the spark, the excuse, the tipping point and a symptom of the national illness....but it was NOT the cause of the war, nor the Southern cause during that war. It was simply an example of the continued Northern push for more federal power and the violations of the Constitutional compact by the North...the real reasons that the South seceded and the real reason that the North invaded....money and power for the elitists in the North. Google Clay's American System and educate yourself.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Apr 15, 2023 20:32:31 GMT
Paleo admits that the Civil War was about the preservation and expansion of slavery. Masterful Self-own. You can't be this f*cking stupid in real life. I admitted exactly the opposite...if Southerners' primary goal had been "preservation and expansion of slavery", why would they secede knowing that secession damaged the institution and ended any chance to expand into territories or get their slaves back from the North?
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.
You truly are a dumbass. I imagine the military was glad to get rid of you.
because they were stupid. As the North and Europe economy grew, the south needed to also grow. The wealthy had the power in politics down there. They didn't think this out. Survival of the economy of the south relied on expansion. There was no 2nd option in their eyes. The demand was so high and they were missing out on big money. This type of thing is still happening today around the world. Expansion for production to improve the economy. You don't have to be embarrassed. You don't have to say slavery if you'd rather not. Expansion and mo money!! is what it was about. Say that if it makes you feel better. Ignore the fact that slavery had to come with it.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,844
|
Post by Fiddler on Apr 15, 2023 20:33:41 GMT
Paleo admits that the Civil War was about the preservation and expansion of slavery. Masterful Self-own.
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.
Sure.. It wasn't about slavery.. That must be why Confederate leaders said "it's about slavery" dozens of times.. You're a stooge , the only thing l hear you say is Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk followed by arm pit noises every time you post ..
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 15, 2023 21:36:48 GMT
You're getting worse than Bama Beau....learn to format so that your posts don't look like you vomited on the forum.
And it's both dishonest and historically stupid to claim that "they were fighting to keep black people as property", especially after I've repeatedly schooled you on the fact that that was never true.
The Confederate Constitution mirrored the U.S. Constitution, which....what a shocker....made slavery legal and that same U.S. Constitution REMAINED UNCHANGED UNTIL 1865! Lincoln didn't even interfere with slaveholding in any state that remained in the Union.
Very few historians dare to question the Northern lies because their careers in academia would be over (and yes, they are all lies and propaganda, whether "accepted" by the cowards in the history establishment or not).
If you want to be a lemming and continue to believe your brainwashed Northern lies, that's up to you. An intelligent person would see the flaws and dishonesty in those propaganda accounts of history. The only question that remains is....are you an intelligent person?
The formatting looks fine to me. People choose their own way of how their posts look and I really don't see any problem with mine. No, you've schooled me in the Lost Cause bs, which wasn't necessary. I've seen other Lost Causers on the internet and their arguments aren't exactly original and they're basically the same. While this isn't directly related to the cause of the Civil War, where's the free blacks owned slaves, Indians owned slaves argument. All true, but hardly a good argument about slavery. But I digress. Of course they were fighting to keep slavery. That's why Lincoln's election scared them so much, even though there was no reason to be scared. Nobody said the southern elites were the sharpest tools in the shed. Where is the evidence that historians who question that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War are punished for that view? I haven't seen any. This has nothing to do with some nefarious northern propaganda. It's simply the reasoned conclusions of those looking at the evidence and the evidence points to slavery as the cause of the Civil War. Even a person of average intelligence can figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Apr 16, 2023 0:24:16 GMT
And Jim Crow laws were about?.........
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 16, 2023 2:26:50 GMT
You can't be this f*cking stupid in real life. I admitted exactly the opposite...if Southerners' primary goal had been "preservation and expansion of slavery", why would they secede knowing that secession damaged the institution and ended any chance to expand into territories or get their slaves back from the North?
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.
You truly are a dumbass. I imagine the military was glad to get rid of you.
because they were stupid. As the North and Europe economy grew, the south needed to also grow. The wealthy had the power in politics down there. They didn't think this out. Survival of the economy of the south relied on expansion. There was no 2nd option in their eyes. The demand was so high and they were missing out on big money. This type of thing is still happening today around the world. Expansion for production to improve the economy. You don't have to be embarrassed. You don't have to say slavery if you'd rather not. Expansion and mo money!! is what it was about. Say that if it makes you feel better. Ignore the fact that slavery had to come with it. I didn't really expect you to be this ignorant of history, but there it is in print above. So, according to you expansion was the key, eh? And you actually think that they didn't realize that expansion was impossible if they seceded and that there would be no extra room for slavery if they left, but they left anyway because they needed "expansion".
Do you not realize how ridiculous and laughable that sounds. They gave up expansion and gave up any hope of retrieving slaves....wait for it....BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!
Seriously pick a subject that you do have something intelligent to share, 'cause this ain't it.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 16, 2023 2:27:40 GMT
And Jim Crow laws were about?......... They were a direct copy of the Northern Black Codes. Like I said, you're over your head on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Apr 16, 2023 3:06:05 GMT
And Jim Crow laws were about?......... They were a direct copy of the Northern Black Codes. Like I said, you're over your head on this subject. Unbelievable. I won't argue there wasn't open hands for blacks in the North. But you can't possibly compare. Does this garbage get taught in southern schools?
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,623
|
Post by thor on Apr 16, 2023 6:53:17 GMT
Paleo admits that the Civil War was about the preservation and expansion of slavery. Masterful Self-own. You can't be this f*cking stupid in real life. I admitted exactly the opposite...if Southerners' primary goal had been "preservation and expansion of slavery", why would they secede knowing that secession damaged the institution and ended any chance to expand into territories or get their slaves back from the North?
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.
You truly are a dumbass. I imagine the military was glad to get rid of you.
Dumbfuck - it was absolutely about slavery. And they were proud to admit it, Stupid Boy - they wrote that shit down.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,623
|
Post by thor on Apr 16, 2023 6:55:10 GMT
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 16, 2023 18:28:45 GMT
You can't be this f*cking stupid in real life. I admitted exactly the opposite...if Southerners' primary goal had been "preservation and expansion of slavery", why would they secede knowing that secession damaged the institution and ended any chance to expand into territories or get their slaves back from the North?
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.
You truly are a dumbass. I imagine the military was glad to get rid of you.
Dumbfuck - it was absolutely about slavery. And they were proud to admit it, Stupid Boy - they wrote that shit down. Yes, you definitely are this f*cking stupid in real life. Only a tiny handful "wrote that shit down", not the whole of the country.
It's like I'm talking to an animal and expecting it to understand.
Anything else, Mongo?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 16, 2023 18:47:09 GMT
They were a direct copy of the Northern Black Codes. Like I said, you're over your head on this subject. Unbelievable. I won't argue there wasn't open hands for blacks in the North. But you can't possibly compare. Does this garbage get taught in southern schools? You really are clueless, aren't you? Do they graduate a lot of dumbasses in Northern/Western schools? They must because I keep running across them on these forums.
Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted Black Codes: Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free Blacks from residing in those states. They were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and equal treatment under the law. Some Northern states repealed such laws when the Civil War ended, and slavery was abolished by constitutional amendment.
Ohio "provided a classic example of how anti-immigration legislation could be invoked to harass Negro residents."[5] The state had enacted Black Laws in 1804 and 1807 that compelled blacks entering the state to post bond of $500 guaranteeing good behavior and to produce a court paper as proof that they were free. "No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days." Citizens of the city's "Little Africa" -- largely a ghetto of wooden shacks owned by whites...
....segregation was not enough for many Ohio whites, and they insulted, opposed, and sometimes literally attacked private schools set up to teach black children. Whites destroyed newly opened schools for blacks in Zanesville in 1837 and Troy in 1840. Similar mass resistance took place in Vermont and Connecticut.
Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days.
Indiana's anti-immigration rule was challenged in the case of a black man convicted for bringing a black woman into the state to marry her. The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that, "The policy of the state is ... clearly evolved. It is to exclude any further ingress of negroes, and to remove those already among us as speedily as possible."
When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states, and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor." Even those that didn't exclude blacks debated doing so and had discriminatory ordinances on the local level.
This is fun....historical accuracy is even more adept at kicking asses than I am.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 16, 2023 18:50:58 GMT
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.
Sure.. It wasn't about slavery.. That must be why Confederate leaders said "it's about slavery" dozens of times.. You're a stooge , the only thing l hear you say is Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk followed by arm pit noises every time you post .. Oh, "dozens of times"....well, hell, that must settle it then, if it was dozens of times out of the millions and millions of things said by Southerners during that era.
Can't get much more stupid than Fiddler, but he keeps trying to break his own record.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 10,329
|
Post by bama beau on Apr 16, 2023 18:58:02 GMT
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.
Sure.. It wasn't about slavery.. That must be why Confederate leaders said "it's about slavery" dozens of times.. You're a stooge , the only thing l hear you say is Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk followed by arm pit noises every time you post .. What did Curly Howard ever do to you to deserve that?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 16, 2023 18:58:58 GMT
Actually, that video should be mandatory viewing to balance against the lies of CRT and the woke indoctrination of students.
Liberals are terrified when schools present dissenting and opposing viewpoints that might make students realize that history is far more complex than the cartoonish leftist propaganda.
The article mentioned that the teacher told the students that the war should more accurately called the "War To Prevent Southern Independence", which is exactly what it was about, not slavery. And it wasn't even a civil war....that's just another Northern lie to prevent folks from digging too deep into the actual history.
|
|