thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 16, 2024 1:11:34 GMT
Slavery as the cause is the real history. That belief has nothing to do with racism but with individual judgement. 'Told to think' is another one of your imaginary notions. There's no reason to think that most southerners had disagreements with the elite over secession and slavery. Marines protecting Zuck? Your analogies are getting more farfetched all the time. Yep, you're always striking nerves, in your own mind, not anywhere else. And those who focus on the Holocaust are either anti-Semites or believe in Jewish superiority. Take your pick. Is there an LNF transfer portal? The positive change was that slavery was preserved instead of being destroyed as southerners feared would happen under Lincoln's presidency. Oaky, they got that one wrong, but they didn't think so at the time. The rest is of lesser importance. Nine consecutive strikes. Inning over. Slavery as the South's cause was, is and will always be false history from biased zealots . It will never be the truth no matter how many times you repeat it.
Of course you've been brainwashed and told what to say. And I've already proven that holding the false view that slavery was the South's cause is a racist position.
Your cultish lack of both curiosity and objectivity is painful to watch in a grown man (you ARE a grown man, aren't you?). It must have been devastating for you to see that list of nine irrefutable facts proving that the most significant changes due to Southern secession were economic casues, not slavery. The baseless claim that everything but slavery was of "lesser importance" shows you to be a fanatic, not a student of history.
Slavery was never in danger and both sides knew it. Show us any serious initiative in the North where slavery was going to be destroyed under Lincoln. Slavery was never threatened either rhetorically nor legislatively by the North. Slavery was willfully damaged by Southern secession because the ECONOMIC and LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM benefits of secession were of greater importance than the dying institution of slavery.
This is worth repeating because it is so fatal to the Northern lies about the Confederacy: Secession did not change slavery where it existed, but it did change the economic relationship. It changed the legislative process, severing the economic slavery of the South to its ever more authoritarian masters in the North. Slavery was the last straw, not the cause. The "slavery was the cause" lie is little more than fodder for the weak minded that want to be told what to think rather than think for themselves.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 16, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
Slavery as the South's cause was, is and will always be false history from biased zealots . It will never be the truth no matter how many times you repeat it.
Of course you've been brainwashed and told what to say. And I've already proven that holding the false view that slavery was the South's cause is a racist position.
Your cultish lack of both curiosity and objectivity is painful to watch in a grown man (you ARE a grown man, aren't you?). It must have been devastating for you to see that list of nine irrefutable facts proving that the most significant changes due to Southern secession were economic casues, not slavery. The baseless claim that everything but slavery was of "lesser importance" shows you to be a fanatic, not a student of history.
Slavery was never in danger and both sides knew it. Show us any serious initiative in the North where slavery was going to be destroyed under Lincoln. Slavery was never threatened either rhetorically nor legislatively by the North. Slavery was willfully damaged by Southern secession because the ECONOMIC and LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM benefits of secession were of greater importance than the dying institution of slavery.
This is worth repeating because it is so fatal to the Northern lies about the Confederacy: Secession did not change slavery where it existed, but it did change the economic relationship. It changed the legislative process, severing the economic slavery of the South to its ever more authoritarian masters in the North. Slavery was the last straw, not the cause. The "slavery was the cause" lie is little more than fodder for the weak minded that want to be told what to think rather than think for themselves.
:D:D:D Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Aha!
Got them good...
|
|
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, 2024 14:30:25 GMT
Slavery as the South's cause was, is and will always be false history from biased zealots . It will never be the truth no matter how many times you repeat it.
Of course you've been brainwashed and told what to say. And I've already proven that holding the false view that slavery was the South's cause is a racist position.
Your cultish lack of both curiosity and objectivity is painful to watch in a grown man (you ARE a grown man, aren't you?). It must have been devastating for you to see that list of nine irrefutable facts proving that the most significant changes due to Southern secession were economic casues, not slavery. The baseless claim that everything but slavery was of "lesser importance" shows you to be a fanatic, not a student of history.
Slavery was never in danger and both sides knew it. Show us any serious initiative in the North where slavery was going to be destroyed under Lincoln. Slavery was never threatened either rhetorically nor legislatively by the North. Slavery was willfully damaged by Southern secession because the ECONOMIC and LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM benefits of secession were of greater importance than the dying institution of slavery.
This is worth repeating because it is so fatal to the Northern lies about the Confederacy: Secession did not change slavery where it existed, but it did change the economic relationship. It changed the legislative process, severing the economic slavery of the South to its ever more authoritarian masters in the North. Slavery was the last straw, not the cause. The "slavery was the cause" lie is little more than fodder for the weak minded that want to be told what to think rather than think for themselves.
You're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's wrong. And who told me what to say? The idea that those who believe that slavery was the cause makes them racists is one of the most foolish arguments I've ever seen. I don't think even the most extreme of Lost Causers would be clueless enough to believe it. I doubt one's beliefs about the Civil War has anything to do with being a grown man. Apples and oranges. Yes, it was so totally devastating that I haven't slept since reading it. Not. Slavery was not in danger, but one side didn't know it. Mistakenly thinking that Lincoln would abolish slavery, SC was the first to skedaddle and their Declaration of Causes is mostly about slavery and not economic matters. Southerners seceded not to damage slavery but to preserve it. Gee if only the slaves knew it was a "dying institution" they would have stopped trying to escape. About as fatal was a water balloon. My opinion has never been wrong. Unlike you, I've presented the facts to prove that my opinion is correct. It's what critical thinkers do.
Racist propagandists who peddle the "slavery was the cause" lie are the ones that have told you what to think and say. You've referred to them often. The mob of alleged historians that you hide behind without ever quoting any of them, remember?
As I've schooled you repeatedly, pretending that every other cause is "secondary" to slavery and zeroing in on just slavery as the alleged cause is a form of racial supremacy.
Unbelievably stupid....are you actually making the ridiculous excuse that the South didn't really know whether slavery was endangered or not, but the all knowing North did? Is there any lame and laughable excuse you are not planning to attempt on this thread. Are you trying to be seen as a joke or does it just come naturally to you?
Only 20% of the South Carolina FIRST Declaration was about slavery (in your ignorance, you didn't realize that there were TWO declarations from South Carolina, did you?):
The one great evil from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of a confederate republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism. It is, in fact, such a government as Great Britain attempted to set over our fathers, and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years struggle for independence.
The revolution of 1776 turned upon one great principle, self-government, and self-taxation the criterion of self-government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the colonies were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their colonies of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American colonies was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations, and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under charters which gave them self-government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated empire the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others connected with the operation of the General Government, has provincialized the cities of the South. Their growth is paralyzed, while they are the mere suburbs of Northern cities. The bases of the foreign commerce of the United States are the agricultural productions of the South; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740 there were five shipyards in South Carolina to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779 there were built in these yards twenty-five square-rigged vessels, beside a great number of sloops and schooners to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.
No man can for a moment believe that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown. The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution -- a limited free Government -- a Government limited to those matters only which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement would they obtain free government by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet, by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the North, and submission on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away, and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations.
Taxes and economics were the FIRST things discussed in that Declaration, with slavery as the second subject discussed.
No, Southerners did not secede to preserve slavery and they knew that they would damage and shorten the institution by seceding. The South seceded to prevent themselves becoming economic and legislative slaves to the more powerful Northern states. Evidently, your mind is incapable of seeing that larger issues that caused secession that were not about slavery, but about subjugation of the entire Southern region by Northern incrementalism.
|
|
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, 2024 14:49:13 GMT
Slavery as the South's cause was, is and will always be false history from biased zealots . It will never be the truth no matter how many times you repeat it.
Of course you've been brainwashed and told what to say. And I've already proven that holding the false view that slavery was the South's cause is a racist position.
Your cultish lack of both curiosity and objectivity is painful to watch in a grown man (you ARE a grown man, aren't you?). It must have been devastating for you to see that list of nine irrefutable facts proving that the most significant changes due to Southern secession were economic casues, not slavery. The baseless claim that everything but slavery was of "lesser importance" shows you to be a fanatic, not a student of history.
Slavery was never in danger and both sides knew it. Show us any serious initiative in the North where slavery was going to be destroyed under Lincoln. Slavery was never threatened either rhetorically nor legislatively by the North. Slavery was willfully damaged by Southern secession because the ECONOMIC and LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM benefits of secession were of greater importance than the dying institution of slavery.
This is worth repeating because it is so fatal to the Northern lies about the Confederacy: Secession did not change slavery where it existed, but it did change the economic relationship. It changed the legislative process, severing the economic slavery of the South to its ever more authoritarian masters in the North. Slavery was the last straw, not the cause. The "slavery was the cause" lie is little more than fodder for the weak minded that want to be told what to think rather than think for themselves.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." The Confederate clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) states that:The Congress shall have power-
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry, and all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
That was a brand new addition to the Confederate Constitution prohibiting protective tariffs as opposed to the addition of a line about slavery that changed nothing about the institution.
So, if your idea is that anything cherry picked out of the Confederate Constitution was the cause, then my quote makes tariffs the cause.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 16, 2024 21:08:30 GMT
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." The Confederate clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) states that:The Congress shall have power-
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry, and all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
That was a brand new addition to the Confederate Constitution prohibiting protective tariffs as opposed to the addition of a line about slavery that changed nothing about the institution.
So, if your idea is that anything cherry picked out of the Confederate Constitution was the cause, then my quote makes tariffs the cause. Which means they wanted to keep that institution, dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 16, 2024 21:19:21 GMT
You're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's wrong. And who told me what to say? The idea that those who believe that slavery was the cause makes them racists is one of the most foolish arguments I've ever seen. I don't think even the most extreme of Lost Causers would be clueless enough to believe it. I doubt one's beliefs about the Civil War has anything to do with being a grown man. Apples and oranges. Yes, it was so totally devastating that I haven't slept since reading it. Not. Slavery was not in danger, but one side didn't know it. Mistakenly thinking that Lincoln would abolish slavery, SC was the first to skedaddle and their Declaration of Causes is mostly about slavery and not economic matters. Southerners seceded not to damage slavery but to preserve it. Gee if only the slaves knew it was a "dying institution" they would have stopped trying to escape. About as fatal was a water balloon. My opinion has never been wrong. Unlike you, I've presented the facts to prove that my opinion is correct. It's what critical thinkers do.
Racist propagandists who peddle the "slavery was the cause" lie are the ones that have told you what to think and say. You've referred to them often. The mob of alleged historians that you hide behind without ever quoting any of them, remember?
As I've schooled you repeatedly, pretending that every other cause is "secondary" to slavery and zeroing in on just slavery as the alleged cause is a form of racial supremacy.
Unbelievably stupid....are you actually making the ridiculous excuse that the South didn't really know whether slavery was endangered or not, but the all knowing North did? Is there any lame and laughable excuse you are not planning to attempt on this thread. Are you trying to be seen as a joke or does it just come naturally to you?
Only 20% of the South Carolina FIRST Declaration was about slavery (in your ignorance, you didn't realize that there were TWO declarations from South Carolina, did you?):
The one great evil from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of a confederate republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism. It is, in fact, such a government as Great Britain attempted to set over our fathers, and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years struggle for independence.
The revolution of 1776 turned upon one great principle, self-government, and self-taxation the criterion of self-government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the colonies were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their colonies of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American colonies was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations, and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under charters which gave them self-government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated empire the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others connected with the operation of the General Government, has provincialized the cities of the South. Their growth is paralyzed, while they are the mere suburbs of Northern cities. The bases of the foreign commerce of the United States are the agricultural productions of the South; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740 there were five shipyards in South Carolina to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779 there were built in these yards twenty-five square-rigged vessels, beside a great number of sloops and schooners to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.
No man can for a moment believe that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown. The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution -- a limited free Government -- a Government limited to those matters only which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement would they obtain free government by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet, by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the North, and submission on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away, and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations.
Taxes and economics were the FIRST things discussed in that Declaration, with slavery as the second subject discussed.
No, Southerners did not secede to preserve slavery and they knew that they would damage and shorten the institution by seceding. The South seceded to prevent themselves becoming economic and legislative slaves to the more powerful Northern states. Evidently, your mind is incapable of seeing that larger issues that caused secession that were not about slavery, but about subjugation of the entire Southern region by Northern incrementalism.
Your opinion has never been wrong. You are a perfect person with no flaws or errors. Why can't everybody realize this model of human perfection and follow along? I mean tell in the sense of communicating orally. Who are these people who are telling me these things? I wouldn't call it schooling. I'd call it a ridiculous idea straight from bizarro land. You have it backasswards. The south thought slavery was in danger though it wasn't. The north knew it was not in danger. Since there are two SC secession declarations I guess everyone can pick their own as they like. For the nth time, who goes to war knowing they will lose? And who would go to war to end the very institution that was of such importance to their economy? Not even the Confederates were that stupid. I can see other issues, but they pale in comparison to preserving one of the main institutions of the Confederate states--slavery.
|
|
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, 2024 23:12:53 GMT
My opinion has never been wrong. Unlike you, I've presented the facts to prove that my opinion is correct. It's what critical thinkers do.
Racist propagandists who peddle the "slavery was the cause" lie are the ones that have told you what to think and say. You've referred to them often. The mob of alleged historians that you hide behind without ever quoting any of them, remember?
As I've schooled you repeatedly, pretending that every other cause is "secondary" to slavery and zeroing in on just slavery as the alleged cause is a form of racial supremacy.
Unbelievably stupid....are you actually making the ridiculous excuse that the South didn't really know whether slavery was endangered or not, but the all knowing North did? Is there any lame and laughable excuse you are not planning to attempt on this thread. Are you trying to be seen as a joke or does it just come naturally to you?
Only 20% of the South Carolina FIRST Declaration was about slavery (in your ignorance, you didn't realize that there were TWO declarations from South Carolina, did you?):
The one great evil from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of a confederate republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism. It is, in fact, such a government as Great Britain attempted to set over our fathers, and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years struggle for independence.
The revolution of 1776 turned upon one great principle, self-government, and self-taxation the criterion of self-government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the colonies were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their colonies of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American colonies was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations, and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under charters which gave them self-government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated empire the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others connected with the operation of the General Government, has provincialized the cities of the South. Their growth is paralyzed, while they are the mere suburbs of Northern cities. The bases of the foreign commerce of the United States are the agricultural productions of the South; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740 there were five shipyards in South Carolina to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779 there were built in these yards twenty-five square-rigged vessels, beside a great number of sloops and schooners to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.
No man can for a moment believe that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown. The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution -- a limited free Government -- a Government limited to those matters only which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement would they obtain free government by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet, by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the North, and submission on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away, and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations.
Taxes and economics were the FIRST things discussed in that Declaration, with slavery as the second subject discussed.
No, Southerners did not secede to preserve slavery and they knew that they would damage and shorten the institution by seceding. The South seceded to prevent themselves becoming economic and legislative slaves to the more powerful Northern states. Evidently, your mind is incapable of seeing that larger issues that caused secession that were not about slavery, but about subjugation of the entire Southern region by Northern incrementalism.
Your opinion has never been wrong. You are a perfect person with no flaws or errors. Why can't everybody realize this model of human perfection and follow along? I mean tell in the sense of communicating orally. Who are these people who are telling me these things? I wouldn't call it schooling. I'd call it a ridiculous idea straight from bizarro land. You have it backasswards. The south thought slavery was in danger though it wasn't. The north knew it was not in danger. Since there are two SC secession declarations I guess everyone can pick their own as they like. For the nth time, who goes to war knowing they will lose? And who would go to war to end the very institution that was of such importance to their economy? Not even the Confederates were that stupid. I can see other issues, but they pale in comparison to preserving one of the main institutions of the Confederate states--slavery. On this subject, I HAVE been right 100% of the time. Perfect record.
Oh, I'm sure you've been fed a lot of things "orally", but telling you what to think and say can come from the written word. Unfortunately, those writings are lies when they tell you the South's cause was slavery.
No, the South didn't think slavery was in danger, they thought the Republic as founded and fealty to the Constitution was in danger. Slavery was just one symptom of the larger disease. You are so small minded in evaluating historical events, looking at a detail and missing the real story.
Aren't YOU cherry picking from documents to support the "slavery was the cause" lie? Yet, you're whining because I found more documents that you were too ignorant to relaize existed. Didn't all of those historians that you hide behind tell you about the second South Carolina declaration?
Confederates didn't go to war to lose, but they did intentionally damage slavery because it wasn't their cause. They went to war to prevent themselves becoming economic and legislative slaves to the more powerful Northern states. Secession was not about slavery, but about subjugation of the entire Southern region by Northern incrementalism. And stopping that evil was more important than preserving slavery.
You keep saying those other issues "pale in comparison", but I just showed you that economic and legislative issues were more important based on the changes Confederates made to their own Constitution. Make your case if you think those other issues are "lesser" or "secondary", because I've made the case that slavery was not the South's cause and those other issues were far more important.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 17, 2024 18:12:58 GMT
Your opinion has never been wrong. You are a perfect person with no flaws or errors. Why can't everybody realize this model of human perfection and follow along? I mean tell in the sense of communicating orally. Who are these people who are telling me these things? I wouldn't call it schooling. I'd call it a ridiculous idea straight from bizarro land. You have it backasswards. The south thought slavery was in danger though it wasn't. The north knew it was not in danger. Since there are two SC secession declarations I guess everyone can pick their own as they like. For the nth time, who goes to war knowing they will lose? And who would go to war to end the very institution that was of such importance to their economy? Not even the Confederates were that stupid. I can see other issues, but they pale in comparison to preserving one of the main institutions of the Confederate states--slavery. On this subject, I HAVE been right 100% of the time. Perfect record.
Oh, I'm sure you've been fed a lot of things "orally", but telling you what to think and say can come from the written word. Unfortunately, those writings are lies when they tell you the South's cause was slavery.
No, the South didn't think slavery was in danger, they thought the Republic as founded and fealty to the Constitution was in danger. Slavery was just one symptom of the larger disease. You are so small minded in evaluating historical events, looking at a detail and missing the real story.
Aren't YOU cherry picking from documents to support the "slavery was the cause" lie? Yet, you're whining because I found more documents that you were too ignorant to relaize existed. Didn't all of those historians that you hide behind tell you about the second South Carolina declaration?
Confederates didn't go to war to lose, but they did intentionally damage slavery because it wasn't their cause. They went to war to prevent themselves becoming economic and legislative slaves to the more powerful Northern states. Secession was not about slavery, but about subjugation of the entire Southern region by Northern incrementalism. And stopping that evil was more important than preserving slavery.
You keep saying those other issues "pale in comparison", but I just showed you that economic and legislative issues were more important based on the changes Confederates made to their own Constitution. Make your case if you think those other issues are "lesser" or "secondary", because I've made the case that slavery was not the South's cause and those other issues were far more important.
Kicking your ass again..... Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
|
|
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 17, 2024 18:24:38 GMT
The Confederate clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) states that:The Congress shall have power-
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry, and all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
That was a brand new addition to the Confederate Constitution prohibiting protective tariffs as opposed to the addition of a line about slavery that changed nothing about the institution.
So, if your idea is that anything cherry picked out of the Confederate Constitution was the cause, then my quote makes tariffs the cause. Which means they wanted to keep that institution, dumbass. So, every reference to slavery in the United States Constitution must have meant that they wanted to "keep that institution" as well, right, twink?
The North passed an amendment in March 1861 that would have protected slavery even from future constitutional amendments I guess the Yankees wanted to "keep that institution" pretty badly.
By your f*cked up "logic", the Union fought to preserve slavery.
Enjoy getting your ass kicked, boy? I ain't tired yet if you want another.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 17, 2024 19:04:39 GMT
Which means they wanted to keep that institution, dumbass. So, every reference to slavery in the United States Constitution must have meant that they wanted to "keep that institution" as well, right, twink?
The North passed an amendment in March 1861 that would have protected slavery even from future constitutional amendments I guess the Yankees wanted to "keep that institution" pretty badly.
By your f*cked up "logic", the Union fought to preserve slavery.
Enjoy getting your ass kicked, boy? I ain't tired yet if you want another.
Poor Paleo - no such amendment was to the Constitution, you dumb fuck. Keep trying, Palooka....after your Top gets done wrecking your ass.
|
|
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 17, 2024 19:15:46 GMT
So, every reference to slavery in the United States Constitution must have meant that they wanted to "keep that institution" as well, right, twink?
The North passed an amendment in March 1861 that would have protected slavery even from future constitutional amendments I guess the Yankees wanted to "keep that institution" pretty badly.
By your f*cked up "logic", the Union fought to preserve slavery.
Enjoy getting your ass kicked, boy? I ain't tired yet if you want another.
Poor Paleo - no such amendment was to the Constitution, you dumb fuck. Keep trying, Palooka....after your Top gets done wrecking your ass. You're almost too f*cking stupid to be picked on for being that way...but I'll do it anyway:
A little dust cloud emerges every time my boot plows into your ass, and that's a lot of dust clouds.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 17, 2024 19:29:34 GMT
Poor Paleo - no such amendment was to the Constitution, you dumb fuck. Keep trying, Palooka....after your Top gets done wrecking your ass. You're almost too f*cking stupid to be picked on for being that way...but I'll do it anyway:
A little dust cloud emerges every time my boot plows into your ass, and that's a lot of dust clouds.
You retarded fuck. The US Constitution NO WHERE endorsed slavery like the CSA's did. Do you cry this hard when your Top wrecks your ass?
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 17, 2024 21:50:02 GMT
Your opinion has never been wrong. You are a perfect person with no flaws or errors. Why can't everybody realize this model of human perfection and follow along? I mean tell in the sense of communicating orally. Who are these people who are telling me these things? I wouldn't call it schooling. I'd call it a ridiculous idea straight from bizarro land. You have it backasswards. The south thought slavery was in danger though it wasn't. The north knew it was not in danger. Since there are two SC secession declarations I guess everyone can pick their own as they like. For the nth time, who goes to war knowing they will lose? And who would go to war to end the very institution that was of such importance to their economy? Not even the Confederates were that stupid. I can see other issues, but they pale in comparison to preserving one of the main institutions of the Confederate states--slavery. On this subject, I HAVE been right 100% of the time. Perfect record.
Oh, I'm sure you've been fed a lot of things "orally", but telling you what to think and say can come from the written word. Unfortunately, those writings are lies when they tell you the South's cause was slavery.
No, the South didn't think slavery was in danger, they thought the Republic as founded and fealty to the Constitution was in danger. Slavery was just one symptom of the larger disease. You are so small minded in evaluating historical events, looking at a detail and missing the real story.
Aren't YOU cherry picking from documents to support the "slavery was the cause" lie? Yet, you're whining because I found more documents that you were too ignorant to relaize existed. Didn't all of those historians that you hide behind tell you about the second South Carolina declaration?
Confederates didn't go to war to lose, but they did intentionally damage slavery because it wasn't their cause. They went to war to prevent themselves becoming economic and legislative slaves to the more powerful Northern states. Secession was not about slavery, but about subjugation of the entire Southern region by Northern incrementalism. And stopping that evil was more important than preserving slavery.
You keep saying those other issues "pale in comparison", but I just showed you that economic and legislative issues were more important based on the changes Confederates made to their own Constitution. Make your case if you think those other issues are "lesser" or "secondary", because I've made the case that slavery was not the South's cause and those other issues were far more important.
If you say so, as anyone can. I mean who actually told me? No one of course. The Republic and the Constitution are fairly abstract things. Slavery was a real life, everyday thing. A thing they wanted to preserve against what they thought would be its abolition under Lincoln. The SC Declaration of Causes even quotes Lincoln's phrase that government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free. So they were definitely concentrating on slavery. Why would they go to war to intentionally damage one of their most important institutions? Where is the logic in that? Nowhere. The subjugation they most worried about was the one that would make them end their practice of owning people. Of course there were changes when they seceded. But those changes were due to secession and secession was due to slavery. All roads lead there.
|
|
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 18, 2024 2:08:07 GMT
On this subject, I HAVE been right 100% of the time. Perfect record.
Oh, I'm sure you've been fed a lot of things "orally", but telling you what to think and say can come from the written word. Unfortunately, those writings are lies when they tell you the South's cause was slavery.
No, the South didn't think slavery was in danger, they thought the Republic as founded and fealty to the Constitution was in danger. Slavery was just one symptom of the larger disease. You are so small minded in evaluating historical events, looking at a detail and missing the real story.
Aren't YOU cherry picking from documents to support the "slavery was the cause" lie? Yet, you're whining because I found more documents that you were too ignorant to relaize existed. Didn't all of those historians that you hide behind tell you about the second South Carolina declaration?
Confederates didn't go to war to lose, but they did intentionally damage slavery because it wasn't their cause. They went to war to prevent themselves becoming economic and legislative slaves to the more powerful Northern states. Secession was not about slavery, but about subjugation of the entire Southern region by Northern incrementalism. And stopping that evil was more important than preserving slavery.
You keep saying those other issues "pale in comparison", but I just showed you that economic and legislative issues were more important based on the changes Confederates made to their own Constitution. Make your case if you think those other issues are "lesser" or "secondary", because I've made the case that slavery was not the South's cause and those other issues were far more important.
If you say so, as anyone can. I mean who actually told me? No one of course. The Republic and the Constitution are fairly abstract things. Slavery was a real life, everyday thing. A thing they wanted to preserve against what they thought would be its abolition under Lincoln. The SC Declaration of Causes even quotes Lincoln's phrase that government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free. So they were definitely concentrating on slavery. Why would they go to war to intentionally damage one of their most important institutions? Where is the logic in that? Nowhere. The subjugation they most worried about was the one that would make them end their practice of owning people. Of course there were changes when they seceded. But those changes were due to secession and secession was due to slavery. All roads lead there. Every historian that fed you the lie that the South's cause was slavery told you what to think, even though they couldn't defend those lies just as you can't.
The Republic and the Constitution were "abstract things" The functioning of the Republic and the laws founded under the Constitution just affected every single facet of public life and government for every citizen every day, but you have to portray them falsely as "abstract" since such causes refute your slavery nonsense. You surely are full of....excuses, aren't you, cultist? Slavery was a real life everyday thing only to a small number of elitists, but you have to pretend it was more or your narrative falls apart.
Even Wads and Thor aren't as shallow in their thinking as you seem to be; you keep missing the forest by hiding behind a tree. Lincoln's quotation about half slave or half free was not emphasizing slavery, it was emphasizing what the GOVERNMENT must become, and that implied promise of centralization, conformity and coercion were the real issues, not slavery. Seriously, were you born with no historical depth perception or did you get that way after you were brainwashed?
"Why would they go to war to intentionally damage one of their most important institutions? Where is the logic in that?" says HolyMoly. They DID go to war and they DID intentionally and knowingly damage slavery by seceding and going to war. There IS logic because the reality is that slavery was not their cause. If it had been they would have done everything NOT to damage that institution.
How can you be so stupidly short sighted to deny that the Union was looking to subjugate and control EVERYONE in the nation, which is why the South fought so long and hard against them. You're defending the wrong side, the authoritarian side, the evil side in that conflict...the Union. And you don't have the courage to face that uncomfortable fact, do you?
So, in your highly illogical conclusion, they seceded because of slavery despite the fact that they fatally damaged slavery by seceding? Yeah, that does sound pretty stupid, but it is stupid to try to defend the "slavery was the South's cause" lie when it's been proven to be false.
And you've still failed to back up anything that you've claimed here. You've reacted to the facts that I've presented by making up excuses and pretending that Southerners were dumb, unaware not thinking straight. Not a good look if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|
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 18, 2024 2:20:38 GMT
You're almost too f*cking stupid to be picked on for being that way...but I'll do it anyway:
A little dust cloud emerges every time my boot plows into your ass, and that's a lot of dust clouds.
You retarded fuck. The US Constitution NO WHERE endorsed slavery like the CSA's did. Do you cry this hard when your Top wrecks your ass? Poor triggered little twink, other than actually using the word slavery, the Confederate Constitution added very little "endorsement" of slavery.
It added a hell of a lot more new stuff about protective tariffs.
Look at that folks....even the long defunct Confederate Constitution is kicking Thor's abused ass. He never gets a break, bless his heart.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 18, 2024 6:54:36 GMT
You retarded fuck. The US Constitution NO WHERE endorsed slavery like the CSA's did. Do you cry this hard when your Top wrecks your ass? Poor triggered little twink, other than actually using the word slavery, the Confederate Constitution added very little "endorsement" of slavery.
It added a hell of a lot more new stuff about protective tariffs.
Look at that folks....even the long defunct Confederate Constitution is kicking Thor's abused ass. He never gets a break, bless his heart.
Reality kicks your ass again, Stupid Boy. Run along now.
|
|
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 18, 2024 13:06:32 GMT
Poor triggered little twink, other than actually using the word slavery, the Confederate Constitution added very little "endorsement" of slavery.
It added a hell of a lot more new stuff about protective tariffs.
Look at that folks....even the long defunct Confederate Constitution is kicking Thor's abused ass. He never gets a break, bless his heart.
Reality kicks your ass again, Stupid Boy. Run along now. Trying to explain the truth to thor is akin to explaining quantum physics to a pig. He just wants to wallow in his own shit while grunting in reply.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 18, 2024 21:07:20 GMT
If you say so, as anyone can. I mean who actually told me? No one of course. The Republic and the Constitution are fairly abstract things. Slavery was a real life, everyday thing. A thing they wanted to preserve against what they thought would be its abolition under Lincoln. The SC Declaration of Causes even quotes Lincoln's phrase that government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free. So they were definitely concentrating on slavery. Why would they go to war to intentionally damage one of their most important institutions? Where is the logic in that? Nowhere. The subjugation they most worried about was the one that would make them end their practice of owning people. Of course there were changes when they seceded. But those changes were due to secession and secession was due to slavery. All roads lead there. Every historian that fed you the lie that the South's cause was slavery told you what to think, even though they couldn't defend those lies just as you can't.
The Republic and the Constitution were "abstract things" The functioning of the Republic and the laws founded under the Constitution just affected every single facet of public life and government for every citizen every day, but you have to portray them falsely as "abstract" since such causes refute your slavery nonsense. You surely are full of....excuses, aren't you, cultist? Slavery was a real life everyday thing only to a small number of elitists, but you have to pretend it was more or your narrative falls apart.
Even Wads and Thor aren't as shallow in their thinking as you seem to be; you keep missing the forest by hiding behind a tree. Lincoln's quotation about half slave or half free was not emphasizing slavery, it was emphasizing what the GOVERNMENT must become, and that implied promise of centralization, conformity and coercion were the real issues, not slavery. Seriously, were you born with no historical depth perception or did you get that way after you were brainwashed?
"Why would they go to war to intentionally damage one of their most important institutions? Where is the logic in that?" says HolyMoly. They DID go to war and they DID intentionally and knowingly damage slavery by seceding and going to war. There IS logic because the reality is that slavery was not their cause. If it had been they would have done everything NOT to damage that institution.
How can you be so stupidly short sighted to deny that the Union was looking to subjugate and control EVERYONE in the nation, which is why the South fought so long and hard against them. You're defending the wrong side, the authoritarian side, the evil side in that conflict...the Union. And you don't have the courage to face that uncomfortable fact, do you?
So, in your highly illogical conclusion, they seceded because of slavery despite the fact that they fatally damaged slavery by seceding? Yeah, that does sound pretty stupid, but it is stupid to try to defend the "slavery was the South's cause" lie when it's been proven to be false.
And you've still failed to back up anything that you've claimed here. You've reacted to the facts that I've presented by making up excuses and pretending that Southerners were dumb, unaware not thinking straight. Not a good look if you want to be taken seriously.
One person's lie is another person's truth. Take your pick. Yeah, I don't go about my daily life thinking about the republic or the Constitution. I doubt many people do. When you count the individuals in households that had slaves it adds up to more than a small number of elitists. There is no forest, it's not that complicated. A quote using the word slave was not about slavery. Do tell. The South Carolinians thought it was definitely about slavery and was heading towards its "ultimate extinction." That was their real fear, not centralization or coercion in general, but the end of slavery under Lincoln. Quite the opposite. They didn't go to war to intentionally damage slavery, they went to war to intentionally preserve slavery. Backasswards again. How was the Union going to control everyone in the nation? There is no uncomfortable fact to face. The side that was fighting to abolish slavery was wrong and evil, but the side that was fighting to preserve the ownership of humans was not? Absurd. Totally logical. They seceded to preserve slavery and thought they would win a defensive war against the Union and get to keep their slaves. Things just didn't work out according to plan. One has to be somewhat dumb to destroy an important part of one's economy in four years when one could have kept it for at least a few more decades.
|
|
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 19, 2024 16:24:01 GMT
Every historian that fed you the lie that the South's cause was slavery told you what to think, even though they couldn't defend those lies just as you can't.
The Republic and the Constitution were "abstract things" The functioning of the Republic and the laws founded under the Constitution just affected every single facet of public life and government for every citizen every day, but you have to portray them falsely as "abstract" since such causes refute your slavery nonsense. You surely are full of....excuses, aren't you, cultist? Slavery was a real life everyday thing only to a small number of elitists, but you have to pretend it was more or your narrative falls apart.
Even Wads and Thor aren't as shallow in their thinking as you seem to be; you keep missing the forest by hiding behind a tree. Lincoln's quotation about half slave or half free was not emphasizing slavery, it was emphasizing what the GOVERNMENT must become, and that implied promise of centralization, conformity and coercion were the real issues, not slavery. Seriously, were you born with no historical depth perception or did you get that way after you were brainwashed?
"Why would they go to war to intentionally damage one of their most important institutions? Where is the logic in that?" says HolyMoly. They DID go to war and they DID intentionally and knowingly damage slavery by seceding and going to war. There IS logic because the reality is that slavery was not their cause. If it had been they would have done everything NOT to damage that institution.
How can you be so stupidly short sighted to deny that the Union was looking to subjugate and control EVERYONE in the nation, which is why the South fought so long and hard against them. You're defending the wrong side, the authoritarian side, the evil side in that conflict...the Union. And you don't have the courage to face that uncomfortable fact, do you?
So, in your highly illogical conclusion, they seceded because of slavery despite the fact that they fatally damaged slavery by seceding? Yeah, that does sound pretty stupid, but it is stupid to try to defend the "slavery was the South's cause" lie when it's been proven to be false.
And you've still failed to back up anything that you've claimed here. You've reacted to the facts that I've presented by making up excuses and pretending that Southerners were dumb, unaware not thinking straight. Not a good look if you want to be taken seriously.
One person's lie is another person's truth. Take your pick. Yeah, I don't go about my daily life thinking about the republic or the Constitution. I doubt many people do. When you count the individuals in households that had slaves it adds up to more than a small number of elitists. There is no forest, it's not that complicated. A quote using the word slave was not about slavery. Do tell. The South Carolinians thought it was definitely about slavery and was heading towards its "ultimate extinction." That was their real fear, not centralization or coercion in general, but the end of slavery under Lincoln. Quite the opposite. They didn't go to war to intentionally damage slavery, they went to war to intentionally preserve slavery. Backasswards again. How was the Union going to control everyone in the nation? There is no uncomfortable fact to face. The side that was fighting to abolish slavery was wrong and evil, but the side that was fighting to preserve the ownership of humans was not? Absurd. Totally logical. They seceded to preserve slavery and thought they would win a defensive war against the Union and get to keep their slaves. Things just didn't work out according to plan. One has to be somewhat dumb to destroy an important part of one's economy in four years when one could have kept it for at least a few more decades. Slavery as the South's cause is an ABSOLUTE lie and will never be true.
No one would ever mistake you for a deep thinker, which is why you shouldn't compare yourself to those who did thin about the Republic and the Constitution.
Even counting households (yeah, the infants, toddlers, granny and the dog need to be counted in your "elite" household, right?), 70% of Southern households had no slaves. Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves and only about 2% owned any significant number of slaves.
It actually is very complicated, a fact that simpletons do not understand. Only 20% of the South Carolina Declaration of Causes was about slavery. It's pretty racist to latch onto just 20% of a document and ignore the rest. The second South Carolina Declaration strongly emphasized taxes and economic issues, further degrading your narrative.
But, by seceding, Southerners DID damage slavery. Going to war DOOMED slavery even if the South had won. Even if they were victorious, Southerners would have been pressured by the world to end slavery in exchange for recognition and the import revenue available with their lower tariffs. If you doubt that, look at Brazil's history.
Lots of lies in that false comparison. The North was not fighting to end slavery; claiming that they ever were is little more than a propaganda designed for weak minded fools (Lincoln left slavery untouched in states that did not secede). The South was never fighting to preserve slavery. The North was allegedly fighting to preserve the Union, which was illegal under their own Constitution. The North was really fighting for economic and political power and control, nothing else. The South was fighting against the same kind of centralized control and subjugation that the British imposed on their American colonists.
The most intellectually lazy defense of your fairy tale narrative is to claim that "the South must have been pretty dumb". You just blew a hole in your own narrative.....the reality is that Confederates DID sacrifice slavery's continued existence because slavery wasn't their cause, not because they were "dumb". If slavery had been their motivation, they would have stayed in the Union rather than leave as YOU pointed out.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 19, 2024 20:01:02 GMT
One person's lie is another person's truth. Take your pick. Yeah, I don't go about my daily life thinking about the republic or the Constitution. I doubt many people do. When you count the individuals in households that had slaves it adds up to more than a small number of elitists. There is no forest, it's not that complicated. A quote using the word slave was not about slavery. Do tell. The South Carolinians thought it was definitely about slavery and was heading towards its "ultimate extinction." That was their real fear, not centralization or coercion in general, but the end of slavery under Lincoln. Quite the opposite. They didn't go to war to intentionally damage slavery, they went to war to intentionally preserve slavery. Backasswards again. How was the Union going to control everyone in the nation? There is no uncomfortable fact to face. The side that was fighting to abolish slavery was wrong and evil, but the side that was fighting to preserve the ownership of humans was not? Absurd. Totally logical. They seceded to preserve slavery and thought they would win a defensive war against the Union and get to keep their slaves. Things just didn't work out according to plan. One has to be somewhat dumb to destroy an important part of one's economy in four years when one could have kept it for at least a few more decades. Slavery as the South's cause is an ABSOLUTE lie and will never be true.
No one would ever mistake you for a deep thinker, which is why you shouldn't compare yourself to those who did thin about the Republic and the Constitution.
Even counting households (yeah, the infants, toddlers, granny and the dog need to be counted in your "elite" household, right?), 70% of Southern households had no slaves. Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves and only about 2% owned any significant number of slaves.
It actually is very complicated, a fact that simpletons do not understand. Only 20% of the South Carolina Declaration of Causes was about slavery. It's pretty racist to latch onto just 20% of a document and ignore the rest. The second South Carolina Declaration strongly emphasized taxes and economic issues, further degrading your narrative.
But, by seceding, Southerners DID damage slavery. Going to war DOOMED slavery even if the South had won. Even if they were victorious, Southerners would have been pressured by the world to end slavery in exchange for recognition and the import revenue available with their lower tariffs. If you doubt that, look at Brazil's history.
Lots of lies in that false comparison. The North was not fighting to end slavery; claiming that they ever were is little more than a propaganda designed for weak minded fools (Lincoln left slavery untouched in states that did not secede). The South was never fighting to preserve slavery. The North was allegedly fighting to preserve the Union, which was illegal under their own Constitution. The North was really fighting for economic and political power and control, nothing else. The South was fighting against the same kind of centralized control and subjugation that the British imposed on their American colonists.
The most intellectually lazy defense of your fairy tale narrative is to claim that "the South must have been pretty dumb". You just blew a hole in your own narrative.....the reality is that Confederates DID sacrifice slavery's continued existence because slavery wasn't their cause, not because they were "dumb". If slavery had been their motivation, they would have stayed in the Union rather than leave as YOU pointed out.
|
|