The south had good reasons for independence but in the end it was better for the union and the south that the seceding states stayed. If the south would have succeeded in succession, they would likely not be anywhere close to a world power today, as they would still be catching up to become industrialized and thus, would not be a modern superpower like the united states is today. An agriculturally based economy sounds good for a 1500s civilization, but not for the 20th or 21st century.
@inthecards21 Back then the agricultural goods they exported actualy made them the richer half of the union. Also the southern states had more land mass. It was a crime that they were forced back in and it signaled the end of the republic and the begining of the empire. America doesn't need to be a world power, all that being a world power gets it's citizens is more wars and more taxes, sound good to you?
Also the south was basically leveled, the war was horrible.
@Hashishin13 I agree the war was terrible, and yes I would much rather support an independent free republic that is poor, than an overbearing half free phony democracy that has its nose in world affairs like we have today
The video summarizes with the phrase "The many positive aspects of Southern Succession." Uh-huh. In the 1970's North Carolina sometimes used the slogan "First in Freedom" on its license plates because of the Mecklenburg Declaration of 1775 where is helped to lead the American Revolution. There was controversy of the slogan because of N. Carolina's long history of racism.
South Carolina should have the motto "First in Succession". So it can be sooo proud of it then. Huh?
They did not say that a group of people who wish to continue violating individual rights with impunity may disregard the constitutional order so as to perpetuate their oppressive institutions. It was their grandchildren in the Confederacy who made that assertion, all the while denouncing the Declaration of Independence as an untruth. The American Revolution is poor evidence for Sale’s contention that the slave power rebellion was somehow in keeping with the American tradition.
The leaders of 1776 never claimed their acts were legal; they said that they were choosing to break the law, and that their doing so was justified by a higher principle—namely, by the defense of the inalienable rights that belong to all individuals. It was the right to throw off a government which becomes destructive to the individual rights it is created to protect that they articulated in the Declaration.
1:51 This is false. The American Revolution was not an act of secession, but of revolution—hence the name. The distinction between revolution and secession is crucial. Revolution is the natural right to break the law and overthrow a government whenever a long train of abuses evinces a design to reduce the people under absolute despotism. Secession is the idea that a state has the legal authority unilaterally to leave the union.
lol @ the notion that the secession was "against a tyrannical government", "similiar to the american revolution". Revolution was undertaken BY THE PEOPLE, not by the STATES. And the SLAVE STATES were the MOST TYRANNICAL of all governments on American soil, for they demanded the instutition of slavery to be perpetuated in America FOREVER, that is precisely the reason why they started the war to begin with.
Andrew johnson was a traitor. He was a Southerner and a Democrat and he was probably part of the plot to kill Lincoln so he can cause segregation for a century afterward.
Scroll down on the Wikipedia page you got that from..Under the heading 'Nation-State'-"An aspiring nation-state must have sovereignty recognized by other nation-states in order to become one"
For someone whom can only parakeet...I would really think that you would at least read the entire article.
In any case, I appreciate your unending attempts to cite your opinion over that of actual nations.
@festdir Now you're shifting from "sovereign" to "nation state" when the ACTUAL DEFINITION of sovereign is all that mattered to you before. LOL! Way to try to move the goal posts!
I also appreciate your endless moronic scribbling about recognition by others from 1861-1865 being the sole "definition".
When a govt of a territory HAS sovereignty, it is refereed to as a nation-state.
I am rather amused at your ability to ignore the meanings of words, while attempting to use your white trash 'recognition' of the CSA to prove sovereignty.
After all....it is only EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD that disagrees with you.
It is no wonder that the CSA so easily had decency beaten into them by their moral & martial betters.
LOL! Now you're trying to move the goalposts to "nation-state". Not every country is a "nation-state" you know. Some have more than one group (ie Belgium, Switzerland etc)
I am amused at your "ability" to try to all sorts of mental gymnastics to fit definitions which support your point of view. I guess that's typical in your trailer park.
@festdir You have no wit. Why should I make any effort? You don't rate it.
You fail to understand the difference between quality and quantity. You also incorrectly claim they were "fighting to preserve an immoral institution". That's not what they were fighting for.
@hungarygator "It serves to illustrate your wit"..."You have no wit" Why am I not surprised? You simply are unable to form an original thought in your head. How wonderful.
"difference between quality and quantity."
Winning is quality. I do appreciate white trash attempt to quantify the word 'quality' however.
"not what they were fighting for."
Not according to their DECLARATION OF SUCCESSION. But please, give me the white trash version. I find these white trash fantasies fascinating.
@festdir In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, James McPherson reported on more than 25,000 letters and 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War and concluded that Confederate soldiers "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government." The letters and diaries "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," , and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government.
@hungarygator "spoke of a fear of being enslaved...."
So you are saying that the lack of self-awareness typically reserved for children, retards & small dogs is also emblematic of CSA supporters?
No argument here.
"War of attrition"
It wasn't...it was a rebellion. In order to win a defensive war/ Rebellion, all the defenders/Rebels have to do is NOT surrender. Ask the US vs GB, Vietnam vs China, France & US, Finland & Afgans vs USSR.
@hungarygator "one of the world's superpowers [helps]"
Which are you speaking of?
Afgans? They were FIGHTING a superpower. The difference in pop, deaths, money & tech was far greater than what the CSA experienced. The US did provide Stingers...& Mules. HOW COULD THEY LOSE!?!
Finland? Who helped them?
Vietnam? They received no help in their nearly 1000 yr fight against China.
All of my examples were at a far greater disadvantage than the CSA.
They, however, didn't surrender in less than 4 yrs
@festdir France was a superpower in the late 18th century. Their support for the American secessionists from the British empire was essential.
Finland lost within months vs the Soviets. China historically dominated that region....and its not like they put their full effort into conquering Vietnam. Why would they? It just wasn't worth that much to them. You've got to come up with better arguments. You're grasping at straws here.
@hungarygator "France was a power in 18th" So was GB.
"Finns lost vs USSR"
USSR had 100 times more tanks, 3 x as many men & 30x as many planes...yet the USSR failed in their objective of total subjection of Finland...as a result Finland maintained its Sovereignty.
Glad to see your historical knowledge of foreign wars mirrors your knowledge of domestic wars.
"China didnt put full effort against Vietnam"
Yes, when judging resolve, a 1000 yr war means nothing.
@festdir Hmm you acknowledge the fact that the Soviets had more troops and industrial capacity than Finland yet don't acknowledge the same for the South vis a vis the North. Interesting.
All I said was that the Finns lost. Try to project on to that what you will.
@hungarygator The Finns were at a far worse disadvantage than the CSA was. Yet they managed to keep their country & not plead for mercy with an unconditional surrender.
The South's defensive advantage should have been far more than enough--as shown by numerous historical examples--to negate the North's relatively minuscule advantage in industry & population.
However the North's advantage in MEN was substantial.
@festdir The Finns were quickly defeated as soon as the snow thawed. Had the Soviets wanted to take the whole country they easily could have. They CHOSE not to.
The South had 1/4 the white population, 1/10th the industrial capacity, no established navy, currency, government, etc etc. Its amazing the South was able to accomplish what it did. That is of course owing mostly to the superiority of the individual Southern Soldier.
The 'benevolent Stalin' theory. Nice. However until your impressive new theory-based on knowledge pulled out of your ass- takes hold. Most will go ahead & assume it was b/c of the 321,118 casualties, 3543 destroyed tanks & 3880 aircraft lost in 4 months.
"superiority of the Southern Soldier."
No one could manage to wave a white flag, play the victim, or make for such a lovely stroll through Georgia like the Southern Soldier.
@festdir Theory? As if the Finns were in any position to stop them at that point. The Finns managed to inflict a lot of casualties on ill-trained, ill-equipped Ukranians but once the thaw and the tanks came it was all over.
Hmm seems to me that despite the lack of food, inferior weapons, fewer supplies, and being heavily outnumbered etc the Southern soldiers still managed to kill a good number more Yankees.
@festdir Yeah, those handful of Finns who were left stopped the millions of Russkies and their tanks cold-couldn't have gone any further. Brilliant analysis as always.
Still butt-hurt that the superior Southern soldiers inflicted far more casualties on Yankee imperialists I see. Have a good cry about it.
@hungarygator "handful of Finns who were left stopped the millions of Russkies & their tanks cold"
Yes, that is why Russia didn't take all of Finland, as was their original goal....the Finns showed courage and tactical tenacity. Stalin saw that their resolve was too much. Thus they kept their sovereignty.
@festdir Their original goal was just to grab a buffer zone near St. Petersburg. That was all they really wanted.
So superior they held out for 4 years and inflicted vastly more casualties against an enemy more than twice their number.
Great argument really......Look I know you want to talk smack and all but this is really boring. You just don't have anything of interest to offer. Quit now while you are behind.
@festdir yes that is so. Had the Finns given that up there would have been no war.
4 years against a vastly larger and better supplied enemy? Quite significant.
LOL! firstly the traitors were Lincoln's minions who betrayed the original constitution. Secondly about 4 million were blacks. Also, how tough is it to "subdue" defenseless women and kids? The immoral cowards were those who made war on noncombatants-ie the Union side-many of whom were fortunately killed.
The US, Vietnam, Finns, Afgans & virtually ANY other rebels with at least as much as the cowardly CSA, has just shit themselves laughing. Go ahead, give an example of an unsuccessful rebellion with as much as the CSA had
"how hard is it to subdue defenseless"
Too hard for the CSA that fought to do exactly that.
@hungarygator "I'm just telling you how BORING you are"
BORING in this case, meaning 'factually correct'. You, on the other hand, are defiantly my favorite poster! I never knew that 'word meanings', 'self-awareness', & 'historical accuracy' could be so difficult for someone....speaking of..... "Straw Man arguments"
Please, do give an example (quote), so that I may give you the actual definition, and illustrate, again, that 'word meanings' are a bit too much for you.
Sovereignty: the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community-rightful status, independence, or prerogative I don't see anything about being recognition as being part of the definition, ie the ACTUAL MEANING
Every nation in the world disagrees....but thanks for your opinion. Means a lot to me.
"views of the Founders"
And in the Constitution they wrote ""the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of REBELLION" Clearly your historical knowledge is exceeded only by your mind-reading abilities.
Impressive. Really.
"reading comprehension"
Like the DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION? Like the Cornerstone speech?
No nation ever recognized the CSA. Not a difficult concept.
"only the LEGISLATURE" & only in cases of invasion or REBELLION.
"Davis' repeated statements"
Were they notarized BY HIS SLAVE?
"Georgia's Declaration"
You mean "For the last 10 yrs we have had numerous & serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
"Davis' statements" Like this? "[war] must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle,"
Instead, the immoral cowards surrendered after LESS THAN 4 yrs.
"its 'an' official concept."
Boy, you really got me there, Tiger...Allow me to try again...'Your post presents AN excellent example of A goddamn retard '
They (a)signed the 'US Fed govt' Constitution (b)flew the 'US Fed govt' flag...at least until they (c)lost a 'US Fed govt.' Pres. election.
I notice you are unable to insult without plagiarizing your betters...so be it. Whatever makes you feel better about a reality that is in such contradiction the easily discredited (& better done by others) historical revisionism you attempt to use to justify Slavery, Cowardice & Immorality.
@festdir They seceded from the US. The US Federal govt was not their gov't. It was not a "rebellion".
I just dish right back at you the same childish bullshit you dish out. Don't like it? It is you who are the revisionist here attempting to deny reality because it is inconvenient for your politics. When have I ever justified slavery? Liar.
Never. You simply defend those that committed treason in order to keep it.
Congratulations, you managed to be (a) a dumbass (b) morally disgusting (c) Even more cowardly than the pansies that tried fighting their moral & martial betters, then surrendering....& best of all (d) Awesomely entertaining.
"You're Welcome as well"
Very Good. I truly do appreciate your effort to prove--in writing, no less--that you are a goddamn retard.
@hungarygator Articles of the confederate constitution unlike the U.S. Constitution, the confederate constitution does make explicit the legal protection of owning slaves. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in
@hungarygator negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress] The constitution likewise prohibited the Confederate Congress from abolishing or limiting slavery in Confederate territories (unlike the United States, where, prior to the Dred Scott decision, Congress had prohibited slavery in some territories). This did not necessarily mean that individual state
@hungarygator s could not ban slavery. However, section 2 of Article IV specified that "citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired".
@ProgressiveAudio The Confederate Constitution also limited the prez to one 6 year term, made officials impeachable by each state legislature, limited the tariff to a revenue (ie max 10%) tariff, banned riders being attached to bills, required a 2/3rds majority for spending bills, gave the president a line item veto, and allowed only clearing water obstructions to be charged to the general public-all other "improvements" were to be charged to industry which benefited from them.
Wow you mean black people don't support slavery, what a bunch of liberals. lol Funny how so many who fought for civil rights had to work hardest in former confederate states. Oh and terrorism is just a political tactic. History is seldom black and white as people want it to be, so enjoy southern pride, but don't forget all the pitfalls. Oh and the war was treason, but it was better to let the nation heal than go around hanging traitors.
@NJburbsSeeker I'm fully aware of the wrongful acts done in the Southern States. I wish they didn't happen but they did. I acknowledge them. Its the Yankees and the Federal government that refuse to acknowledge all of their wrongful acts. Withdrawing from a voluntary union is not treason.
@NJburbsSeeker I fully acknowledge the "sins" in the South's history. I wish they weren't there but they are. Its undeniable. The same is true of the Northern states and the Federal government....but some seem to not want to acknowledge any of that. Oh, and withdrawing from a voluntary union is not treason.
@hungarygator Good for you so maybe you see why the rest of the country isn't full on board with celebrating along with you, and being part of the United States isn't like joining a country club. Also just because you don't see it as treason doesn't make it okay. I can't stand most liberals, but I will never say the confederacy was a good idea.
@NJburbsSeeker Whether it was a good idea or not, it was their right to withdraw. Jefferson even said so in his first inaugural address. ....Incidentally, I am hardly a liberal. If anything leftists love the idea of a vast consolidated centralized government so as to better impose socialism and their social engineering projects on everybody else. That is not what the Founders ever wanted or supported.
@hungarygator I argue all you want about their right I think the war pretty much settled who was right in the end. You reform the government you have, and if you see it going off the constitutional path you use the existing frame work to change it. You do not rebel and form a renegade state. I think it is fair to say that the Founders saw war as the last resort, and so did Lincoln for that matter.
@NJburbsSeeker The war didn't settle who was "right" unless you subscribe to the notion that having more men and guns automatically makes someone right. One region that is a minority and is being economically exploited and in a union that was voluntary is naturally going to start heading for the exits. Lincoln didn't see war as a last resort-he deliberately provoked it knowing full well what he was doing. He thought it would be easy ie 75000 troops for 90 days only. WRONG!
Southerns keep telling the blacks to get over slavery because it ended over 145 years ago yet they want to celebrate, and promote as patriotic the attempt to destroy the UNITED STATES of America.
Do we celebrate with a "Ball" the massacre at Wounded Knee?
@wtfoof How would the secession of some states have "destroyed the united states of america"? Would not Ohio still be free to form whatever association it wished with Indiana? Massachusetts with Minnesota and so on? Of course they would have. The united states would not have been "destroyed" and that is not what the seceding states ever proposed to do. They simply wished to go their own way much as the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire-which was not destroyed thereby.
@hungarygator One, the 13 colonies DID NOT seceded from England. They were possessions of the Crown of England. Secede: to make a formal withdrawal of membership or an organization or state of alliance. Perhaps I should have said "DESTROY the existing Union known as the United States of America".
But the argument was, why celebrate an act of treason that failed? Failed as in you attempt to change the subject!
@wtfoof of course they seceded. To secede is "to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union". They withdrew from the British Empire. Their withdrawal certainly would not have "destroyed" the US. The federal government simply would have controlled less territory. States acting in their sovereign capacity and withdrawing their consent to be governed by Washington DC is not "treason" and wasn't seen as such by the Founders.
Why should we ignore the negative aspects of a historical figure or event just so we can have a warm fuzzy feeling of nationalism or patriotism? Is it acceptable for Japan pretend that it committed no atrocities in ww2 so that they can have a feel patriotic about their history. Would it be acceptable for Germany ? This video is ridiculous.
Al Sharpton is a liar and should have been jailed for that a long time ago. He stairs up his people with lies to keep them angry, and stirred up. And it always seems to be the poor blacks being abused by the slaver master whites. Never have I heard him speak out on much of anything else. Blacks would do a lot better for their cause if the dumped creeps like him.
@StonewallJackson26 Well what I mean is the celebrated heroes of the Union went on to be civil rights attorneys (the great agnostic) and authors who brought attention to the horror of war (Bierce) while the confederates became the KKK.
@ProgressiveAudio ROTF! What a ridiculous claim. There were plenty on both sides who went on to do plenty of good and bad things. Newsflash! The individual soldiers on both sides were just as human.
@hungarygator Um, no. The Confederacy was fighting to retain a slave state and even had plans to go all the way up to Canada to attack abolitionist. The Confederate guerillas that formed after they lost the war became the Klu Klux Klan. Jesse James for example was a confederate guerilla! The confederacy was debauched and terrible.
@ProgressiveAudio um..no. The Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery forever. The federal government was quite happy to protect it. After the war the federal government occupied the Southern states, disenfranchised the vast majority of the voters and butchered the plains Indians in its quest for empire. The Radical Republicans were debauched, murderous and terrible.
@hungarygator Uh...the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort to avert war, all it would have done was let the slave states keep slaves. The confederacy wasn't satisfied with such efforts and attacked anyway. After all Ohio was a "free state."
@ProgressiveAudio but but but it was "all about slavery" wasn't it? This express protection of slavery forever should have therefore sufficed, no? Let's not get into the fact that Lincoln started the war. Its well documented and there's no point arguing it.
@hungarygator Yeah it was about slavery, because if secession was not about Slavery, then why would the constitution of the Confederacy, as well as the constitutions of Confederate states like Alabama, look pretty much just like the Constitution of the United States, with the only real differences being sections that protect slavery, and prohibit emancipation of slaves by the government?
@ProgressiveAudio No it was not "all about slavery". The Confederate Constitution contained a number of limits on the power of the central government....ie line item veto, 2/3rd majority for spending bills, no riders, no general welfare clause etc. One has to be a hopeless ignoramus or an outright liar to try to deny it. There was no Corwin Amendment protecting slavery forever in the Confederate Constitution. Lincoln and the Yankees were happy to adopt one for the US Constitution though.
@hungarygator "hopeless ignoramus or outright liar [about CSA succeeding b/c of Slavery]"
DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SUCCESSION-"election of a man to Pres of the US, whose opinions & purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Govt, b/c he declared that "Govt cannot endure half slave, half free," & the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction"
'Facts'-like warfare-Just not Southerners strong point.
@festdir Its "seceding" not "succeeding" and yes it was certainly a major issue. It was not however the only one. You did not include the lengthy passage in Georgia's declaration about the economic exploitation of the Southern states by the Federal govt/northern states. You did not include the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to South Carolina's declaration or Texas' complaints about economic exploitation or lack of border security. Facts aren't your strong suit.
@hungarygator "[slavery] was certainly a major issue"
1) It was THE major issue...without slavery, no Civil War would have taken place.
2)We now agree on the simple truth that "The CSA committed treason in order to protect the institution of slavery, until their martial & moral betters beat decency into them."
@festdir not sure I agree with that at all. The economic issues would have remained as would the deep philosophical differences about the nature of the fed-state relationship going all the way to the Founders. I for one do not at all think withdrawing from the union was treason. Treason was making war on the states as defined in Article 3 section 3 of the Constitution-and the Traitor was Lincoln.
@festdir except that states were sovereign entities. The union was a union of consent-not a union of force. "government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed" Sound familiar? You don't need an English-Douchbagese dictionary. As a giant douchbag yourself you provide all that is needed every time you open your mouth.
@hungarygator "except that the states were sovereign entities" No, they weren't. Again...."sov·er·eign 1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority"
No nation has ever recognized the sovereignty of either the CSA nor its individual states.
"govt derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed"
That is why the US had an election..an election the immoral traitors of the South lost.
@festdir of course they were. Read the Treaty of Paris. It recognizes each STATE by name. Nowhere are the words "the united states" to be found. So you are wrong about the states not being recognized by anyone as having been sovereign. The Tyrant Lincoln and his traitorous minions overthrew the original constitution.
@festdir It shows the states were sovereign. They did not surrender their sovereignty by ratifying the constitution. They only delegated some powers. Tyrant means total disregard for the bill of rights and the constitution. Correct traitorous means serving the tyrant who was violating the Constitution. Truly, you are a moron. I knew you'd Godwin yourself given an opportunity-typical for one of such limited intellect.
@festdir Yes, that is why they were recognized in the Treaty of Paris. They did not give up their own sovereignty when ratifying the Constitution and never would have done so had they been told they were giving up their sovereignty. I never equated the bill of rights with slavery. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to a public trial, etc. Yeah, a democracy which recognizes individual liberty is just like the Nazis.
@festdir nobody said the CSA was recognized. I said STATES were recognized. Reading comprehension 101. Show me the provision in the constitution which forbids a state to withdraw. The CSA recognized the same individual liberties the USA did at that time.
@festdir The president has no right to suspend habeas corpus-only the legislature and only when normal courts are not functioning.....and this was not a case of rebellion. Sovereign states had withdrawn as was their right. They were not rebelling against any legitimate authority. What you seem to miss is that the federal government denied the right of self determination/self government. Its great that slavery was ended though that was not their aim in starting the war.
1) "re·bel·lion 1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government."
2) Thank you for that. Really.
"Sovereign states"
Yes, EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD means absolutely nothing when put up against the greatness that is 'hungarygator' on youtube comment.
"not their aim in starting the war"
Not according to the DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION (Its too bad they couldn't have dumbed that title down a bit more for you) nor the VP of the CSA
@festdir The federal government was no longer their government since they had legally seceded. Thanks for playing-really.
Yes, the views of the Founders count for nothing when put up against the opinions of festdir on youtube. Brilliant!
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S aim....again try reading comprehension 101. Try reading the Corwin Amendment or Lincoln's inaugural...or Jefferson Davis' statement that it was not about slavery or the US Congress' resolution to the same effect.
@hungarygator I also wonder why Alabama and the nearby states were the last battlefields for desegregation and the civil rights movement and are still backwards ass shitholes where civil rights for minorities are in constant battle.
@ProgressiveAudio Take a little gander at the 10 most segregated cities in America idiot. LA is #10. St. Louis is something like #7. ALL OTHERS are in the North. Interesting huh?
@hungarygator Lol, you think I'm saying North Good South Bad. All I'm saying is historical facts. California was desegregated long before the southern states, not only that I'm not talking of the lingering economic segregation that still exist in America. It's not as apparent in the South anymore because a lot of blacks left it, starting in the 1920s.
@ProgressiveAudio Actually blacks have been moving back to the South in the last generation and Southern blacks are better off financially than Northern blacks. I don't for one second say the South's hands were clean-they were not. But the North's hands sure as hell weren't clean either. Some seem to wish to cast off all "sin" onto the South or to say its heritage, history and culture are based solely on hate. That's BS. There's plenty of that in everybody's past sadly.
@hungarygator "Actually blacks have been moving back to the South in the last generation"
Not really, the south is still majority black but a good chunk moved away when immigration was shut down in 20s, and people like Henry Ford ended up enticing southern blacks to work for cheap in their factories to make up for the loss of immigration, as such cities like LA and Detroit ended up getting poor black populations. This is basic high school history stuff.
@ProgressiveAudio yes really. There are several newspaper and magazine articles you can read about it. Blacks have been moving to the South from the Midwest mostly though some from the Northeast as well. The South is not nor has it ever been majority black though.
@ProgressiveAudio You are right that they wanted to keep slavery....and the feds/northern states were just fine with that. It had been a polarizing issue intricately tied with sectional rivalry and the tariff and gov't expenditures. Had reasonable heads prevailed and a compensated emancipation scheme been adopted like every other country and the northern states themselves did, it could have been abolished without a bloodbath. Tariff and "general welfare" spending issues woudl have remained.
@hungarygator No. The "northern states" didn't practice slavery, some like Vermont abolished slavery right from the get go, while many people were willing to just let the southern states continue slavery, the southern states realized if they didn't separate it wouldn't last so they began killing abolitionist and then began attacking the north, hence the civil war. Tariffs and welfare are not mentioned in the declarations and such by the confederates.
@ProgressiveAudio Under the Corwin Amendment, it could have lasted forever. The Northern states and the Lincoln administration supported that.....and they certainly did not attack the North. Tariffs and government expenditures are mentioned in the declarations quite extensively. Read the address of Rhett, read Georgia's, read Texas, etc.
@hungarygator Ya know..proposed amendments happen every year. You're keep bringing up an amendment that failed. There was (big surprise) also attempts by the southern states to add admendments that specifically allowed slavery, and when that failed, they seceded, well attempted too. Here's what its encyclopedia entry says:
@hungarygator "Offering the amendment was a last-ditch effort to avert the outbreak of the Civil War. Corwin's resolution emerged as the House of Representatives's version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by Senator William H. Seward of New York. However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was totally committed to independence, and so it ignored the proposed Corwin Amendment." Please fine something else to attach your stuff too.
@ProgressiveAudio Nice try. The bottom line is the Northern Dominated Congress and the Lincoln administration were more than happy to protect slavery forever.....yet that did not address the South's concerns and they did not come back. So much for the "it was all about slavery" mantra.
@hungarygator You can't find mentions of them in their constitutions or their declarations for secession, you can find a lot of talk of slavery being god granted (they used the Bible heavily to promote slavery) and good though. After all Jefferson Davis first action domestically was to round up and kill abolitionist and he even wrote up plans of going all the way up to Canada (after destroying the union) to conquer them for being against slavery.
@ProgressiveAudio LOL! Economic concerns were most certainly included in the declarations and Rhett's address. I will await proof of the abolitionists who were "rounded up and killed" under Jefferson Davis' orders.
I have a question RonPaulHatesBlacks.....don't you ever get tired of spamming any and every thread about the South on Youtube? I mean, there have to be things more interesting in life than spending all your time on that...right? If not I feel sad for you.
@hungarygator The southern states were not against taxes or tariffs. Just look at George Wallace. When it came to white people, he was a populist and even "socially democratic" in a way, who used progressive taxation and government spending to make world class education and housing which were extremely affordable, again just for whites.
@hungarygator As someone said below: "The greatest myth that southerners tell themselves about the Civil war was that it was not about Slavery, but about northern tyrrany. We only need to look at the Confederate constitution to see that it really was about slavery, and not much else. The Confederate constitution reads like the US constitution, with a few lines added to preserve slavery. "
@hungarygator The agenda that Jefferson Davis drew up to run the country after the south won, is damning evidence that it really was just about Slavery."
@hungarygator "That doesn't change the fact that Southern Secession, and most of the events leading up to it (Bleeding Kansas, Dredd Scott, etc) were all about slavery. Southerners argued that they had the right to expand slavery into the new territories west of the Mississippi, and also seemed to have no bones about murdering and sacking towns that had abolitionists in it. Bleeding Kansas got started when a bunch of southerners burned down a town and killed abolitionists. "
@ProgressiveAudio yet more one-sided propaganda from RonPaulHatesBlacks who obsesses over spreading such propaganda using his various sock puppet accounts on Youtube. Pathetic really.
Yeah, I mean the CSA was not about freedom at all. Especially if you were a northern sympathizer. Jefferson Davis used the military to hunt down and imprison people without trial, who were suspected of still having northern sympathies. They didn't even do anything like that in the north. On top of that, before the South started the war, they sent people to Europe to try to get England and France to support them in the war. For people who claimed to be for peace, they sure didn't try.
@ProgressiveAudio they didn't hunt down and imprison people they even suspected of having southern sympathies in the North? ROTFLMAO!!!! Tell us another whopper! On top of that, the North started the war. The South sent diplomats to seek foreign alliances in case of war? oooooh! obvious "proof" of their evil designs for world domination no doubt! LOL!
@festdir The aggressor is one who tries to pour troops onto another sovereign nation's territory-not one who fires upon invaders in defense of his home.
Way to take historiacl revisionism to a whole new level.
They recognized the Southern USA as...get this...the USA. Not that your idea of sovereignty of needing "every nation in the world [issue] a legal ruling [to not recognize sovereignty]" isn't as intelligent as it is reasonable.
"union fighting to free slaves"
I never said that, are you a retard or a liar?
a)'Border states'-You may want to check the meaning ot it
b)The CSA, however, did
c)PASSED an amendment that forbade slavery forever
Yes, they did. The CSA was not recognized, & it was US territory.
"By their own words, they were not"
I am not going to bother quoting DECLARATIONS OF SECESSION for you anymore....clearly the very title of the document isn't dumbed down enough for you.
"Border states suddenly don't count."
They do....they were immoral, but neither traitors nor cowards....unlike the CSA.
@festdir The 13 Colonies were not recognized until 1783. It was still their territory just as the CSA's was theirs.
You also are not going to bother reading the address of Rhett or the parts of the declarations which do not fit your arguments. I guess that would require too much brainpower (or intellectual honesty) on your part.
The traitors to the original constitution were the tyrant Lincoln and his minions. He was also too cowardly to send HIS precious son into combat..
As credible as 'recognition of sovereignty' by random white trash is...what actual nation recognized the CSA?
"parts of declarations which do not fit your arguments"
I also do not address the parts of Nazi doctrine that don't address anti-semitism to be able to conclude that Nazis were for it....& they did not declare it nearly as clearly as the CSA did slavery.
@festdir The states of SC, GA, NC and VA were recognized as sovereign in the treaty of paris in 1783.
Ah yes, you just Godwined yourself. I win. Thanks. You seem to think the US wasn't massively racist despite the existence of slavery there too. Strange.
A tyrant who trampled on the bill of rights and imprisoned thousands for years without trial.
And they signed any claims to sovereignty away on September 17, 1787.....a signature that was respected & RECOGNIZED by EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD.
"you just Godwined yourself"
Yes...whatever could be the equivalent between 2 govts FOUNDED on the idea of racial superiority? (Although, arguably, the Nazis were not founded on racial superiority)
"I win"
You do manage to invent your own word meanings. Clearly if anyone can declare a winner it is you.
@festdir They never agreed to sign their sovereignty away. They delegated certain limited powers only. READ the provisos of VA, NY and RI. Read the federalist papers. Read the statements of the Founders.
The CSA govt was founded on the same principles as the US govt. ie Government derives its legitimacy from the CONSENT of the governed.
You invent your own facts combined with childish ad hominem arguments toward anybody who doesn't share your views. Awesome.
@hungarygator "READ the.,.." Read the definition of the word 'sovereignty' & the Constitution. Do tell, how a state unable to enter into InterNATIONAL agreements is sovereign. Or, even better, skip your white trash analysis of sovereignty & name a nation that recognized the CSA.
"Govt derives its legitimacy from the CONSENT of the governed."
Again, dipshit, 'election'.
"You invent your own facts"
I 'invented' Declaration of Succession? The cornerstone speech? The very fucking meanings of words?
@festdir The countries of the EU cannot enter into foreign trade agreements on their own..yet they're still sovereign. They delgated some of their sovereign rights for specific purposes and retained the right to withdraw. Got it dumbass? Ponder that one in your double wide.
Again dipshit, who cares? It was their right to withdraw whenever they so chose.
You ASSUME they were part of the same country and that therefore the word "rebellion" fits..ie you assume the very thing being argued
@hungarygator "trade agreements" But not international agreements. How often do we have to go over this, dumbass? "1783 Treaty of Paris" Again, that was before the signing of the Constitution. "Your failure to grasp that" Me & EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD. If only we had the knowledge of white trash. "getting exactly the same" Also called 'plagiarism', 'parakeet' & 'utterly retarded' "a typo" 1) You mean like 'an'? 2) A typo that included 3 incorrect characters in a 4 letter word. Believable. tool.
@festdir Its an example of sovereign states signing away SOME but NOT ALL of their sovereignty...like the states did when they signed the constitution. Dumbass. You seem inordinately attached to a formal declaration of recognition. The states had ALREADY been recognized and NOWHERE gave up their sovereignty. You just parrot the same boring nonsense over and over again. Numerous Founding Fathers openly said the states were still sovereign. Douchebag.
Brilliant video as always
WestSkier11 2 months ago
hey dick dont send emails to 11 year old kids using your fucking language or i will stick my dick in your ass u cocksucker
action170 3 months ago
* Al, from Lower Alabama
SharkWhisperer1988 6 months ago
"Heritage, not Hatred"
Love,
AL (Lower Alabama)
SharkWhisperer1988 6 months ago
Harry Turtledove.
cookiesonsteve 7 months ago
The south had good reasons for independence but in the end it was better for the union and the south that the seceding states stayed. If the south would have succeeded in succession, they would likely not be anywhere close to a world power today, as they would still be catching up to become industrialized and thus, would not be a modern superpower like the united states is today. An agriculturally based economy sounds good for a 1500s civilization, but not for the 20th or 21st century.
inthecards21 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@inthecards21 Why is it good for the US to be the dominant world power?
joshpj84 8 months ago
@inthecards21 Back then the agricultural goods they exported actualy made them the richer half of the union. Also the southern states had more land mass. It was a crime that they were forced back in and it signaled the end of the republic and the begining of the empire. America doesn't need to be a world power, all that being a world power gets it's citizens is more wars and more taxes, sound good to you?
Also the south was basically leveled, the war was horrible.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
@Hashishin13 I agree the war was terrible, and yes I would much rather support an independent free republic that is poor, than an overbearing half free phony democracy that has its nose in world affairs like we have today
inthecards21 7 months ago
The video summarizes with the phrase "The many positive aspects of Southern Succession." Uh-huh. In the 1970's North Carolina sometimes used the slogan "First in Freedom" on its license plates because of the Mecklenburg Declaration of 1775 where is helped to lead the American Revolution. There was controversy of the slogan because of N. Carolina's long history of racism.
South Carolina should have the motto "First in Succession". So it can be sooo proud of it then. Huh?
AWMorrow 8 months ago
@AWMorrow yes
4everUSNavy 3 months ago
THANKS FOR ALL THE GREAT VIDS.....
DIXIECONFEDERATEDAWG 9 months ago
i like this video, a lot
blackrebelmuslim 9 months ago
lol @ the anti-multiculturalist SA defending ethnopluralism. fits a segregationist POV, i guess.
shamusername 9 months ago
They did not say that a group of people who wish to continue violating individual rights with impunity may disregard the constitutional order so as to perpetuate their oppressive institutions. It was their grandchildren in the Confederacy who made that assertion, all the while denouncing the Declaration of Independence as an untruth. The American Revolution is poor evidence for Sale’s contention that the slave power rebellion was somehow in keeping with the American tradition.
shamusername 9 months ago
The leaders of 1776 never claimed their acts were legal; they said that they were choosing to break the law, and that their doing so was justified by a higher principle—namely, by the defense of the inalienable rights that belong to all individuals. It was the right to throw off a government which becomes destructive to the individual rights it is created to protect that they articulated in the Declaration.
shamusername 9 months ago
1:51 This is false. The American Revolution was not an act of secession, but of revolution—hence the name. The distinction between revolution and secession is crucial. Revolution is the natural right to break the law and overthrow a government whenever a long train of abuses evinces a design to reduce the people under absolute despotism. Secession is the idea that a state has the legal authority unilaterally to leave the union.
shamusername 9 months ago
@shamusername
it was a revolution. but it WAS an act of secession. we declared independence from England that makes it an act of secession
johnnyreb1025 8 months ago 2
lol @ the notion that the secession was "against a tyrannical government", "similiar to the american revolution". Revolution was undertaken BY THE PEOPLE, not by the STATES. And the SLAVE STATES were the MOST TYRANNICAL of all governments on American soil, for they demanded the instutition of slavery to be perpetuated in America FOREVER, that is precisely the reason why they started the war to begin with.
shamusername 9 months ago
@shamusername
actually the US Congress disagrees with you
johnnyreb1025 8 months ago
sorry kid....you're simply not worth any more of my time. Find something else to troll or GASP! Get a life.
hungarygator 10 months ago
Andrew johnson was a traitor. He was a Southerner and a Democrat and he was probably part of the plot to kill Lincoln so he can cause segregation for a century afterward.
timd941 10 months ago
Shelby Foote said, “The North fought that war with one hand tied behind’s it back…The South never had a chance to win that war”.
Fucken rednecks. We should have never built the TVA, should have left you people in the dark.
GearingDestroyer 10 months ago
"I don't see anything about recognition."
Scroll down on the Wikipedia page you got that from..Under the heading 'Nation-State'-"An aspiring nation-state must have sovereignty recognized by other nation-states in order to become one"
For someone whom can only parakeet...I would really think that you would at least read the entire article.
In any case, I appreciate your unending attempts to cite your opinion over that of actual nations.
I gotta tell ya, I sure do appreciate it!
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir Now you're shifting from "sovereign" to "nation state" when the ACTUAL DEFINITION of sovereign is all that mattered to you before. LOL! Way to try to move the goal posts!
I also appreciate your endless moronic scribbling about recognition by others from 1861-1865 being the sole "definition".
Your idiocy amuses me. Do keep it up!
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator ....My god, you are a retard.
When a govt of a territory HAS sovereignty, it is refereed to as a nation-state.
I am rather amused at your ability to ignore the meanings of words, while attempting to use your white trash 'recognition' of the CSA to prove sovereignty.
After all....it is only EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD that disagrees with you.
It is no wonder that the CSA so easily had decency beaten into them by their moral & martial betters.
You're Welcome!
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir My god you are a dumbfuck
LOL! Now you're trying to move the goalposts to "nation-state". Not every country is a "nation-state" you know. Some have more than one group (ie Belgium, Switzerland etc)
I am amused at your "ability" to try to all sorts of mental gymnastics to fit definitions which support your point of view. I guess that's typical in your trailer park.
LOL! At your claims of "moral betters"
Do keep it up moron. Its most entertaining.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "My god you are a dumbfuck"
Bright enough that the only retorts you have is to parakeet my own. I would be flattered, if you were anything other than uneducated white trash.
"trying to move the goalposts"
No, the CSA was never recognized, nor was it ever a nation-state. Hence, 'rebellion'.
"support your point of view"
A point of view shared by EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD.
"claims of moral betters."
And martial betters. Thus the elimination of both the rebellion & of slavery.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir LOL! You're still butt-hurt because I dish your crap right back at you I see.
Broken record. *YAWN*
LOL! The side that has more men and more guns is automatically "better"? Hardly. Quantity is not quality.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "I dish your crap back at you"
By parakeeting me. It does serve to illustrate your wit.
"automatically better"
The winner is automatically better, the side NOT fighting to preserve an immoral institution is automatically better.
And we proved it.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir You have no wit. Why should I make any effort? You don't rate it.
You fail to understand the difference between quality and quantity. You also incorrectly claim they were "fighting to preserve an immoral institution". That's not what they were fighting for.
Nice try though.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "It serves to illustrate your wit"..."You have no wit" Why am I not surprised? You simply are unable to form an original thought in your head. How wonderful.
"difference between quality and quantity."
Winning is quality. I do appreciate white trash attempt to quantify the word 'quality' however.
"not what they were fighting for."
Not according to their DECLARATION OF SUCCESSION. But please, give me the white trash version. I find these white trash fantasies fascinating.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir I put as much effort into it as you put into your endlessly repetitive and boring replies.
Winning is usually more about quantity-particularly in a war of attrition. Look up the definition in your trailer park.
You could look it up for yourself moron. Why should I do all your work for you?
hungarygator 10 months ago
@festdir In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, James McPherson reported on more than 25,000 letters and 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War and concluded that Confederate soldiers "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government." The letters and diaries "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," , and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "spoke of a fear of being enslaved...."
So you are saying that the lack of self-awareness typically reserved for children, retards & small dogs is also emblematic of CSA supporters?
No argument here.
"War of attrition"
It wasn't...it was a rebellion. In order to win a defensive war/ Rebellion, all the defenders/Rebels have to do is NOT surrender. Ask the US vs GB, Vietnam vs China, France & US, Finland & Afgans vs USSR.
The CSA was uniquely cowardly (& immoral)
Southern Pride!
tool
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir I'm not saying anything. I'm quoting McPherson. Take it up with him.
Gosh it sure helps when one of the world's superpowers comes through with money and weapons and troops and a navy huh?
Douchebag.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "one of the world's superpowers [helps]"
Which are you speaking of?
Afgans? They were FIGHTING a superpower. The difference in pop, deaths, money & tech was far greater than what the CSA experienced. The US did provide Stingers...& Mules. HOW COULD THEY LOSE!?!
Finland? Who helped them?
Vietnam? They received no help in their nearly 1000 yr fight against China.
All of my examples were at a far greater disadvantage than the CSA.
They, however, didn't surrender in less than 4 yrs
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir France was a superpower in the late 18th century. Their support for the American secessionists from the British empire was essential.
Finland lost within months vs the Soviets. China historically dominated that region....and its not like they put their full effort into conquering Vietnam. Why would they? It just wasn't worth that much to them. You've got to come up with better arguments. You're grasping at straws here.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "France was a power in 18th" So was GB.
"Finns lost vs USSR"
USSR had 100 times more tanks, 3 x as many men & 30x as many planes...yet the USSR failed in their objective of total subjection of Finland...as a result Finland maintained its Sovereignty.
Glad to see your historical knowledge of foreign wars mirrors your knowledge of domestic wars.
"China didnt put full effort against Vietnam"
Yes, when judging resolve, a 1000 yr war means nothing.
"Grasping at straws"
Someone is.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir Hmm you acknowledge the fact that the Soviets had more troops and industrial capacity than Finland yet don't acknowledge the same for the South vis a vis the North. Interesting.
All I said was that the Finns lost. Try to project on to that what you will.
You are grasping at straws here though I agree.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator The Finns were at a far worse disadvantage than the CSA was. Yet they managed to keep their country & not plead for mercy with an unconditional surrender.
The South's defensive advantage should have been far more than enough--as shown by numerous historical examples--to negate the North's relatively minuscule advantage in industry & population.
However the North's advantage in MEN was substantial.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir The Finns were quickly defeated as soon as the snow thawed. Had the Soviets wanted to take the whole country they easily could have. They CHOSE not to.
The South had 1/4 the white population, 1/10th the industrial capacity, no established navy, currency, government, etc etc. Its amazing the South was able to accomplish what it did. That is of course owing mostly to the superiority of the individual Southern Soldier.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "USSR CHOSE not to [take Finland]"
The 'benevolent Stalin' theory. Nice. However until your impressive new theory-based on knowledge pulled out of your ass- takes hold. Most will go ahead & assume it was b/c of the 321,118 casualties, 3543 destroyed tanks & 3880 aircraft lost in 4 months.
"superiority of the Southern Soldier."
No one could manage to wave a white flag, play the victim, or make for such a lovely stroll through Georgia like the Southern Soldier.
I'll give you that.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir Theory? As if the Finns were in any position to stop them at that point. The Finns managed to inflict a lot of casualties on ill-trained, ill-equipped Ukranians but once the thaw and the tanks came it was all over.
Hmm seems to me that despite the lack of food, inferior weapons, fewer supplies, and being heavily outnumbered etc the Southern soldiers still managed to kill a good number more Yankees.
Now go cry like a little bitch about it.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "As if the Finns were in any position to stop them"
Yes, the USSR planned to lose 321,118 men & thousands of tanks & aircraft, then just stop. An argument as powerful as your 'Benevolent Stalin' thesis.
"Southern soldiers still managed to kill a good number more Yankees"
Yet the cowardly traitors still begged their moral & martial betters for mercy.
Fortunately for you (and unfortunately for the gene pool) they granted it.
You're Welcome!
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir Yeah, those handful of Finns who were left stopped the millions of Russkies and their tanks cold-couldn't have gone any further. Brilliant analysis as always.
Still butt-hurt that the superior Southern soldiers inflicted far more casualties on Yankee imperialists I see. Have a good cry about it.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "handful of Finns who were left stopped the millions of Russkies & their tanks cold"
Yes, that is why Russia didn't take all of Finland, as was their original goal....the Finns showed courage and tactical tenacity. Stalin saw that their resolve was too much. Thus they kept their sovereignty.
"superior Southern soldiers"
So 'superior' they lost & begged for mercy.
Great Argument. Really.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir Their original goal was just to grab a buffer zone near St. Petersburg. That was all they really wanted.
So superior they held out for 4 years and inflicted vastly more casualties against an enemy more than twice their number.
Great argument really......Look I know you want to talk smack and all but this is really boring. You just don't have anything of interest to offer. Quit now while you are behind.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "original goal was just a buffer zone"
No. Not only is that historically wrong, but shows an utter misunderstanding of both USSR & Stalin.
"held out for 4 yrs"
4 yrs....Wow.
"enemy more than twice their number"
As the US had to subdue both an army & a population. There were over 9 million traitors subdued by only 2 million men.
Fortunately, in addition to being immoral & traitors, they were also cowards that begged for mercy.
Mercy, although unearned, was granted.
You're Welcome!
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir yes that is so. Had the Finns given that up there would have been no war.
4 years against a vastly larger and better supplied enemy? Quite significant.
LOL! firstly the traitors were Lincoln's minions who betrayed the original constitution. Secondly about 4 million were blacks. Also, how tough is it to "subdue" defenseless women and kids? The immoral cowards were those who made war on noncombatants-ie the Union side-many of whom were fortunately killed.
Your welcome!
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "Had the Finns given up"
How southern of you.
"4 yrs against a vastly larger"
The US, Vietnam, Finns, Afgans & virtually ANY other rebels with at least as much as the cowardly CSA, has just shit themselves laughing. Go ahead, give an example of an unsuccessful rebellion with as much as the CSA had
"how hard is it to subdue defenseless"
Too hard for the CSA that fought to do exactly that.
"Lincoln's minions...about 4 mill. were blacks"
Blacks fought on the side of the US? Go figure.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir *YAWN* Your attempt at smack is so boring its not even worthy of a reply. I can't even be bothered.
You'll have to try to troll elsewhere.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "...its not even worthy of a reply"
Thanks for telling me.....by REPLYING
'Self-Awareness'-Honestly, it's not that difficult.
"troll elsewhere"
Lets Review, according to you....Liberty=Slavery, Superior Soldiers=Surrender, Traitor=Fighting FOR the country & Troll=Historically Accurate.
The best part about all this?
You're fucking serious.
Do NOT change a thing, you magnificent retard!
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir I’m just telling you how BORING you are.
Straw Man arguments and the usual trolling. You have nothing else to offer.
Moron
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "I'm just telling you how BORING you are"
BORING in this case, meaning 'factually correct'. You, on the other hand, are defiantly my favorite poster! I never knew that 'word meanings', 'self-awareness', & 'historical accuracy' could be so difficult for someone....speaking of..... "Straw Man arguments"
Please, do give an example (quote), so that I may give you the actual definition, and illustrate, again, that 'word meanings' are a bit too much for you.
Do NOT change a thing!
festdir 10 months ago
Sovereignty: the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community-rightful status, independence, or prerogative I don't see anything about being recognition as being part of the definition, ie the ACTUAL MEANING
hungarygator 10 months ago
"they had legally seceded."
Every nation in the world disagrees....but thanks for your opinion. Means a lot to me.
"views of the Founders"
And in the Constitution they wrote ""the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of REBELLION" Clearly your historical knowledge is exceeded only by your mind-reading abilities.
Impressive. Really.
"reading comprehension"
Like the DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION? Like the Cornerstone speech?
Kinda like those?
tool.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir I was not aware every nation in the world had issued a legal ruling on the matter. Please provide a source for that claim.
The USSC has held that only the LEGISLATURE not the prez has the power to suspend habeas corpus and only when regular courts are not functioning.
Impressive. Really.
Like the Address of Rhett, like Davis' repeated statements that they were not fighting for slavery, like Georgia's declaration dealing with economics?
Kinda like those?
Douchebag.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "legal ruling on the matter"
No nation ever recognized the CSA. Not a difficult concept.
"only the LEGISLATURE" & only in cases of invasion or REBELLION.
"Davis' repeated statements"
Were they notarized BY HIS SLAVE?
"Georgia's Declaration"
You mean "For the last 10 yrs we have had numerous & serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
You are a retard.
Thanks for proving it in writing.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir its "an" official concept. They don't teach grammar in your trailer park I see.
It was not a "rebellion":, they had seceded and were out.
Davis' statements can be read by anybody-go ahead and google them.
I do like your selective editing of the GA declaration so as not to include anything about economics.
You are a fucking moron.
Thanks for proving it in writing.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "It was not a rebellion"
It was according to THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD.
"Davis' statements" Like this? "[war] must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle,"
Instead, the immoral cowards surrendered after LESS THAN 4 yrs.
"its 'an' official concept."
Boy, you really got me there, Tiger...Allow me to try again...'Your post presents AN excellent example of A goddamn retard '
Better?
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir "It was according to THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD."
Wrong. The US Federal government was not their government.
As to the 2nd...they fought over 4 years though massively outnumbered and inflicted far more losses on their attackers than they took-not bad.
Well "tiger" your post presents an excellent example of someone who is a complete fucking moron.
Better douchebag?
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "US Federal govt was not their govt"
They (a)signed the 'US Fed govt' Constitution (b)flew the 'US Fed govt' flag...at least until they (c)lost a 'US Fed govt.' Pres. election.
I notice you are unable to insult without plagiarizing your betters...so be it. Whatever makes you feel better about a reality that is in such contradiction the easily discredited (& better done by others) historical revisionism you attempt to use to justify Slavery, Cowardice & Immorality.
You're Welcome!
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir They seceded from the US. The US Federal govt was not their gov't. It was not a "rebellion".
I just dish right back at you the same childish bullshit you dish out. Don't like it? It is you who are the revisionist here attempting to deny reality because it is inconvenient for your politics. When have I ever justified slavery? Liar.
You're Welcome as well.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "When have I ever justified slavery?"
Never. You simply defend those that committed treason in order to keep it.
Congratulations, you managed to be (a) a dumbass (b) morally disgusting (c) Even more cowardly than the pansies that tried fighting their moral & martial betters, then surrendering....& best of all (d) Awesomely entertaining.
"You're Welcome as well"
Very Good. I truly do appreciate your effort to prove--in writing, no less--that you are a goddamn retard.
Thank you!
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir it wasn't "treason" to withdraw from the US.
Nice try though. You managed to be a) a douchebag b) an idiot c) cowardly and best of all d) entertaining with your amazing stupidity.
I appreciate your entirely successful efforts what a complete fucking moronic douchebag you are.
Thank you!
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Articles of the confederate constitution unlike the U.S. Constitution, the confederate constitution does make explicit the legal protection of owning slaves. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in
ProgressiveAudio 10 months ago
@hungarygator negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress] The constitution likewise prohibited the Confederate Congress from abolishing or limiting slavery in Confederate territories (unlike the United States, where, prior to the Dred Scott decision, Congress had prohibited slavery in some territories). This did not necessarily mean that individual state
ProgressiveAudio 10 months ago
@hungarygator s could not ban slavery. However, section 2 of Article IV specified that "citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired".
ProgressiveAudio 10 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio The Confederate Constitution also limited the prez to one 6 year term, made officials impeachable by each state legislature, limited the tariff to a revenue (ie max 10%) tariff, banned riders being attached to bills, required a 2/3rds majority for spending bills, gave the president a line item veto, and allowed only clearing water obstructions to be charged to the general public-all other "improvements" were to be charged to industry which benefited from them.
hungarygator 10 months ago
Wow you mean black people don't support slavery, what a bunch of liberals. lol Funny how so many who fought for civil rights had to work hardest in former confederate states. Oh and terrorism is just a political tactic. History is seldom black and white as people want it to be, so enjoy southern pride, but don't forget all the pitfalls. Oh and the war was treason, but it was better to let the nation heal than go around hanging traitors.
NJburbsSeeker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NJburbsSeeker I'm fully aware of the wrongful acts done in the Southern States. I wish they didn't happen but they did. I acknowledge them. Its the Yankees and the Federal government that refuse to acknowledge all of their wrongful acts. Withdrawing from a voluntary union is not treason.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@NJburbsSeeker I fully acknowledge the "sins" in the South's history. I wish they weren't there but they are. Its undeniable. The same is true of the Northern states and the Federal government....but some seem to not want to acknowledge any of that. Oh, and withdrawing from a voluntary union is not treason.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Good for you so maybe you see why the rest of the country isn't full on board with celebrating along with you, and being part of the United States isn't like joining a country club. Also just because you don't see it as treason doesn't make it okay. I can't stand most liberals, but I will never say the confederacy was a good idea.
NJburbsSeeker 11 months ago
@NJburbsSeeker Whether it was a good idea or not, it was their right to withdraw. Jefferson even said so in his first inaugural address. ....Incidentally, I am hardly a liberal. If anything leftists love the idea of a vast consolidated centralized government so as to better impose socialism and their social engineering projects on everybody else. That is not what the Founders ever wanted or supported.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator I argue all you want about their right I think the war pretty much settled who was right in the end. You reform the government you have, and if you see it going off the constitutional path you use the existing frame work to change it. You do not rebel and form a renegade state. I think it is fair to say that the Founders saw war as the last resort, and so did Lincoln for that matter.
NJburbsSeeker 11 months ago
@NJburbsSeeker The war didn't settle who was "right" unless you subscribe to the notion that having more men and guns automatically makes someone right. One region that is a minority and is being economically exploited and in a union that was voluntary is naturally going to start heading for the exits. Lincoln didn't see war as a last resort-he deliberately provoked it knowing full well what he was doing. He thought it would be easy ie 75000 troops for 90 days only. WRONG!
hungarygator 11 months ago
If honoring my ancestors is treasonous then lock me up with Bradley Manning.
ProtestantIRA 11 months ago
Southerns keep telling the blacks to get over slavery because it ended over 145 years ago yet they want to celebrate, and promote as patriotic the attempt to destroy the UNITED STATES of America.
Do we celebrate with a "Ball" the massacre at Wounded Knee?
wtfoof 1 year ago
@wtfoof How would the secession of some states have "destroyed the united states of america"? Would not Ohio still be free to form whatever association it wished with Indiana? Massachusetts with Minnesota and so on? Of course they would have. The united states would not have been "destroyed" and that is not what the seceding states ever proposed to do. They simply wished to go their own way much as the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire-which was not destroyed thereby.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator One, the 13 colonies DID NOT seceded from England. They were possessions of the Crown of England. Secede: to make a formal withdrawal of membership or an organization or state of alliance. Perhaps I should have said "DESTROY the existing Union known as the United States of America".
But the argument was, why celebrate an act of treason that failed? Failed as in you attempt to change the subject!
wtfoof 11 months ago
@wtfoof of course they seceded. To secede is "to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union". They withdrew from the British Empire. Their withdrawal certainly would not have "destroyed" the US. The federal government simply would have controlled less territory. States acting in their sovereign capacity and withdrawing their consent to be governed by Washington DC is not "treason" and wasn't seen as such by the Founders.
hungarygator 11 months ago
Why should we ignore the negative aspects of a historical figure or event just so we can have a warm fuzzy feeling of nationalism or patriotism? Is it acceptable for Japan pretend that it committed no atrocities in ww2 so that they can have a feel patriotic about their history. Would it be acceptable for Germany ? This video is ridiculous.
ryan84160 1 year ago
Al Sharpton is a liar and should have been jailed for that a long time ago. He stairs up his people with lies to keep them angry, and stirred up. And it always seems to be the poor blacks being abused by the slaver master whites. Never have I heard him speak out on much of anything else. Blacks would do a lot better for their cause if the dumped creeps like him.
RCK502 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 Well what I mean is the celebrated heroes of the Union went on to be civil rights attorneys (the great agnostic) and authors who brought attention to the horror of war (Bierce) while the confederates became the KKK.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio ROTF! What a ridiculous claim. There were plenty on both sides who went on to do plenty of good and bad things. Newsflash! The individual soldiers on both sides were just as human.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Um, no. The Confederacy was fighting to retain a slave state and even had plans to go all the way up to Canada to attack abolitionist. The Confederate guerillas that formed after they lost the war became the Klu Klux Klan. Jesse James for example was a confederate guerilla! The confederacy was debauched and terrible.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio um..no. The Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery forever. The federal government was quite happy to protect it. After the war the federal government occupied the Southern states, disenfranchised the vast majority of the voters and butchered the plains Indians in its quest for empire. The Radical Republicans were debauched, murderous and terrible.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Uh...the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort to avert war, all it would have done was let the slave states keep slaves. The confederacy wasn't satisfied with such efforts and attacked anyway. After all Ohio was a "free state."
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio but but but it was "all about slavery" wasn't it? This express protection of slavery forever should have therefore sufficed, no? Let's not get into the fact that Lincoln started the war. Its well documented and there's no point arguing it.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Yeah it was about slavery, because if secession was not about Slavery, then why would the constitution of the Confederacy, as well as the constitutions of Confederate states like Alabama, look pretty much just like the Constitution of the United States, with the only real differences being sections that protect slavery, and prohibit emancipation of slaves by the government?
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio No it was not "all about slavery". The Confederate Constitution contained a number of limits on the power of the central government....ie line item veto, 2/3rd majority for spending bills, no riders, no general welfare clause etc. One has to be a hopeless ignoramus or an outright liar to try to deny it. There was no Corwin Amendment protecting slavery forever in the Confederate Constitution. Lincoln and the Yankees were happy to adopt one for the US Constitution though.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "hopeless ignoramus or outright liar [about CSA succeeding b/c of Slavery]"
DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SUCCESSION-"election of a man to Pres of the US, whose opinions & purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Govt, b/c he declared that "Govt cannot endure half slave, half free," & the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction"
'Facts'-like warfare-Just not Southerners strong point.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir Its "seceding" not "succeeding" and yes it was certainly a major issue. It was not however the only one. You did not include the lengthy passage in Georgia's declaration about the economic exploitation of the Southern states by the Federal govt/northern states. You did not include the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to South Carolina's declaration or Texas' complaints about economic exploitation or lack of border security. Facts aren't your strong suit.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "[slavery] was certainly a major issue"
1) It was THE major issue...without slavery, no Civil War would have taken place.
2)We now agree on the simple truth that "The CSA committed treason in order to protect the institution of slavery, until their martial & moral betters beat decency into them."
Works for me.
Well Played.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir not sure I agree with that at all. The economic issues would have remained as would the deep philosophical differences about the nature of the fed-state relationship going all the way to the Founders. I for one do not at all think withdrawing from the union was treason. Treason was making war on the states as defined in Article 3 section 3 of the Constitution-and the Traitor was Lincoln.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "I do not think withdrawing from the union was treason"
"trea·son 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it"
I do not have my 'English-to-Douchebagese' dictionary handy.
Why don't we just stick to the actual meanings of words from here on out?
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir except that states were sovereign entities. The union was a union of consent-not a union of force. "government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed" Sound familiar? You don't need an English-Douchbagese dictionary. As a giant douchbag yourself you provide all that is needed every time you open your mouth.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "except that the states were sovereign entities" No, they weren't. Again...."sov·er·eign 1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority"
No nation has ever recognized the sovereignty of either the CSA nor its individual states.
"govt derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed"
That is why the US had an election..an election the immoral traitors of the South lost.
'Word Definitions'--Just not your style..
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir of course they were. Read the Treaty of Paris. It recognizes each STATE by name. Nowhere are the words "the united states" to be found. So you are wrong about the states not being recognized by anyone as having been sovereign. The Tyrant Lincoln and his traitorous minions overthrew the original constitution.
Word definitions-not your style.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "Read the Treaty of Paris"
That was before the Constitution was signed by each of the states.....you may want to try reading that.
"Tyrant Lincoln"
In this case 'tyrant' meaning 'democratically elected'
"traitorous minions"
In this case 'traitorous' meaning "fighting FOR the USA"--I guess that means that firing on the flag of the US is 'loyal'
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Perhaps you should try being a Nazi apologist instead...at least they managed to put up a fight.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir It shows the states were sovereign. They did not surrender their sovereignty by ratifying the constitution. They only delegated some powers. Tyrant means total disregard for the bill of rights and the constitution. Correct traitorous means serving the tyrant who was violating the Constitution. Truly, you are a moron. I knew you'd Godwin yourself given an opportunity-typical for one of such limited intellect.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "It shows the states were sovereign"
No. That is why no nation recognized the CSA.
"only delegated some powers."
Namely negotiation with sovereign nations & their own sovereignty.
"disregard for the bill of rights & the constitution"
Like elections? But do continue attempting to equate the Bill of Rights with the 'right' to slavery. It amuses me.
"Godwin"
Yes, because an immoral govt. based primarily upon racial superiority has nothing to do with the Nazi party.
Well Played.
tool.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir Yes, that is why they were recognized in the Treaty of Paris. They did not give up their own sovereignty when ratifying the Constitution and never would have done so had they been told they were giving up their sovereignty. I never equated the bill of rights with slavery. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to a public trial, etc. Yeah, a democracy which recognizes individual liberty is just like the Nazis.
Moron.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "that is why they were recognized in the Treaty of Paris."
No. The CSA was not recognized in the Treaty of Paris. Wonderful that such a thing as a 'date' can manage to upend your entire argument.
"did not gibe up their own sovereignty when ratifying the Constitution"
The 1) Text of the Constitution disagrees (2) so did EVERY F-ING SOVEREIGN NATION IN THE WORLD (but thanks for your fucking opinion)
"recognizes individual liberty"
Just like slavery.
Great Argument. Really.
tool.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir nobody said the CSA was recognized. I said STATES were recognized. Reading comprehension 101. Show me the provision in the constitution which forbids a state to withdraw. The CSA recognized the same individual liberties the USA did at that time.
Fucking moron.,
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "I never said the CSA was recognized"
End of discussion....but I will help educate those from the area of the worst education in the US.
"STATES were recognized"
Until the Constitution.
"forbids a state to withdraw"
"habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of REBELLION".....Do give me the chance to define 'rebellion' for you.
"The CSA recognized.."
And its death was also the death of slavery. Do continue with your 'individual rights' discussion. It amuses me.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir The president has no right to suspend habeas corpus-only the legislature and only when normal courts are not functioning.....and this was not a case of rebellion. Sovereign states had withdrawn as was their right. They were not rebelling against any legitimate authority. What you seem to miss is that the federal government denied the right of self determination/self government. Its great that slavery was ended though that was not their aim in starting the war.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator '"not a case of rebellion"
1) "re·bel·lion 1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government."
2) Thank you for that. Really.
"Sovereign states"
Yes, EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD means absolutely nothing when put up against the greatness that is 'hungarygator' on youtube comment.
"not their aim in starting the war"
Not according to the DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION (Its too bad they couldn't have dumbed that title down a bit more for you) nor the VP of the CSA
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir The federal government was no longer their government since they had legally seceded. Thanks for playing-really.
Yes, the views of the Founders count for nothing when put up against the opinions of festdir on youtube. Brilliant!
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S aim....again try reading comprehension 101. Try reading the Corwin Amendment or Lincoln's inaugural...or Jefferson Davis' statement that it was not about slavery or the US Congress' resolution to the same effect.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator I also wonder why Alabama and the nearby states were the last battlefields for desegregation and the civil rights movement and are still backwards ass shitholes where civil rights for minorities are in constant battle.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio Take a little gander at the 10 most segregated cities in America idiot. LA is #10. St. Louis is something like #7. ALL OTHERS are in the North. Interesting huh?
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Lol, you think I'm saying North Good South Bad. All I'm saying is historical facts. California was desegregated long before the southern states, not only that I'm not talking of the lingering economic segregation that still exist in America. It's not as apparent in the South anymore because a lot of blacks left it, starting in the 1920s.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio Actually blacks have been moving back to the South in the last generation and Southern blacks are better off financially than Northern blacks. I don't for one second say the South's hands were clean-they were not. But the North's hands sure as hell weren't clean either. Some seem to wish to cast off all "sin" onto the South or to say its heritage, history and culture are based solely on hate. That's BS. There's plenty of that in everybody's past sadly.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "Actually blacks have been moving back to the South in the last generation"
Not really, the south is still majority black but a good chunk moved away when immigration was shut down in 20s, and people like Henry Ford ended up enticing southern blacks to work for cheap in their factories to make up for the loss of immigration, as such cities like LA and Detroit ended up getting poor black populations. This is basic high school history stuff.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio yes really. There are several newspaper and magazine articles you can read about it. Blacks have been moving to the South from the Midwest mostly though some from the Northeast as well. The South is not nor has it ever been majority black though.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "Some seem to wish to cast off all "sin" onto the South or to say its heritage, "
Maybe, not me. I'm just telling about the historical fact that the confederacy wanted to keep its slaves.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio You are right that they wanted to keep slavery....and the feds/northern states were just fine with that. It had been a polarizing issue intricately tied with sectional rivalry and the tariff and gov't expenditures. Had reasonable heads prevailed and a compensated emancipation scheme been adopted like every other country and the northern states themselves did, it could have been abolished without a bloodbath. Tariff and "general welfare" spending issues woudl have remained.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator No. The "northern states" didn't practice slavery, some like Vermont abolished slavery right from the get go, while many people were willing to just let the southern states continue slavery, the southern states realized if they didn't separate it wouldn't last so they began killing abolitionist and then began attacking the north, hence the civil war. Tariffs and welfare are not mentioned in the declarations and such by the confederates.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio Under the Corwin Amendment, it could have lasted forever. The Northern states and the Lincoln administration supported that.....and they certainly did not attack the North. Tariffs and government expenditures are mentioned in the declarations quite extensively. Read the address of Rhett, read Georgia's, read Texas, etc.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator Ya know..proposed amendments happen every year. You're keep bringing up an amendment that failed. There was (big surprise) also attempts by the southern states to add admendments that specifically allowed slavery, and when that failed, they seceded, well attempted too. Here's what its encyclopedia entry says:
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@hungarygator "Offering the amendment was a last-ditch effort to avert the outbreak of the Civil War. Corwin's resolution emerged as the House of Representatives's version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by Senator William H. Seward of New York. However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was totally committed to independence, and so it ignored the proposed Corwin Amendment." Please fine something else to attach your stuff too.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio Nice try. The bottom line is the Northern Dominated Congress and the Lincoln administration were more than happy to protect slavery forever.....yet that did not address the South's concerns and they did not come back. So much for the "it was all about slavery" mantra.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator You can't find mentions of them in their constitutions or their declarations for secession, you can find a lot of talk of slavery being god granted (they used the Bible heavily to promote slavery) and good though. After all Jefferson Davis first action domestically was to round up and kill abolitionist and he even wrote up plans of going all the way up to Canada (after destroying the union) to conquer them for being against slavery.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio LOL! Economic concerns were most certainly included in the declarations and Rhett's address. I will await proof of the abolitionists who were "rounded up and killed" under Jefferson Davis' orders.
I have a question RonPaulHatesBlacks.....don't you ever get tired of spamming any and every thread about the South on Youtube? I mean, there have to be things more interesting in life than spending all your time on that...right? If not I feel sad for you.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator The southern states were not against taxes or tariffs. Just look at George Wallace. When it came to white people, he was a populist and even "socially democratic" in a way, who used progressive taxation and government spending to make world class education and housing which were extremely affordable, again just for whites.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio pssst George Wallace was one hundred years after the period we are talking about. Try to keep up.
hungarygator 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hungarygator As someone said below: "The greatest myth that southerners tell themselves about the Civil war was that it was not about Slavery, but about northern tyrrany. We only need to look at the Confederate constitution to see that it really was about slavery, and not much else. The Confederate constitution reads like the US constitution, with a few lines added to preserve slavery. "
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@hungarygator The agenda that Jefferson Davis drew up to run the country after the south won, is damning evidence that it really was just about Slavery."
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio Jefferson Davis' "agenda" was to repel an armed invasion and is no evidence of anything beyond that.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "That doesn't change the fact that Southern Secession, and most of the events leading up to it (Bleeding Kansas, Dredd Scott, etc) were all about slavery. Southerners argued that they had the right to expand slavery into the new territories west of the Mississippi, and also seemed to have no bones about murdering and sacking towns that had abolitionists in it. Bleeding Kansas got started when a bunch of southerners burned down a town and killed abolitionists. "
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio yet more one-sided propaganda from RonPaulHatesBlacks who obsesses over spreading such propaganda using his various sock puppet accounts on Youtube. Pathetic really.
hungarygator 11 months ago
Yeah, I mean the CSA was not about freedom at all. Especially if you were a northern sympathizer. Jefferson Davis used the military to hunt down and imprison people without trial, who were suspected of still having northern sympathies. They didn't even do anything like that in the north. On top of that, before the South started the war, they sent people to Europe to try to get England and France to support them in the war. For people who claimed to be for peace, they sure didn't try.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio they didn't hunt down and imprison people they even suspected of having southern sympathies in the North? ROTFLMAO!!!! Tell us another whopper! On top of that, the North started the war. The South sent diplomats to seek foreign alliances in case of war? oooooh! obvious "proof" of their evil designs for world domination no doubt! LOL!
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "On top of that the North started the war"
Yes, if only the USA hadn't of fired Ft. Sumter at the CSA traitor's cannonballs.
Way to take historical revisionism to a whole new level.
Glad to see you really take it up a notch.
tool.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir The aggressor is one who tries to pour troops onto another sovereign nation's territory-not one who fires upon invaders in defense of his home.
Way to take historiacl revisionism to a whole new level.
Glad to see you really take it up a notch.
Douchebag.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "pour troops onto another sovereign"
ALL THE NATIONS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD agreed that it was AMERICAN territory. But thanks for the White Trash take on the matter.
As intelligent as it is credible.
I am particularly intrigued by your thesis that unless one believes that:
a)Liberty is fighting for slavery
b)Being fired upon is starting a war
c) The CSA was sovereign
one is being a historical revisionist.
"Word Definitions'-Apparently hasn't made much inroads in your trailer park.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir They made no such "agreement". They "agreed" that the two were belligerent sides. But thanks for the dumbass take on the matter.
As intelligent as it is credible.
I am particularly intrigued by your thesis of how the union was fighting to free slaves when
a) it had slaves itself
b) declared it wasn't doing so
c) offered an amendment that would have protected slavery forever
d) sending troops to another's land is not an act of aggression
One is being a historical revisionist.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "They made no such 'agreement"
They recognized the Southern USA as...get this...the USA. Not that your idea of sovereignty of needing "every nation in the world [issue] a legal ruling [to not recognize sovereignty]" isn't as intelligent as it is reasonable.
"union fighting to free slaves"
I never said that, are you a retard or a liar?
a)'Border states'-You may want to check the meaning ot it
b)The CSA, however, did
c)PASSED an amendment that forbade slavery forever
d)It was US land
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir "They recognized the Southern USA as...get this...the USA"
They did no such thing. They made no pronouncements other than they recognized both were belligerents.
B) you said the CSA was fighting "for slavery". Liar. By their own words, they were not. There is no declaration on their part they were.
c) Border states suddenly "don't count" when its inconvenient for the federal govt? New Jersey had "apprentices for life" gotta love that one.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "They did no such thing"
Yes, they did. The CSA was not recognized, & it was US territory.
"By their own words, they were not"
I am not going to bother quoting DECLARATIONS OF SECESSION for you anymore....clearly the very title of the document isn't dumbed down enough for you.
"Border states suddenly don't count."
They do....they were immoral, but neither traitors nor cowards....unlike the CSA.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir The 13 Colonies were not recognized until 1783. It was still their territory just as the CSA's was theirs.
You also are not going to bother reading the address of Rhett or the parts of the declarations which do not fit your arguments. I guess that would require too much brainpower (or intellectual honesty) on your part.
The traitors to the original constitution were the tyrant Lincoln and his minions. He was also too cowardly to send HIS precious son into combat..
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "just as the CSA's was theirs"
As credible as 'recognition of sovereignty' by random white trash is...what actual nation recognized the CSA?
"parts of declarations which do not fit your arguments"
I also do not address the parts of Nazi doctrine that don't address anti-semitism to be able to conclude that Nazis were for it....& they did not declare it nearly as clearly as the CSA did slavery.
"tyrant"
Democratically elected 'tyrants'.
Great Arguments. Really.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir The states of SC, GA, NC and VA were recognized as sovereign in the treaty of paris in 1783.
Ah yes, you just Godwined yourself. I win. Thanks. You seem to think the US wasn't massively racist despite the existence of slavery there too. Strange.
A tyrant who trampled on the bill of rights and imprisoned thousands for years without trial.
Great arguments, really.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "Treaty of Paris in 1783"
And they signed any claims to sovereignty away on September 17, 1787.....a signature that was respected & RECOGNIZED by EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD.
"you just Godwined yourself"
Yes...whatever could be the equivalent between 2 govts FOUNDED on the idea of racial superiority? (Although, arguably, the Nazis were not founded on racial superiority)
"I win"
You do manage to invent your own word meanings. Clearly if anyone can declare a winner it is you.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir They never agreed to sign their sovereignty away. They delegated certain limited powers only. READ the provisos of VA, NY and RI. Read the federalist papers. Read the statements of the Founders.
The CSA govt was founded on the same principles as the US govt. ie Government derives its legitimacy from the CONSENT of the governed.
You invent your own facts combined with childish ad hominem arguments toward anybody who doesn't share your views. Awesome.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "READ the.,.." Read the definition of the word 'sovereignty' & the Constitution. Do tell, how a state unable to enter into InterNATIONAL agreements is sovereign. Or, even better, skip your white trash analysis of sovereignty & name a nation that recognized the CSA.
"Govt derives its legitimacy from the CONSENT of the governed."
Again, dipshit, 'election'.
"You invent your own facts"
I 'invented' Declaration of Succession? The cornerstone speech? The very fucking meanings of words?
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir The countries of the EU cannot enter into foreign trade agreements on their own..yet they're still sovereign. They delgated some of their sovereign rights for specific purposes and retained the right to withdraw. Got it dumbass? Ponder that one in your double wide.
Again dipshit, who cares? It was their right to withdraw whenever they so chose.
You ASSUME they were part of the same country and that therefore the word "rebellion" fits..ie you assume the very thing being argued
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator The individual nations of the EU can enter into international agreements. Hence their recognized sovereignty.
"It was their right"
If you say so. Glad that one's been settled!
"You ASSUME they were part of the same country"
No, I & EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD know they were.
I gotta tell ya..you are to historical revisionism what Michael Jordan was to basketball. Way to step up the game.
tool.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir The states could too as of the Treaty of Paris. They never gave up their right to withdraw when they ratified the constitution.
Others made no judgment on the issue.
It is you who is the revisionist.
Doucebag.
hungarygator 11 months ago
@hungarygator "They never gave up their right to withdraw when they ratified the constitution"
They gave up their sovereignty.
Name a SINGLE STATE recognized BY ANY NATION IN THE WORLD at the time of the Civil War.
Glad to see your common sense matches your historical knowledge, white trash.
No wonder we were so easily able to beat decency into you.
You're Welcome!
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir They certainly did not. Show me exactly where they agreed to that. Oh, I know! You can't because they didn't.
Glad to see your skills in rhetoric match your astonishing ignorance. Moron.
No wonder we took out so many of you though grossly outnumbered and outgunned.
Your welcome
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "where they agreed to that."
When they gave up the ability to have tariffs, or make interNATIONAL agreements.
That is why EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD didn't recognize them. Not. A. Single. One.
And that is why you are such entertaining white trash!
I see you continue to plagiarize your betters....would you prefer I just wrote your posts for you &save us both some time?
'Your welcome'
The proper form of 'your' & you're are as follows: YOUR post proves that YOU'RE a goddamn retard.
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir and? The countries of the EU gave up their ability to make trade agreements. They're still sovereign.
You realize several of them were recognized in the 1783 treaty of Paris right?
Your failure to grasp that is why you are such an entertaining fucking moron.
I see you still whine about getting exactly the crap you dish out slung back at you. Tough shit.
ooh a typo! congrats!
Fucking douchebag.
hungarygator 10 months ago
festdir 10 months ago
@festdir Its an example of sovereign states signing away SOME but NOT ALL of their sovereignty...like the states did when they signed the constitution. Dumbass. You seem inordinately attached to a formal declaration of recognition. The states had ALREADY been recognized and NOWHERE gave up their sovereignty. You just parrot the same boring nonsense over and over again. Numerous Founding Fathers openly said the states were still sovereign. Douchebag.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator "You seem attached to a formal declaration of recognition"
No. I am attached to a 'formal' (read; Actual) definition of the word.
No nation recognized the CSA nor the individual states at the time.
"parrot the same boring nonsense"
You mean parroting the ACTUAL definition of sovereignty? I do have a tendency to do that.
Sorry ACTUAL MEANINGS are so dull for you. I am sure it is not nearly as exciting as your white trash imagination.
I, for one, am finding it most entertaining!
festdir 10 months ago