Slavery was not the ISSUE but the FRAMEWORK. The issue was the RIGHT of a State to deal with internal matters without the interference of the federal government. Jefferson's "fire-bell in the night" was not slavery but the Congress TELLING the people of Missouri what they could do about slavery and refusing them entrance into the Union unless Kansas was admitted as a free state. This went WAY beyond what the government was permitted to do under the Constitution and Jefferson knew it.
@escape602 This is very true. America itself was founded on a form of slavery whether chattel slavery, caste slavery or wage slavery. This country had some good ideas, but mostly it was founded on the principle of wealth supremacy. That it has at times evolved into something more positive does show there was some light also involved, but where we find ourselves today politically. Beholden to foreign powers such as Israel and Saudi Arabia and huge corporations shows the rot is still there. .
@1Atomtan Cont: It shows the Yankee way was no more righteous than the 25% of southerners who owned slaves and I'll go ahead and state this is well. Since we have gone to the diversity and multi cultural bullshit from the 60's installing white guilt and especially southern guilt in our government indoctrination camps called public schools the Yankee dream has come to fruition. Corruption, imperialism, degradation of society, porn, rap, filth. A regular multi cultural cesspool.
Yanks didn't commit treason against the USA in order to keep slavery....nor did they beg for mercy in less than 5 yrs. They are the CSAs moral & martial betters, as proven by both history & the battlefield.
"diversity bullshit from the 60's"
You mean like the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Fortunately, it took only the threat of another beating to convince the filthy cowards to give up the evils of segregation.
You know, if Lincoln was such a fan of slavery, someone should have told South Carolina, because they seceded 48 days after his election -- LONG before even his inauguration! -- declaring "all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery... and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
It's never spelled out in detail??? Fire this man; he has never read the Declarations of Secession of South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia. Every single one mentions slavery BY NAME. Not one mentions tariffs.
Second line of Mississippi's declaration:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
THAT is why they seceded. They could not possibly have stated it more plainly than that; the "details" follow.
@PatchesRips Let's say what you say is true. Why was no offer made by the federal government to purchase the slave's freedom from the southerners? The same federalist who had no problem with government debt and taking on the debt of the states to form the " more perfect " union. Why were no peaceful solutions offered? The Southerners knew exactly what to expect from the two faced politician Lincoln. Lincoln's own words condemn hims, yet Lincoln lovers love to say how he was changing his views Ha
"Why was no offer made by the federal government to purchase the slave's freedom from the southerners?"
Because they weren't out to destroy slavery; they wanted to prevent its spread into the territories. And where was the money going to come from? The four million slaves were worth more than any other asset in the United States other than the land itself.
@1Atomtan "Why were no peaceful solutions offered?"
A "peaceful solution" would have entailed the South NOT FIRING ON FORT SUMTER in the first place. If you're looking for "peace", a really good idea is NOT STARTING A WAR.
"Lincoln's own words condemn hims"
I haven't seen you quote any yet. Well, I have, and it demonstrates that what you're saying is simply bar stool upchuck.
@PatchesRips I quoted Lincoln's own words in our other discussion and you simply ignored them which is what people do when they have their mind made up and most of what they are debating is based on personal dislike for the something. In your cause the south and how you see the religion in the south. Lincoln himself stated that states and the nation had the right to tear down the old and rebuild a new government if they didn't like it. Do I need to post his actual quote for you?
@1Atomtan "I quoted Lincoln's own words in our other discussion and you simply ignored them"
You mean the kind of thing you do when confronted by his inaugural address in 1861, rather than comments he made a GENERATION before the Civil War, or the recorded and unmistakable words of FOUR STATES declaring the protection of slavery as the cause of secession? You mean THAT kind of thing?
And I did address, by the way. I said that evidently he CHANGED HIS MIND over those THIRTEEN years.
@PatchesRips He changed his mind. How convenient. Especially since his first statement made earlier matched the declaration of independence. As for the inaugural: chalk full of lines. Lincoln knew the perpetual union clause was purposely left out of the constitution. The states never would have entered into something with all the the division that already existed among them had they not had an out.
@PatchesRips "The states never would have entered into something with all the the division that already existed among them had they not had an out."
Well then A) they should have made sure that was in the Constitution, and B) as I've said before, and as is internationally recognized, that "out" is the same as the "in"... negotiation with the others, not ultimatums and attacks. But I'm glad the South didn't peacefully negotiate its way out or slavery might conceivably still exist.
@PatchesRips That's what politicians do for a living. Lincoln being the genius politician. He would fit in fine with today's politicians. Right in the line of W Bush and Slick Willie. Yes..chalk full of lines. Lines of lies. Funny how you libs love to toss out the declaration of independence. The south did what the founders did. They wanted to separate from unfair government. If slavery was an issue, it's one that could have been solved with money. Money which was never offered.
@1Atomtan The north wanted a different type of slave actually. They wanted wage slaves and got them. Yankee business men didn't have to consider the environment, mental needs, health or anything else of the poor children, women, and immigrants working in their factories...just toss the pennies outside some gate and let them fight to get in or in some cases like China...pay to get a job. So much for Yankee high ground.
Yeah, you keep saying that; you have yet to name one. You ever even READ that speech? It's not really long.
Between his election and that speech, 7 states declared an unconstitutional, treasonous doctrine and formed a unified insurrection with a government. He saw and declared his duty to preserve the union he'd just been elected to lead. He pledged not to attack and stated, plainly, there could be no war unless the South began one. All of that was TRUE.
Anybody paid wages is, by definition, not a slave. There is no compunction to pay someone who is compelled to labour by threat of physical violence. What a sad attempt to use a turn of phrase to equate to the most miserable state of existence human beings have ever devised for one another in your continuing effort to cover the scat of your own sordid cultural history, instead of bravely and honestly facing up to the reality of it.
@PatchesRips Lincoln sent war ships to Sumter knowing full well it would start a war and against the advice of some of his military leaders He set a trap where he could get his war and make it look like the south started it. If it hadn't been Sumter, it would have been Gaines, Morgan, Pickens or numerous other Forts. Lincoln was a scum bag politician. The forerunner of the bunch we have today.
@1Atomtan "Lincoln sent war ships to Sumter knowing full well it would start a war"
It DIDN'T start a war. They weren't even in the harbour when the war started.
Firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. Just like firing on Guantanamo Bay today would start a war. Till Cuba does that, there ain't one, is there? Even if the USN sails up with Froot Loops and Yoo-Hoo for the boys.
@1Atomtan "Warships from a foreign nation inside sovereign waters without permission is an act of war."
Well, see, that's where it all falls down. Nobody but a handful of states saw them as "foreign", or recognized the South as "sovereign"... not the other states, not Britain, not France, not Spain, not Portugal, not Russia, not the Netherlands, not Belgium, not Japan, not Brazil, not Mexico... do you get the point? The CSA was a joke, and an ugly one, too.
@1Atomtan "against the advice of some of his military leaders"
Such as?
"it would have been Gaines, Morgan, Pickens or numerous other Forts"
You don't say. So Southerners firing on forts the rest of the country, who didn't recognize their right to secede, would have started a war? In other words, in order for there to be a war, THE SOUTH HAD TO ATTACK US TROOPS, who were doing what they saw as their duty. The South seceded, and declared war, and started it. And got what it deserved.
@PatchesRips No. Fail. The hatred you have dripping from you mouth has unbalanced you. I don't claim the south was pure as the driven snow. I am saying there is a way to handle things and the north intended to and did invade and destroy half of it's country. They were not moral men out to right a wrong or those same northerners would have proceeded to finish off the indians after the war and allowed for orphans working in mills. Lincoln wanted to send the blacks back to Africa. Some morality
@1Atomtan "I am saying there is a way to handle things and the north intended to and did invade and destroy half of it's country"
Yes, you're saying that, but you have no basis to do so. Why WOULD they want to do that? What conceivable reason would there be? You people are always going on about how Lincoln didn't care about the slaves, and Southern cotton profits certainly benefited the country as a whole, so what's the North's motivation?
@1Atomtan those same northerners would have proceeded to finish off the indians"
I believe the Trail of Tears was wholly a Southern operation, so where do you get off singling the North out here? You mean you think there was no good ol' boys a-ridin' down them redskins with ol' Gen. Custer in 1876?
The slavery issue being the cause of the Civil War will always be written as the cause of th war. The north doesn't want anyone to know they were truly the tyrants when it came to blacks. Lets be honest, in America, whether North or South, East or West, how often do you see or hear acts or statements concerning hatred of blacks? Yeah, thought so!!
@LordFaulkin There's a difference between having a prejudice against associating with someone and actually deciding to hold him, and his children, forever as your property to hold, sell, mortgage, trade, rent out, beat, mutilate, and work to death. The North merely suborned the former. The South suborned it all.
@DukeofWellington91 "Perhaps you should listen to the rest of the lecture."
Why? When the man says in the first minute "somehow the war was ABOUT slavery; nobody knows what that means", he's already lost. I know what it means. Anyone who's ever read any of the declarations of secession knows what it means, because all four of them give as their reason for attempting to leave the Union the threat to the institution of slavery. No academic should be able to ask that question.
@4everUSNavy The Union didn't want anyone to have states rights. Unionists believed and still believe that we are all slaves. That's why they promote things like gun control, curbs on free speech and open borders. Everything is a privilege that they control in place of God/Nature where the control naturally belongs and will return as men can only act as divine beings for short periods of time before their nations collapse due to imperfection. Freedom maintains nations & Freedom will return.
@KayBeeEee1983 New England is 98% white today. Less than 1% was black in 1860. They allowed them to vote only after they kicked all the ex slaves out once the system was on it's way out there. John Adams explains that the citizens up there would have killed the legislatures if they didn't end it and move all of them away.
@KayBeeEee1983 So you admit that plantation life was not like the Yankee media spews? If you read what the slaves wrote to FDR in the slave narratives you will get a clear picture of what it was actually like. All conquerors demonize the conquered.
No, the South fired the first shot and the war was on.Th moment the first Reb put the fire to the hole of the cannon against Fort Sumter, the war was on and all is fair in love and war.
@BernieEOD Yeah because firing at our own fort somehow is an act of war in war mongering Yankee eyes. If the CSA had stationed troops in a PENN fort for example you all would have done the same.
@BernieEOD Invading a foreign nation is an act of war. DC didn't have control over the states at the time. It was a voluntary union before 1860. Every founder made that clear.
@Luigi84289 "Invading a foreign nation is an act of war."
The Union didn't invade the South. First of all, it denied the South the right to secede. Even today, there is no right to unilateral secession recognized in international law. Secondly, it was "in control" of Fort Sumter, and it was the South that started the war by firing on it.
What would YOU do if Cuba decided to attack Guantanamo Bay and recover ITS sovereign territory...?
In The Declaration of independence it reads ,That whenever ANY FORM of Government become destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to ALTER or ABOLISH it.We are too follow and defend the Constitution not interational law,the constutution is the supreme law of America.
@marvinajohnson57 Prior to that, it lays out that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, and that governments are instituted to secure their rights.
Pray tell, what rights were the US government threatening? None, actually. But the one "right" the Declarations of Secession ALL mention fearing for was SLAVERY.
"We are too follow and defend the Constitution"
By subverting and destroying it, as in 1860, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which isn't even PART of it?
@PatchesRips Same old arguments I see. So you are saying it was to the detriment of the states to join the Constitution if they had no means of leaving should it turn tyrannical? If you don't say that, then please explain how Americans could stem tyranny without leaving the union if such tyranny refused to leave power?
@1Atomtan "So you are saying it was to the detriment of the states to join the Constitution if they had no means of leaving should it turn tyrannical?"
Which has exactly what to do with eleven states trying to break up a nation on the basis of a single, CONSTITUTIONAL election not going their way?
@PatchesRips It had ZERO to do with a single election not going their way. It had everything to do with continued burdening an unfair portion of the taxes and another federalist attack on states rights. Lincoln planned on initiating war, called up an army for the purpose and chose to force a side of the country which no longer wanted to be part of the union. ( a union they helped found ) back into said union at gun point. Slavery became a convenient excuse for a centralist government.
@1Atomtan "It had ZERO to do with a single election not going their way."
It had EVERYTHING to do with it. Lincoln's name didn't even appear on the ballot in ten southern states. South Carolina seceded only 44 days after Lincoln's election. In their Declaration of Secession, they state it plainly:
"all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.
@PatchesRips You are acting as if states needed some really good reason to leave otherwise military action was ok. That is your first mistake. The states had the right and should still have the right to leave the union for any reason they wish otherwise we are no different than the former USSR. But wait....that is the case isn't it. Hate crime laws, political correctness in hiring of government officials, Patriot acts, centralizing our intelligence agencies...Lincoln would be proud
@1Atomtan "You are acting as if states needed some really good reason to leave otherwise military action was ok"
They do, I already told you that. A subnational unit has no more recognized right to unilaterally leave in international law than it does to unilaterally pronounce itself PART of the country in the first place. You negotiate your way in with your partners, and you negotiate your way OUT with your partners. Or you take the consequences of your rash actions.
@PatchesRips The united states was NOT founded on international law. It was founded on the idea that we would not involve our selves with foreign entanglements...though the federalist certainly wanted it. The states formed the federal government. Not the other way around. As for negotiating: Slavery like it or not, evil as it was, represented wealth and property. I never saw any offer by the federal government to purchase the freedom of the slaves.
@1Atomtan cont: Only Lincoln saying he could have cared less about them if not freeing them would preserve the union. We know how that turned out don't we. He could have easily preserved the union by not invading the south. Let's say what you say is correct and the south actually did start it. No effort was made by the Lincoln Admin. to find a cease fire. It was total war. Lincoln the bloody tyrant got exactly what he deserved. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
@1Atomtan "The united states was NOT founded on international law."
Who ever was? I'm telling you why nobody supported the South. First of all, most of them couldn't hold their nose and support slavery. Secondly, no nation on Earth with an eye to its own survival encourages secession at home or elsewhere. Negotiation's fine, but UDIs are DOA. Ask Rhodesia.
@PatchesRips Hold their nose and support slavery. What a laugh. Seriously this is getting tiresome. Many of these countries had themselves owned slaves. The north only a short time before the south None of them thought blacks equal to whites. Lincoln himself as the video above points out thought whites superior throughout his presidency. American was different. Measuring us by other nations gives away your true motives.Multi culture also weakens nations, but that doesn't matter to you does it?
@1Atomtan You nor Lincoln could care less about a weakened nations. Yankees simply hated/hate southerners and wanted to force their way on them. Nothing new there.
Precisely. The British couldn't and didn't. People like Lincoln were prepared to because there was no real choice. That's self-evident; the South WENT TO WAR to keep owning blacks and said so; the free states were held hostage to that for generations.
"The north only a short time before the south"
Oh, bullshit. The last slave state north of the Mason-Dixon Line was New Jersey, and they gave it up it 1804, nearly 60 before the war.
@1Atomtan "Lincoln himself as the video above points out thought whites superior throughout his presidency."
No one's disputing that. But there's a big, big difference between me knowing I'm better than you on the one hand, and deciding I have the right to lock you in my back yard and beat you till you're bloody and agree to serve me breakfast in bed every day till you mercifully die on the other, wouldn't you say? I can be superior to you and still respect your rights.
@1Atomtan "Multi culture also weakens nations, but that doesn't matter to you does it?"
I believe it strengthens them, just as zinc and copper create bronze, an alloy stronger than either of them in isolation. Multiculturalism is only a problem if you have a country full of bigoted assholes who are going to MAKE it a problem for anyone not exactly like them.
@1Atomtan "As for negotiating: Slavery like it or not, evil as it was, represented wealth and property"
Yeah, I've been telling YOU that. That's why the South seceded and started the war. They said so in their Declarations of Secession. 38 references to slavery in the four documents. No references to tariffs or any of that other nonsense you revisionists want to claim for them. The real shame for you folks is they were honest and unembarrassed about their racism.
@1Atomtan "The states had the right and should still have the right to leave the union"
Sure. Sit down at the table with the rest and work it out. I won't begrudge you that. In fact, I'm all for it. But you simply start jump up and blazing away at the Marines? Nnnnnoope. I think you do that, you're asking for it.
@PatchesRips ROFL: Yeah...that's what I said. Hate crime laws are nothing but another way for the federal government to charge with with bad behavior. Check the internet and you will see people jailed for TWO YEARS for calling someone a nigger. How many blacks have you heard of being jailed for similar things? Hate crime laws are anti white only. They are unbalanced, anti white and anti American. They state that the races actually are different. Something we are supposed to be against
@1Atomtan (cont'd) " He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
...On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory..."
And you base this on what? Even after 7 states had seceded, in his inaugural speech, he said "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
@PatchesRips And you don't call that a threat. He told them they had no right to leave and that he would preserve, protect and defend what he saw as his right to keep the states within the union. It's saying...return or else. Thank you for that fine example.
No it isn't; it's saying exactly what he did. He didn't accept secession and held his duty to resupply federal forts. He said no conflict unless the South started it, and they did. He was absolutely true to his word. And I wouldn't have simply handed forts over to people who didn't give leaving the Union due process either.
@1Atomtan "called up an army for the purpose and chose to force a side of the country which no longer wanted to be part of the union. back into said union at gun point."
Called up an army to defend federal territory fired upon by traitors, as per his oath, you mean.
"Slavery became a convenient excuse for a centralist government."
The need to defend a union being broken up in the defense of slavery is what necessitated the drive to centralization.
@BuBzIeNYNY How can you be a traitor to a government you helped create with the idea you could leave if it became tyrannical? Our country was founded on the concept and it's in the declaration of independence. Recognized by Lincoln himself.
@KayBeeEee1983 I understand that but them not leaving the fort was a bold move by the North.The north had already started transporting troops south before that happened. Either way,I;m not going to fight with you or anyone else.
@sarge958 Bold move or not, they had the right to stay there. I don't know about the north sending more troops south to Fort Sumter, but if it happened, it's perfectly legal. Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers came a day or two after the surrender of Sumter.
@KayBeeEee1983 He sent warships to purposely resupply the fort knowing full well it would provoke war. His own commanders wanted no part of it, but wanted more negotiations. War could have and should have been avoided. The south also should have used better judgement in some areas...but the rich folks there, like the rich folks now wanted to protect what's theirs even if it's at the expense of the country as a whole.
@KayBeeEee1983 You do realize that American hasn't and doesn't respond with " total war " even when fired upon. Israel relentlessly shot up the U.S.S. Liberty flying the United states Flag killing and wounding many Americans. Why didn't we respond there. Nope. That bloody tyrant Lincoln waged total war on half his nation because he wanted a centralized government. Why didn't he just concentrate on South Carolina and leave the rest of the south alone. Attempt to negotiate peace?
@festdir That is just false. All men are born free. A nation is an expression of freedom as a group. You do not need someone else to tell you you you own your house. You believe God hated us? Your a lost cause.
@festdir The people who were doing the fighting were not fighting to protect slavery, per se. The politicians who caused the war did it to protect slavery, but they tricked their men.
@KayBeeEee1983 No that is a misinterpretation. If slavery was the only issue and was the biggest as you seem to think the southern states would have just nullified any laws made against it like the north had done with the fugitive slave acts. The secession was caused by cultural differences. Davis makes it very apparrant in his writings. The southern people could no longer stand the states of the Northeast. When Lincoln was elected on a platform that was entirely anti-southern
@Luigi84289 "The secession was caused by cultural differences."
Secession was caused by SLAVERY. All four Declarations of Secession say so plainly. For instance, this is the 2nd line in Mississippi's:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
&:
"a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation."
@KayBeeEee1983 The southern states left to form a Government that represented them. That was the key issue not slavery. Tariff increases and focusing on industry is what caused the south to leave because we ended up getting the crappy end of the stick, getting taxed heavily and having the Government continually interfere with free trade. Those were the main 2 causes. If the Government tried to eliminate slavery against the southern states will there would have only been violence not secession.
@KayBeeEee1983 The North could not if we were in the Union or not just instantaneously eliminate slavery. No more than the Federal Government today can instantaneously eliminate gun ownership. The South seceded just like America because the Government was growing too large and becoming a Northern controlled Union. The most abolitionist societies were in the south consisting of the 90% of southerners that owned no slaves but were looking for a sane solution.
@KayBeeEee1983 When you destroy the economy the slaves have to eat too. The North was looking for a power grab and used slavery or rather Lincoln did to rally his troops. Taxation was the north's motivation. Read his paper to Horace Greenley. Slavery was a tool to him to retain control of that area if necessary. That was all. Secession had nothing to do with Slavery, neither did the war. If sanity had remained slavery would have been taken care of like every other country.
@festdir As I stated secession had nothing to do with slavery. Did the north secede when president Jackson threatened to use military force to uphold the fugitive slave acts? no. The problem arose from a culmination of issues. Slavery was not one of them. Lincoln himself said he did not have any intention of touching slavery. Taxation if one was to name one cause was the main. Industrialists needed land to get materials from and didn't like us trading with foreign powers so tariffs were enacted.
@Luigi84289 "Did the north secede when president Jackson threatened to use military force to uphold the fugitive slave acts? no."
You know why? Because Jackson's presidency ended in 1837, and the Fugitive Slave Act was passed in 1850. You might as well have asked how much money President Hoover spent sending men to the moon.
"Lincoln himself said he did not have any intention of touching slavery"
He did, however, oppose its extension to the territories (i.e., no new slave states).
@festdir When Lincoln did end slavery it was to create anarchy because all of the land was owned by the English, Irish and Ulster Scots settlers. Remember the south was rural and agricultural. There was no where for the slaves to go. This was how share cropping came to be to give the slaves land to live on since there was none open. Some slaves voluntarily stayed on plantations where they were protected and cared for. Read the slave narratives collected by FDR if you want a fuller picture.
@Luigi84289 Again, the states that seceded wrote a document called DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION, in it they make very clear secession was b/c "election of a man to Pres. of the US who is hostile to the institution of slavery."
But it is wonderful you actually try to paint the freeing of slaves as a 'bad thing'.
Between these two attempts a fuller picture of both your lack of education & your lack of decency is made.
@festdir Wow you are one of the most ignorant people I've had in awhile. How do you not understand that completely destroying the south's economic system by instantaneously freeing 4 million slaves (which is bad for the slaves and free men too) would have been a disaster. The radical abolitionists were a bunch of crazies who just wanted a war to increase Government power. They only wanted to free slaves because they didn't believe they would get into heaven as slaves. That's it.
@BernieEOD " I have no intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it already exists"
The South was a minority and had every right to seek representation and be allowed to deal with it's own problems. Every 1st world country was under pressure back then to end the colonial slave system. But it takes time. Brazil ended slavery in 1888 and it was free before then. Southerners were not evil nor did the majority want a system that took all that work away from free men.
@Luigi84289 "Every 1st world country was under pressure back then to end the colonial slave system"
Most had gotten rid of it by the Civil War, or had never had a practical use for it in the first place. As with so much else, socialized medicine, the abolition of capital punishment, recognition of same-sex marriage, the US trailed the pack.
@Luigi84289 "completely destroying the south's economic system by instantaneously freeing 4 million slaves (which is bad for the slaves and free men too) would have been a disaster."
The only people it turned out to be a "disaster" for where the people whose money was tied up in owning other human beings, and people who suddenly had to PAY to have their crops planted, tended, picked, and processed.
It certainly wasn't a disaster for people who stopped being human chattel.
@Luigi84289 Great reply. What the southern haters here are saying is white men, most of which on both sides didn't believe blacks were the equal of whites...would fight a war that in todays numbers would cause close to 4 million dead and burned out and destroyed south was completely worth it. That same lot are fine with wiping out the indians, bombing dresden and firebombing women and children in Tokyo and killing children in the middle east and etc. Federalists>imperialist>Neo cons
@Luigi84289 "When Lincoln did end slavery it was to create anarchy because all of the land was owned by the English, Irish and Ulster Scots settlers."
Please explain how the first part relates to the second part.
"This was how share cropping came to be to give the slaves land to live on since there was none open."
Sharecropping is proof that the south didn't need slavery to keep the economy going.
@festdir The #1 cause of secession all over the south was getting away from the North East. That along with the Morill Tariff which was implemented after the war sucking the south dry until 1913 when the Federal Reserve was enacted trumped everything else. Black and White men who fought that war were fighting for their homes and for Freedom just like 1776. By trying to state that because of a temporary institution the south didn't deserve freedom cheapens it. Then America shouldn't be free.
@Luigi84289 The DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION disagrees. " A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."
It's too bad they couldn't have dumbed down the title of that document a bit more for you.
@Luigi84289 "That along with the Morill Tariff which was implemented after the war"
How could something implemented AFTER the start of a war be its cause?
"a temporary institution"
It wasn't temporary. In 1790, there were 700,000 slaves in the US. By 1860, that number had sextupled to 4,000,000. It was BOOMING. It was worth more than any other single asset in the whole USA except the land itself. The South seceded and stated a war over it. It was there to STAY.
Oh, bullshit. Do you think these people lived in caves and hadn't heard a thing of the controversy brewing since at least the 1820s? Do you think they didn't know why secession committees were formed immediately after the election of Lincoln, a man pledged to prevent the spread of slavery to the territories and thus prevent any new slave state from ever being created? Slavery was THEIR culture, THEIR property, THEIR identity.
We should kick all the bible thumping Anglo-Saxons out of Oklahoma and relocate them back to the Dixie South where they belong. The Midwest needs to remain German-American and Lutheran, so all southern English-settler descendants can go back to thumping bibles and teaching creationism down in Dixie. Fuck the South!
@edelweissnpa Well, using your logic, we should kick all of the German-American/Lutherans out of Oklahoma, and leave it to the Indians that occupied the territory originally. Also, just to make another point and prove your ignorance, the Anglo-Saxons are ethnically German, and your "German-Americans/Lutherans" are living within a nation created by Anglo-Saxons. Finally, Oklahoma has always been a part of Dixie, and I find your comments to be laughable.
@festdir You seen to forget that in the north there were also slaves. The first slaves EVER were in the north. They worked on the docks. You also seen to forget that the founding fathers owned slaves. Before we became the United States of America,do you believe that those that fought to make it were Americans?Before we became officially the USA,we were a Confederacy of states in America.
@festdir "Not after the signing of the constitution" well no shit. I love how you keep saying treason when the south didn't do anything but leave. Moral betters my ass. Abraham Lincoln didn't give a damn whether or not slavery was abolished or not. Hell,he wanted to ship them all away. He only freed the slaves to try and gain power over the south. In the south,only 6% owned slaves. 6%. Also,any slaves brought to the US were brought on slave ships flying the US flag.
@sarge958 "keep saying treason...didn't do anything but leave."
That & fire on the US flag. If that isn't treason, what is?
"Lincoln didn't [care about slavery]"
His platform centered on eliminating the spread of slavery & letting it "wither on the vine". The traitors acknowledged this in their Declarations of Succession
"6% owned slaves"
So the South consisted of 6% evil people & 94% easily manipulated idiots?
@festdir 6% Evil and 94% easily manipulated idiots? Ha...what would you say the percentage of northern idiots and evil were? Child labor, women can't vote, wiping out indians and being manipulated into a war that killed 300,000 of them....for what gain? Slavery ended, but was the plight of blacks ended? Why could the great northern moralist end that after they defeated the south? What was standing in their way? Ha Ha Ha....you know the answer.
@festdir We surrendered because we lost! We battled our heart out. you seem to forget that Americans died on all sides and deserve to be remembered and respected. they weren't traitors. They didn't try and change the US. They left. The North attacked because they weren't getting the crops and the money from the south. Nuff said. Slavery was wrong...on BOTH sides. I think I'm done here.
No, they lost b/c they surrendered...in a rebellion or defensive war, all the defenders need to do is NOT surrender in order to win. i.e. Afgans vs USSR, Vietnam vs France & US, US vs GB in revolutionary war etc.
"Americans died on all sides"
No. AMERICANS only died on one side. Immoral traitors received justice on the other.
"Slavery was wrong"
And so was the traitors that fought to keep it. Fortunately their resolve matched their morality.
North & South had slaves. The 3/5 compromise (1787) gave the South unfair representation in the Union. The war was about power. Still lets not forget not all Blacks in America were slaves as evidenced by the Moors Sundry act of 1790.
@ChristheAussie The old USA was a Confederation of Countries like Europe. What happened would be the equivalent of the EU central Government seizing control of all the land destroying all the different countries sovereignty, cultures and traditions creating a centralized super state and using emotionalism to justify it's actions. The original constitution was called the "Articles of Confederation". It never ceased being such until 1865 when America became one big country.
@Luigi84289 Did you know that the Confederate States of America was never legally surrendered to the union? The troops were but the country was not. So,legally,the confederacy is a real country that has no government and representation and is occupied by the USA. No on really says anything but,personally and legally, the CSA is still real,even if it's just a name.
@festdir So you believe a man needs another man to acknowledge that he has Sovereignty over himself? You believe that some men are better than others? This is the problem. Every man is equal before the eyes of God. What happened in 1860 - 65 was barbaric and backwards. America didn't need England to tell us we were free to exert our independence. People are just that people. It appears you have some deification issues.
@Luigi84289 Before the eyes of God? Not the God of the Bible. The Bible says if you are slave...seek not to be free. No where in the Bible will you find anything against slavery. In the case of African slaves, I believe they were stolen from their lands and treated evil. Both of those are condemned in the Bible. Not only that. The God of the Bible plays favorites. In his eyes. Israelites are superior to other men and the apple of his eye and chosen.
@festdir Why would you call them cowards even if you believe them traitors? That is so obviously not true given the facts that is shows yours like other passionate yankees are completely full of hate and unbalanced. Why would you want to keep a people you hate so much in the union in the first place. I didn't see your kind taking in droves of blacks from the south after the war.
Because there is no other historical example of a defending nation/rebellion that had so much, surrender so completely. Vietnam vs US, Viet vs France, Viet vs China, USSR vs Finland, USSR vs Afgan, US vs GB...all had far worse positions, yet kept the sovereignty the CSA never earned.
"your kind taking in droves of blacks"
Nor did 'my kind' commit a failed treason to keep them as property. Knowing this...which side was more moral?
@festdir You must be kidding or very young. How about Japan, Germany, for starters. The southern armies were complete defeated and people starving. The south itself never formerly surrendered. You ever heard of the New England secessionist? They were considering re joining Britain. Typical federalist traitors you could say.And how is it the South is considered traitors for doing what both the north joined with the southern states did to leave Britain. We called them patriots then?
Japan had TWO NUCLEAR BOMBS dropped on them. Germany was fighting 3 superpowers simultaneously. Yet both fought longer & harder than the traitorous cowards of the CSA.
"The CSA never formally surrendered"
Because the CSA never formally existed.
"why is the CSA considered traitors for doing what the US did with GB"
The US committed treason against GB. I am fine with that.
The CSA committed treason against the USA. I am NOT fine with that.
@festdir I'm glad you responded. I really don't need to do anything but let anyone with a six grade education in history read your post. I am not trying to be a smart ass for smart ass sake, but your ignorance of history is astounding. I can accept that you don't agree but this frothing at the mouth stuff is humorous.
@festdir "Because there is no other historical example of a defending nation/rebellion that had so much, surrender so completely."
This was your comment
Then " I " provided the historical answer not you with:How about Japan, Germany, for starters.
Then you stated: But...but...but...Japan had TWO NUCLEAR BOMBS dropped on them. Germany was fighting 3 superpowers simultaneously. Yet both fought longer & harder than the traitorous cowards of the CSA.
@festdir continuedWWII with Germany 1939-1945 WWII with Japan 1941-45 The war of Northern aggression 1861-65
Yes...they fought sooo much longer and so much harder. All three were completely defeated and all of the armies eventually surrendered unconditionally. Oh yeah...the Cherokee Confederates did fight on a bit longer those cowards. Yawn.
@1Atomtan Japan was at war from July 1937-Sept 1945. They fought for over 8 yrs and only surrendered after TWO ATOMIC BOMBS. Thanks for illustrating your historical knowledge.
As for Germany, there are many comparisons to make between the CSA & the Nazis--but, as the Nazis had won a number of conflicts (France) & fought against 3 superpowers--fighting prowess is not one of them.
But please, continue with your posts...the clueless rants of uneducated white trash never gets old for me!
@festdir You want to go all the way back to Japan's fight with the soviets as well while your are at it. The Japanese were brutal and war like totalitarian regime and attempting to dominate an entire region of the world.The Germans under Hitler the same. The Confederates where fighting a defensive war and still managed to whip the Yankees with less men and less ammunition for half. You are truly the only person I have ever had a conversation with who called them cowards. North or south.
@festdir AS for uneducated white trash. Come on you can do better than that can't you? Is uneducated white trash the only nasty description of southerners some of you northners know. We have had a spirited discussion, but no one has started calling personal insults. As for Germany and the south being compared. That would actually be Lincoln and Hitler. Have you ever studied National Socialism? Every check Clay's and Lincoln's internal improvements plans?
@1Atomtan Cont: Or how about Clay"s..(Lincoln's hero) view of indians. " The Indians' "disappearance from the human family,", "will be no great loss to the world."
These were cruel, pork barrel big government statist. I wouldn't be surprised if Hitler and others didn't study them to get ideas. There are northern leaders I respect and northerners but it's hard to abide a hypocrite. I have never once states slavery was A OK. Some of you have made excuse after excuse for genocide.
@festdir The CSA out numbered won many battles early on. They ultimately lost. Germany and the CSA fought about the same amount of time and the result was the same yet you call Nazis and Japanese more brave than Southerners. Yes...you could compare a nation founded on racial superiority to the National Socialist...but you have to compare both the United States government before and after the war as well as the Confederates. It was the U.S. government that allowed segregation to continue.
@1Atomtan Cont. AFTER they won the war to supposedly free the slaves. You telling me the little old Klan and others defeated the entire might of the United States army? Nope. The north were full of racial bigots as much as the south. All the nations you mention had modern weapons and most were supplied by other nations. The south was not. It fought as long as it did with a block cade most of the conflict. What a silly silly argument. But you continue.
By not stepping into the filthy cesspools of the trailer-dwelling southern states sooner? I agree. In 1964 the federal govt. resolved this wrong & taught them decency.
Time & again it has proven that the southern states need the federal govt to teach the filthy cowards decency.
@festdir You keep talking about trailer living cesspools. I Have been to your great northern cities. Detroit, Chicago, Philly, Boston, New York. With the exception of some really " closed " communities in N.J. New York, a couple of others. What I mostly saw were folks living like rats in crowded neighborhoods and rampant crime and ghettos. As for 1965..you telling me the great heroic northern army couldn't subdue a bunch of trailer dwellers after fighting the great war of emancipation?100yrs
Tell that to the Vietnamese, the Finns, the US. The US's meager advantage in numbers was not nearly enough to overcome the CSA's defensive advantage.
"modern weapons & were supplied"
Afghan were supplied donkeys & fought a superpower that had far more modern weapons. Your excuse making for the pathetic cowardice of the immoral traitors change nothing.
"US govt allowed segregation"
By not stopping the southern states? Fortunately that mistake was resolved
@festdir You are seriously deluded. Your hatred keeps you unbalanced. The only reason the north ever freed their slaves is they couldn't get them to work in their death factories like they could orphans and immigrant women. They were happy to sell them to the southern states and later happy to use it as an excuse to destroy half the country to instill imperialism and industrialism. I bet you love Che Guevara also.
@festdir You know what they say about folks who must call names and who argue rather than discuss. Their points are weak so they must resort to arguing. You need to realize...none of your name calling has any effect on me or most other sane men and women. It shows your lack of maturity. Or course the north will have higher education standards. They destroyed the south's education and 80% of the blacks live in the south to skew the results of any poll.
@festdir As for 64, You are right. I was confusing it with the Immigration act of 65 which I was going to post as yet another northern liberal communist new world order group... whose goal was to stymie the immigration of Germans, Italians, Poles, Russians and etc and bring in more Asian, African and Middle eastern cheap labor. Watering down American European culture into a multi cultural cesspool of folks looking for a handout or special privileges for being non white.
@festdir Facts seem to bother you Che Guevara tee shirt wearing crowd. Blacks have lower test scores than whites. That is a fact. The north claimed to free blacks but simply left them out to dry. There was cruelty, but there was also help from Southerners with organizations such as Tuskegee. The only time northerners attempted anything again was when a bunch of N.E. Yankee communist saw an opportunity to destroy the republic with multi culture and forced diversity. ON THE SOUTH. Not up N.
@festdir I don't run away from some of the evil done by some southerners as you Yankees do. Your side won the war, had the money, ability and supposedly the moral high ground and motivation towards blacks? What happened? A bunch of trailer living white trash keep you from it. Most blacks are starting to wake up to your lies. They know right where they stand with those who really run this country. Many may not embrace the Confederacy, but they know the N was Full of shit.
OH
W2D254210 2 hours ago
who gives a fukk the csa was based on a framwork of rat-piss, and british piss, they were all fukken traitors
BuBzIeNYNY 1 month ago
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other.
Abraham Lincoln, fukken traitors-bubzienyny
BuBzIeNYNY 1 month ago
Slavery was not the ISSUE but the FRAMEWORK. The issue was the RIGHT of a State to deal with internal matters without the interference of the federal government. Jefferson's "fire-bell in the night" was not slavery but the Congress TELLING the people of Missouri what they could do about slavery and refusing them entrance into the Union unless Kansas was admitted as a free state. This went WAY beyond what the government was permitted to do under the Constitution and Jefferson knew it.
Ghostchaser43 1 month ago 2
@escape602 This is very true. America itself was founded on a form of slavery whether chattel slavery, caste slavery or wage slavery. This country had some good ideas, but mostly it was founded on the principle of wealth supremacy. That it has at times evolved into something more positive does show there was some light also involved, but where we find ourselves today politically. Beholden to foreign powers such as Israel and Saudi Arabia and huge corporations shows the rot is still there. .
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan Cont: It shows the Yankee way was no more righteous than the 25% of southerners who owned slaves and I'll go ahead and state this is well. Since we have gone to the diversity and multi cultural bullshit from the 60's installing white guilt and especially southern guilt in our government indoctrination camps called public schools the Yankee dream has come to fruition. Corruption, imperialism, degradation of society, porn, rap, filth. A regular multi cultural cesspool.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "Yank way was no more righteous"
Yanks didn't commit treason against the USA in order to keep slavery....nor did they beg for mercy in less than 5 yrs. They are the CSAs moral & martial betters, as proven by both history & the battlefield.
"diversity bullshit from the 60's"
You mean like the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Fortunately, it took only the threat of another beating to convince the filthy cowards to give up the evils of segregation.
White trash can learn!
festdir 2 months ago
You know, if Lincoln was such a fan of slavery, someone should have told South Carolina, because they seceded 48 days after his election -- LONG before even his inauguration! -- declaring "all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery... and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
It was about slavery.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
It's never spelled out in detail??? Fire this man; he has never read the Declarations of Secession of South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia. Every single one mentions slavery BY NAME. Not one mentions tariffs.
Second line of Mississippi's declaration:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
THAT is why they seceded. They could not possibly have stated it more plainly than that; the "details" follow.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips Let's say what you say is true. Why was no offer made by the federal government to purchase the slave's freedom from the southerners? The same federalist who had no problem with government debt and taking on the debt of the states to form the " more perfect " union. Why were no peaceful solutions offered? The Southerners knew exactly what to expect from the two faced politician Lincoln. Lincoln's own words condemn hims, yet Lincoln lovers love to say how he was changing his views Ha
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "Let's say what you say is true"
Yeah, let's, because it is.
"Why was no offer made by the federal government to purchase the slave's freedom from the southerners?"
Because they weren't out to destroy slavery; they wanted to prevent its spread into the territories. And where was the money going to come from? The four million slaves were worth more than any other asset in the United States other than the land itself.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "Why were no peaceful solutions offered?"
A "peaceful solution" would have entailed the South NOT FIRING ON FORT SUMTER in the first place. If you're looking for "peace", a really good idea is NOT STARTING A WAR.
"Lincoln's own words condemn hims"
I haven't seen you quote any yet. Well, I have, and it demonstrates that what you're saying is simply bar stool upchuck.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips I quoted Lincoln's own words in our other discussion and you simply ignored them which is what people do when they have their mind made up and most of what they are debating is based on personal dislike for the something. In your cause the south and how you see the religion in the south. Lincoln himself stated that states and the nation had the right to tear down the old and rebuild a new government if they didn't like it. Do I need to post his actual quote for you?
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "I quoted Lincoln's own words in our other discussion and you simply ignored them"
You mean the kind of thing you do when confronted by his inaugural address in 1861, rather than comments he made a GENERATION before the Civil War, or the recorded and unmistakable words of FOUR STATES declaring the protection of slavery as the cause of secession? You mean THAT kind of thing?
And I did address, by the way. I said that evidently he CHANGED HIS MIND over those THIRTEEN years.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips He changed his mind. How convenient. Especially since his first statement made earlier matched the declaration of independence. As for the inaugural: chalk full of lines. Lincoln knew the perpetual union clause was purposely left out of the constitution. The states never would have entered into something with all the the division that already existed among them had they not had an out.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "He changed his mind. How convenient."
Yeah, that's what thinking people do. You should try it sometime.
"Especially since his first statement made earlier matched the declaration of independence."
And the second, his oath of office.
"chalk full of lines"
Yes, speeches do tend to have many lines.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PatchesRips "The states never would have entered into something with all the the division that already existed among them had they not had an out."
Well then A) they should have made sure that was in the Constitution, and B) as I've said before, and as is internationally recognized, that "out" is the same as the "in"... negotiation with the others, not ultimatums and attacks. But I'm glad the South didn't peacefully negotiate its way out or slavery might conceivably still exist.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@PatchesRips That's what politicians do for a living. Lincoln being the genius politician. He would fit in fine with today's politicians. Right in the line of W Bush and Slick Willie. Yes..chalk full of lines. Lines of lies. Funny how you libs love to toss out the declaration of independence. The south did what the founders did. They wanted to separate from unfair government. If slavery was an issue, it's one that could have been solved with money. Money which was never offered.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan The north wanted a different type of slave actually. They wanted wage slaves and got them. Yankee business men didn't have to consider the environment, mental needs, health or anything else of the poor children, women, and immigrants working in their factories...just toss the pennies outside some gate and let them fight to get in or in some cases like China...pay to get a job. So much for Yankee high ground.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "Lines of lies."
Yeah, you keep saying that; you have yet to name one. You ever even READ that speech? It's not really long.
Between his election and that speech, 7 states declared an unconstitutional, treasonous doctrine and formed a unified insurrection with a government. He saw and declared his duty to preserve the union he'd just been elected to lead. He pledged not to attack and stated, plainly, there could be no war unless the South began one. All of that was TRUE.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "They wanted wage slaves and got them"
Anybody paid wages is, by definition, not a slave. There is no compunction to pay someone who is compelled to labour by threat of physical violence. What a sad attempt to use a turn of phrase to equate to the most miserable state of existence human beings have ever devised for one another in your continuing effort to cover the scat of your own sordid cultural history, instead of bravely and honestly facing up to the reality of it.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
Comment removed
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@PatchesRips Lincoln sent war ships to Sumter knowing full well it would start a war and against the advice of some of his military leaders He set a trap where he could get his war and make it look like the south started it. If it hadn't been Sumter, it would have been Gaines, Morgan, Pickens or numerous other Forts. Lincoln was a scum bag politician. The forerunner of the bunch we have today.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "Lincoln sent war ships to Sumter knowing full well it would start a war"
It DIDN'T start a war. They weren't even in the harbour when the war started.
Firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. Just like firing on Guantanamo Bay today would start a war. Till Cuba does that, there ain't one, is there? Even if the USN sails up with Froot Loops and Yoo-Hoo for the boys.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips Warships from a foreign nation inside sovereign waters without permission is an act of war.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "Warships from a foreign nation inside sovereign waters without permission is an act of war."
Well, see, that's where it all falls down. Nobody but a handful of states saw them as "foreign", or recognized the South as "sovereign"... not the other states, not Britain, not France, not Spain, not Portugal, not Russia, not the Netherlands, not Belgium, not Japan, not Brazil, not Mexico... do you get the point? The CSA was a joke, and an ugly one, too.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "against the advice of some of his military leaders"
Such as?
"it would have been Gaines, Morgan, Pickens or numerous other Forts"
You don't say. So Southerners firing on forts the rest of the country, who didn't recognize their right to secede, would have started a war? In other words, in order for there to be a war, THE SOUTH HAD TO ATTACK US TROOPS, who were doing what they saw as their duty. The South seceded, and declared war, and started it. And got what it deserved.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips No. Fail. The hatred you have dripping from you mouth has unbalanced you. I don't claim the south was pure as the driven snow. I am saying there is a way to handle things and the north intended to and did invade and destroy half of it's country. They were not moral men out to right a wrong or those same northerners would have proceeded to finish off the indians after the war and allowed for orphans working in mills. Lincoln wanted to send the blacks back to Africa. Some morality
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "I am saying there is a way to handle things and the north intended to and did invade and destroy half of it's country"
Yes, you're saying that, but you have no basis to do so. Why WOULD they want to do that? What conceivable reason would there be? You people are always going on about how Lincoln didn't care about the slaves, and Southern cotton profits certainly benefited the country as a whole, so what's the North's motivation?
We KNOW what the South's was; they told us.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@1Atomtan those same northerners would have proceeded to finish off the indians"
I believe the Trail of Tears was wholly a Southern operation, so where do you get off singling the North out here? You mean you think there was no good ol' boys a-ridin' down them redskins with ol' Gen. Custer in 1876?
PatchesRips 2 months ago
The slavery issue being the cause of the Civil War will always be written as the cause of th war. The north doesn't want anyone to know they were truly the tyrants when it came to blacks. Lets be honest, in America, whether North or South, East or West, how often do you see or hear acts or statements concerning hatred of blacks? Yeah, thought so!!
LordFaulkin 3 months ago
@LordFaulkin There's a difference between having a prejudice against associating with someone and actually deciding to hold him, and his children, forever as your property to hold, sell, mortgage, trade, rent out, beat, mutilate, and work to death. The North merely suborned the former. The South suborned it all.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips Perhaps you should listen to the rest of the lecture.
DukeofWellington91 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DukeofWellington91 "Perhaps you should listen to the rest of the lecture."
Why? When the man says in the first minute "somehow the war was ABOUT slavery; nobody knows what that means", he's already lost. I know what it means. Anyone who's ever read any of the declarations of secession knows what it means, because all four of them give as their reason for attempting to leave the Union the threat to the institution of slavery. No academic should be able to ask that question.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
the south got smoked. long live the union!!!
BuBzIeNYNY 4 months ago
@BuBzIeNYNY Fuck the Union. bunch of tyrants raping slaves, looting poor southern families all because they didnt want us to have state rights
4everUSNavy 4 months ago
@4everUSNavy The Union didn't want anyone to have states rights. Unionists believed and still believe that we are all slaves. That's why they promote things like gun control, curbs on free speech and open borders. Everything is a privilege that they control in place of God/Nature where the control naturally belongs and will return as men can only act as divine beings for short periods of time before their nations collapse due to imperfection. Freedom maintains nations & Freedom will return.
Luigi84289 4 months ago 2
@KayBeeEee1983 New England is 98% white today. Less than 1% was black in 1860. They allowed them to vote only after they kicked all the ex slaves out once the system was on it's way out there. John Adams explains that the citizens up there would have killed the legislatures if they didn't end it and move all of them away.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 So you admit that plantation life was not like the Yankee media spews? If you read what the slaves wrote to FDR in the slave narratives you will get a clear picture of what it was actually like. All conquerors demonize the conquered.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
The civil war was about slavery. Because the South lost we are all slaves to the Zionists.
ltajambi 4 months ago
@ltajambi Spot on that's right. Federal slavery paved the way to what we have today.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
No, the South fired the first shot and the war was on.Th moment the first Reb put the fire to the hole of the cannon against Fort Sumter, the war was on and all is fair in love and war.
BernieEOD 4 months ago
@BernieEOD Yeah because firing at our own fort somehow is an act of war in war mongering Yankee eyes. If the CSA had stationed troops in a PENN fort for example you all would have done the same.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
@Luigi84289 Firing on the troops of a nation is an act of war. You deserved it.
BernieEOD 4 months ago
@BernieEOD Invading a foreign nation is an act of war. DC didn't have control over the states at the time. It was a voluntary union before 1860. Every founder made that clear.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
@Luigi84289 You started the war, you deserve4d everything Sherman did to you
BernieEOD 4 months ago
@Luigi84289 "Invading a foreign nation is an act of war."
The Union didn't invade the South. First of all, it denied the South the right to secede. Even today, there is no right to unilateral secession recognized in international law. Secondly, it was "in control" of Fort Sumter, and it was the South that started the war by firing on it.
What would YOU do if Cuba decided to attack Guantanamo Bay and recover ITS sovereign territory...?
PatchesRips 3 months ago
In The Declaration of independence it reads ,That whenever ANY FORM of Government become destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to ALTER or ABOLISH it.We are too follow and defend the Constitution not interational law,the constutution is the supreme law of America.
marvinajohnson57 3 months ago
@marvinajohnson57 Prior to that, it lays out that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, and that governments are instituted to secure their rights.
Pray tell, what rights were the US government threatening? None, actually. But the one "right" the Declarations of Secession ALL mention fearing for was SLAVERY.
"We are too follow and defend the Constitution"
By subverting and destroying it, as in 1860, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which isn't even PART of it?
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips Same old arguments I see. So you are saying it was to the detriment of the states to join the Constitution if they had no means of leaving should it turn tyrannical? If you don't say that, then please explain how Americans could stem tyranny without leaving the union if such tyranny refused to leave power?
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "So you are saying it was to the detriment of the states to join the Constitution if they had no means of leaving should it turn tyrannical?"
Which has exactly what to do with eleven states trying to break up a nation on the basis of a single, CONSTITUTIONAL election not going their way?
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips It had ZERO to do with a single election not going their way. It had everything to do with continued burdening an unfair portion of the taxes and another federalist attack on states rights. Lincoln planned on initiating war, called up an army for the purpose and chose to force a side of the country which no longer wanted to be part of the union. ( a union they helped found ) back into said union at gun point. Slavery became a convenient excuse for a centralist government.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "It had ZERO to do with a single election not going their way."
It had EVERYTHING to do with it. Lincoln's name didn't even appear on the ballot in ten southern states. South Carolina seceded only 44 days after Lincoln's election. In their Declaration of Secession, they state it plainly:
"all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.
(cont'd)
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips You are acting as if states needed some really good reason to leave otherwise military action was ok. That is your first mistake. The states had the right and should still have the right to leave the union for any reason they wish otherwise we are no different than the former USSR. But wait....that is the case isn't it. Hate crime laws, political correctness in hiring of government officials, Patriot acts, centralizing our intelligence agencies...Lincoln would be proud
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "You are acting as if states needed some really good reason to leave otherwise military action was ok"
They do, I already told you that. A subnational unit has no more recognized right to unilaterally leave in international law than it does to unilaterally pronounce itself PART of the country in the first place. You negotiate your way in with your partners, and you negotiate your way OUT with your partners. Or you take the consequences of your rash actions.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips The united states was NOT founded on international law. It was founded on the idea that we would not involve our selves with foreign entanglements...though the federalist certainly wanted it. The states formed the federal government. Not the other way around. As for negotiating: Slavery like it or not, evil as it was, represented wealth and property. I never saw any offer by the federal government to purchase the freedom of the slaves.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan cont: Only Lincoln saying he could have cared less about them if not freeing them would preserve the union. We know how that turned out don't we. He could have easily preserved the union by not invading the south. Let's say what you say is correct and the south actually did start it. No effort was made by the Lincoln Admin. to find a cease fire. It was total war. Lincoln the bloody tyrant got exactly what he deserved. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "The united states was NOT founded on international law."
Who ever was? I'm telling you why nobody supported the South. First of all, most of them couldn't hold their nose and support slavery. Secondly, no nation on Earth with an eye to its own survival encourages secession at home or elsewhere. Negotiation's fine, but UDIs are DOA. Ask Rhodesia.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@PatchesRips Hold their nose and support slavery. What a laugh. Seriously this is getting tiresome. Many of these countries had themselves owned slaves. The north only a short time before the south None of them thought blacks equal to whites. Lincoln himself as the video above points out thought whites superior throughout his presidency. American was different. Measuring us by other nations gives away your true motives.Multi culture also weakens nations, but that doesn't matter to you does it?
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan You nor Lincoln could care less about a weakened nations. Yankees simply hated/hate southerners and wanted to force their way on them. Nothing new there.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "Hold their nose and support slavery."
Precisely. The British couldn't and didn't. People like Lincoln were prepared to because there was no real choice. That's self-evident; the South WENT TO WAR to keep owning blacks and said so; the free states were held hostage to that for generations.
"The north only a short time before the south"
Oh, bullshit. The last slave state north of the Mason-Dixon Line was New Jersey, and they gave it up it 1804, nearly 60 before the war.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "Lincoln himself as the video above points out thought whites superior throughout his presidency."
No one's disputing that. But there's a big, big difference between me knowing I'm better than you on the one hand, and deciding I have the right to lock you in my back yard and beat you till you're bloody and agree to serve me breakfast in bed every day till you mercifully die on the other, wouldn't you say? I can be superior to you and still respect your rights.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "Multi culture also weakens nations, but that doesn't matter to you does it?"
I believe it strengthens them, just as zinc and copper create bronze, an alloy stronger than either of them in isolation. Multiculturalism is only a problem if you have a country full of bigoted assholes who are going to MAKE it a problem for anyone not exactly like them.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1Atomtan "As for negotiating: Slavery like it or not, evil as it was, represented wealth and property"
Yeah, I've been telling YOU that. That's why the South seceded and started the war. They said so in their Declarations of Secession. 38 references to slavery in the four documents. No references to tariffs or any of that other nonsense you revisionists want to claim for them. The real shame for you folks is they were honest and unembarrassed about their racism.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1Atomtan "The states had the right and should still have the right to leave the union"
Sure. Sit down at the table with the rest and work it out. I won't begrudge you that. In fact, I'm all for it. But you simply start jump up and blazing away at the Marines? Nnnnnoope. I think you do that, you're asking for it.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "Hate crime laws"
So you're an advocate of hate crime?
Wait, what am I saying... you think slavery was no big deal. Of COURSE you are.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips ROFL: Yeah...that's what I said. Hate crime laws are nothing but another way for the federal government to charge with with bad behavior. Check the internet and you will see people jailed for TWO YEARS for calling someone a nigger. How many blacks have you heard of being jailed for similar things? Hate crime laws are anti white only. They are unbalanced, anti white and anti American. They state that the races actually are different. Something we are supposed to be against
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "Check the internet and you will see people jailed for TWO YEARS for calling someone a nigger."
Name one.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@1Atomtan (cont'd) " He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
...On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory..."
THAT'S why they seceded.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "Lincoln planned on initiating war"
And you base this on what? Even after 7 states had seceded, in his inaugural speech, he said "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@PatchesRips And you don't call that a threat. He told them they had no right to leave and that he would preserve, protect and defend what he saw as his right to keep the states within the union. It's saying...return or else. Thank you for that fine example.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "It's saying....return or else."
No it isn't; it's saying exactly what he did. He didn't accept secession and held his duty to resupply federal forts. He said no conflict unless the South started it, and they did. He was absolutely true to his word. And I wouldn't have simply handed forts over to people who didn't give leaving the Union due process either.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1Atomtan "called up an army for the purpose and chose to force a side of the country which no longer wanted to be part of the union. back into said union at gun point."
Called up an army to defend federal territory fired upon by traitors, as per his oath, you mean.
"Slavery became a convenient excuse for a centralist government."
The need to defend a union being broken up in the defense of slavery is what necessitated the drive to centralization.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
rg
pugs321 5 months ago
whats wromg with smokin trators
BuBzIeNYNY 5 months ago
@BuBzIeNYNY How can you be a traitor to a government you helped create with the idea you could leave if it became tyrannical? Our country was founded on the concept and it's in the declaration of independence. Recognized by Lincoln himself.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
About 26% of southern families owned slaves.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I understand that but them not leaving the fort was a bold move by the North.The north had already started transporting troops south before that happened. Either way,I;m not going to fight with you or anyone else.
sarge958 9 months ago
@sarge958 Bold move or not, they had the right to stay there. I don't know about the north sending more troops south to Fort Sumter, but if it happened, it's perfectly legal. Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers came a day or two after the surrender of Sumter.
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 He sent warships to purposely resupply the fort knowing full well it would provoke war. His own commanders wanted no part of it, but wanted more negotiations. War could have and should have been avoided. The south also should have used better judgement in some areas...but the rich folks there, like the rich folks now wanted to protect what's theirs even if it's at the expense of the country as a whole.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 You do realize that American hasn't and doesn't respond with " total war " even when fired upon. Israel relentlessly shot up the U.S.S. Liberty flying the United states Flag killing and wounding many Americans. Why didn't we respond there. Nope. That bloody tyrant Lincoln waged total war on half his nation because he wanted a centralized government. Why didn't he just concentrate on South Carolina and leave the rest of the south alone. Attempt to negotiate peace?
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@festdir That is just false. All men are born free. A nation is an expression of freedom as a group. You do not need someone else to tell you you you own your house. You believe God hated us? Your a lost cause.
Luigi84289 9 months ago
@Luigi84289 "All men are born free"
Not in the CSA.
"A nation is an expression of freedom as a group"
And the CSA were traitorous cowards fighting to protect the institution of slavery.
"Your a lost cause"
No. that was the CSA & its traitorous & failed fight for slavery.
festdir 9 months ago
@festdir The people who were doing the fighting were not fighting to protect slavery, per se. The politicians who caused the war did it to protect slavery, but they tricked their men.
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 No that is a misinterpretation. If slavery was the only issue and was the biggest as you seem to think the southern states would have just nullified any laws made against it like the north had done with the fugitive slave acts. The secession was caused by cultural differences. Davis makes it very apparrant in his writings. The southern people could no longer stand the states of the Northeast. When Lincoln was elected on a platform that was entirely anti-southern
Luigi84289 9 months ago
@Luigi84289 "The secession was caused by cultural differences."
Secession was caused by SLAVERY. All four Declarations of Secession say so plainly. For instance, this is the 2nd line in Mississippi's:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
&:
"a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation."
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The southern states left to form a Government that represented them. That was the key issue not slavery. Tariff increases and focusing on industry is what caused the south to leave because we ended up getting the crappy end of the stick, getting taxed heavily and having the Government continually interfere with free trade. Those were the main 2 causes. If the Government tried to eliminate slavery against the southern states will there would have only been violence not secession.
Luigi84289 9 months ago
@Luigi84289 "That was the key issue not slavery. Tariff increases and focusing on industry is what caused the south to leave"
That issue WAS slavery. The word appears THIRTY-EIGHT TIMES across the four Declarations of Secession.
The word "tariff" appears NOT ONCE.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The North could not if we were in the Union or not just instantaneously eliminate slavery. No more than the Federal Government today can instantaneously eliminate gun ownership. The South seceded just like America because the Government was growing too large and becoming a Northern controlled Union. The most abolitionist societies were in the south consisting of the 90% of southerners that owned no slaves but were looking for a sane solution.
Luigi84289 9 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 When you destroy the economy the slaves have to eat too. The North was looking for a power grab and used slavery or rather Lincoln did to rally his troops. Taxation was the north's motivation. Read his paper to Horace Greenley. Slavery was a tool to him to retain control of that area if necessary. That was all. Secession had nothing to do with Slavery, neither did the war. If sanity had remained slavery would have been taken care of like every other country.
Luigi84289 9 months ago
@Luigi84289 "Secession had nothing to do with Slavery"
The DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION disagrees.
It is really unfortunate that they couldn't have dumbed the title of that document down a bit more for you.
festdir 9 months ago
@festdir As I stated secession had nothing to do with slavery. Did the north secede when president Jackson threatened to use military force to uphold the fugitive slave acts? no. The problem arose from a culmination of issues. Slavery was not one of them. Lincoln himself said he did not have any intention of touching slavery. Taxation if one was to name one cause was the main. Industrialists needed land to get materials from and didn't like us trading with foreign powers so tariffs were enacted.
Luigi84289 9 months ago
@Luigi84289 "Did the north secede when president Jackson threatened to use military force to uphold the fugitive slave acts? no."
You know why? Because Jackson's presidency ended in 1837, and the Fugitive Slave Act was passed in 1850. You might as well have asked how much money President Hoover spent sending men to the moon.
"Lincoln himself said he did not have any intention of touching slavery"
He did, however, oppose its extension to the territories (i.e., no new slave states).
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@festdir When Lincoln did end slavery it was to create anarchy because all of the land was owned by the English, Irish and Ulster Scots settlers. Remember the south was rural and agricultural. There was no where for the slaves to go. This was how share cropping came to be to give the slaves land to live on since there was none open. Some slaves voluntarily stayed on plantations where they were protected and cared for. Read the slave narratives collected by FDR if you want a fuller picture.
Luigi84289 9 months ago
@Luigi84289 Again, the states that seceded wrote a document called DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION, in it they make very clear secession was b/c "election of a man to Pres. of the US who is hostile to the institution of slavery."
But it is wonderful you actually try to paint the freeing of slaves as a 'bad thing'.
Between these two attempts a fuller picture of both your lack of education & your lack of decency is made.
festdir 9 months ago
@festdir Wow you are one of the most ignorant people I've had in awhile. How do you not understand that completely destroying the south's economic system by instantaneously freeing 4 million slaves (which is bad for the slaves and free men too) would have been a disaster. The radical abolitionists were a bunch of crazies who just wanted a war to increase Government power. They only wanted to free slaves because they didn't believe they would get into heaven as slaves. That's it.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
@Luigi84289 Lincolns policy was containment and phase out which the South went to war over
BernieEOD 4 months ago
@BernieEOD " I have no intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it already exists"
The South was a minority and had every right to seek representation and be allowed to deal with it's own problems. Every 1st world country was under pressure back then to end the colonial slave system. But it takes time. Brazil ended slavery in 1888 and it was free before then. Southerners were not evil nor did the majority want a system that took all that work away from free men.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
@Luigi84289 The South had no intention of ending SLavery, that is why they started the war and got what they deserved
BernieEOD 4 months ago
@Luigi84289 "Every 1st world country was under pressure back then to end the colonial slave system"
Most had gotten rid of it by the Civil War, or had never had a practical use for it in the first place. As with so much else, socialized medicine, the abolition of capital punishment, recognition of same-sex marriage, the US trailed the pack.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Luigi84289 "completely destroying the south's economic system by instantaneously freeing 4 million slaves (which is bad for the slaves and free men too) would have been a disaster."
The only people it turned out to be a "disaster" for where the people whose money was tied up in owning other human beings, and people who suddenly had to PAY to have their crops planted, tended, picked, and processed.
It certainly wasn't a disaster for people who stopped being human chattel.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@Luigi84289 Great reply. What the southern haters here are saying is white men, most of which on both sides didn't believe blacks were the equal of whites...would fight a war that in todays numbers would cause close to 4 million dead and burned out and destroyed south was completely worth it. That same lot are fine with wiping out the indians, bombing dresden and firebombing women and children in Tokyo and killing children in the middle east and etc. Federalists>imperialist>Neo cons
1Atomtan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Luigi84289 "When Lincoln did end slavery it was to create anarchy because all of the land was owned by the English, Irish and Ulster Scots settlers."
Please explain how the first part relates to the second part.
"This was how share cropping came to be to give the slaves land to live on since there was none open."
Sharecropping is proof that the south didn't need slavery to keep the economy going.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@festdir The #1 cause of secession all over the south was getting away from the North East. That along with the Morill Tariff which was implemented after the war sucking the south dry until 1913 when the Federal Reserve was enacted trumped everything else. Black and White men who fought that war were fighting for their homes and for Freedom just like 1776. By trying to state that because of a temporary institution the south didn't deserve freedom cheapens it. Then America shouldn't be free.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
@Luigi84289 The DECLARATION OF CAUSES OF SECESSION disagrees. " A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."
It's too bad they couldn't have dumbed down the title of that document a bit more for you.
festdir 4 months ago
@festdir Hear, hear. One things these folks never want to hear is the words of the people who actually declared the reasons for secession.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@Luigi84289 "That along with the Morill Tariff which was implemented after the war"
How could something implemented AFTER the start of a war be its cause?
"a temporary institution"
It wasn't temporary. In 1790, there were 700,000 slaves in the US. By 1860, that number had sextupled to 4,000,000. It was BOOMING. It was worth more than any other single asset in the whole USA except the land itself. The South seceded and stated a war over it. It was there to STAY.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "[CSA politicians] caused the war [&] tricked their men"
So they were simply ignorant, easily manipulated & uneducated traitors?
No argument here.
festdir 9 months ago
@festdir Exactly.
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "they tricked their men."
Oh, bullshit. Do you think these people lived in caves and hadn't heard a thing of the controversy brewing since at least the 1820s? Do you think they didn't know why secession committees were formed immediately after the election of Lincoln, a man pledged to prevent the spread of slavery to the territories and thus prevent any new slave state from ever being created? Slavery was THEIR culture, THEIR property, THEIR identity.
PatchesRips 3 months ago
@festdir So you think the average southerner was fighting to protect the rich man's ability to own slaves?
1Atomtan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Luigi84289 "You do not need someone else to tell you you you own your house."
Actually, you do. It's called a "title".
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
We should kick all the bible thumping Anglo-Saxons out of Oklahoma and relocate them back to the Dixie South where they belong. The Midwest needs to remain German-American and Lutheran, so all southern English-settler descendants can go back to thumping bibles and teaching creationism down in Dixie. Fuck the South!
edelweissnpa 10 months ago
@edelweissnpa Well, using your logic, we should kick all of the German-American/Lutherans out of Oklahoma, and leave it to the Indians that occupied the territory originally. Also, just to make another point and prove your ignorance, the Anglo-Saxons are ethnically German, and your "German-Americans/Lutherans" are living within a nation created by Anglo-Saxons. Finally, Oklahoma has always been a part of Dixie, and I find your comments to be laughable.
rtgoodson 10 months ago
@festdir You seen to forget that in the north there were also slaves. The first slaves EVER were in the north. They worked on the docks. You also seen to forget that the founding fathers owned slaves. Before we became the United States of America,do you believe that those that fought to make it were Americans?Before we became officially the USA,we were a Confederacy of states in America.
sarge958 11 months ago
@sarge958 "The 1st slaves EVER were in the North"
With the exception of the border states, whom were immoral (but not traitors), the slaves were freed in the North. Thus 'moral betters'
"the founding fathers owned slaves"
1)Are you attempting to justify COMMITTING TREASON AGAINST THE USA for the purpose of keeping slavery?!? Stay Classy.
2)'Irony'-Using the founding fathers of the USA to justify treason against the USA
"Before USA we were a Confederacy"
Not after the signing of the Constitution.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir "Not after the signing of the constitution" well no shit. I love how you keep saying treason when the south didn't do anything but leave. Moral betters my ass. Abraham Lincoln didn't give a damn whether or not slavery was abolished or not. Hell,he wanted to ship them all away. He only freed the slaves to try and gain power over the south. In the south,only 6% owned slaves. 6%. Also,any slaves brought to the US were brought on slave ships flying the US flag.
sarge958 11 months ago
@sarge958 "keep saying treason...didn't do anything but leave."
That & fire on the US flag. If that isn't treason, what is?
"Lincoln didn't [care about slavery]"
His platform centered on eliminating the spread of slavery & letting it "wither on the vine". The traitors acknowledged this in their Declarations of Succession
"6% owned slaves"
So the South consisted of 6% evil people & 94% easily manipulated idiots?
No argument here.
"only freed the slaves..."
ITS A CONSPIRACY!!! How southern of you.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir 6% Evil and 94% easily manipulated idiots? Ha...what would you say the percentage of northern idiots and evil were? Child labor, women can't vote, wiping out indians and being manipulated into a war that killed 300,000 of them....for what gain? Slavery ended, but was the plight of blacks ended? Why could the great northern moralist end that after they defeated the south? What was standing in their way? Ha Ha Ha....you know the answer.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@festdir We surrendered because we lost! We battled our heart out. you seem to forget that Americans died on all sides and deserve to be remembered and respected. they weren't traitors. They didn't try and change the US. They left. The North attacked because they weren't getting the crops and the money from the south. Nuff said. Slavery was wrong...on BOTH sides. I think I'm done here.
sarge958 11 months ago
@sarge958 "We surrendered b/c we lost!"
No, they lost b/c they surrendered...in a rebellion or defensive war, all the defenders need to do is NOT surrender in order to win. i.e. Afgans vs USSR, Vietnam vs France & US, US vs GB in revolutionary war etc.
"Americans died on all sides"
No. AMERICANS only died on one side. Immoral traitors received justice on the other.
"Slavery was wrong"
And so was the traitors that fought to keep it. Fortunately their resolve matched their morality.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir You are ignorant you know that? I'm done here.
sarge958 11 months ago
@festdir Slavery was wrong. I wonder why Grant's wife didn't free hers and Lee freed his.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
this video is such bullshit
GladiatorAurora 11 months ago
North & South had slaves. The 3/5 compromise (1787) gave the South unfair representation in the Union. The war was about power. Still lets not forget not all Blacks in America were slaves as evidenced by the Moors Sundry act of 1790.
LER77 1 year ago
The old usa=ussr not the current one
ChristheAussie 1 year ago
@ChristheAussie The old USA was a Confederation of Countries like Europe. What happened would be the equivalent of the EU central Government seizing control of all the land destroying all the different countries sovereignty, cultures and traditions creating a centralized super state and using emotionalism to justify it's actions. The original constitution was called the "Articles of Confederation". It never ceased being such until 1865 when America became one big country.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 Did you know that the Confederate States of America was never legally surrendered to the union? The troops were but the country was not. So,legally,the confederacy is a real country that has no government and representation and is occupied by the USA. No on really says anything but,personally and legally, the CSA is still real,even if it's just a name.
sarge958 1 year ago 2
@sarge958 "CSA was never legally surrendered to the union"
The CSA never legally existed. It was simply a rebellion by immoral & cowardly traitors.
festdir 11 months ago
@festdir So you believe a man needs another man to acknowledge that he has Sovereignty over himself? You believe that some men are better than others? This is the problem. Every man is equal before the eyes of God. What happened in 1860 - 65 was barbaric and backwards. America didn't need England to tell us we were free to exert our independence. People are just that people. It appears you have some deification issues.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@Luigi84289 Before the eyes of God? Not the God of the Bible. The Bible says if you are slave...seek not to be free. No where in the Bible will you find anything against slavery. In the case of African slaves, I believe they were stolen from their lands and treated evil. Both of those are condemned in the Bible. Not only that. The God of the Bible plays favorites. In his eyes. Israelites are superior to other men and the apple of his eye and chosen.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@festdir Why would you call them cowards even if you believe them traitors? That is so obviously not true given the facts that is shows yours like other passionate yankees are completely full of hate and unbalanced. Why would you want to keep a people you hate so much in the union in the first place. I didn't see your kind taking in droves of blacks from the south after the war.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "Why would you call them cowards"
Because there is no other historical example of a defending nation/rebellion that had so much, surrender so completely. Vietnam vs US, Viet vs France, Viet vs China, USSR vs Finland, USSR vs Afgan, US vs GB...all had far worse positions, yet kept the sovereignty the CSA never earned.
"your kind taking in droves of blacks"
Nor did 'my kind' commit a failed treason to keep them as property. Knowing this...which side was more moral?
festdir 3 months ago
@festdir You must be kidding or very young. How about Japan, Germany, for starters. The southern armies were complete defeated and people starving. The south itself never formerly surrendered. You ever heard of the New England secessionist? They were considering re joining Britain. Typical federalist traitors you could say.And how is it the South is considered traitors for doing what both the north joined with the southern states did to leave Britain. We called them patriots then?
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan The average southerner thought he was fighting for the same thing the founders were fighting for with Britain.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
@1Atomtan "How about Japan"
Japan had TWO NUCLEAR BOMBS dropped on them. Germany was fighting 3 superpowers simultaneously. Yet both fought longer & harder than the traitorous cowards of the CSA.
"The CSA never formally surrendered"
Because the CSA never formally existed.
"why is the CSA considered traitors for doing what the US did with GB"
The US committed treason against GB. I am fine with that.
The CSA committed treason against the USA. I am NOT fine with that.
festdir 2 months ago
@festdir I'm glad you responded. I really don't need to do anything but let anyone with a six grade education in history read your post. I am not trying to be a smart ass for smart ass sake, but your ignorance of history is astounding. I can accept that you don't agree but this frothing at the mouth stuff is humorous.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "this frothing at the mouth stuff"
What 'frothing at the mouth stuff'? I have provided historical context, the Declaration of Causes of Secession, the Constitution & word meanings.
You have done nothing but opinion-barf...which is likely the best a person with your limited education can manage.
Perhaps you should try being an apologist for the Nazis instead......at least they managed to put up a fight.
festdir 2 months ago
@festdir "Because there is no other historical example of a defending nation/rebellion that had so much, surrender so completely."
This was your comment
Then " I " provided the historical answer not you with:How about Japan, Germany, for starters.
Then you stated: But...but...but...Japan had TWO NUCLEAR BOMBS dropped on them. Germany was fighting 3 superpowers simultaneously. Yet both fought longer & harder than the traitorous cowards of the CSA.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@festdir continuedWWII with Germany 1939-1945 WWII with Japan 1941-45 The war of Northern aggression 1861-65
Yes...they fought sooo much longer and so much harder. All three were completely defeated and all of the armies eventually surrendered unconditionally. Oh yeah...the Cherokee Confederates did fight on a bit longer those cowards. Yawn.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan Japan was at war from July 1937-Sept 1945. They fought for over 8 yrs and only surrendered after TWO ATOMIC BOMBS. Thanks for illustrating your historical knowledge.
As for Germany, there are many comparisons to make between the CSA & the Nazis--but, as the Nazis had won a number of conflicts (France) & fought against 3 superpowers--fighting prowess is not one of them.
But please, continue with your posts...the clueless rants of uneducated white trash never gets old for me!
festdir 2 months ago
@festdir You want to go all the way back to Japan's fight with the soviets as well while your are at it. The Japanese were brutal and war like totalitarian regime and attempting to dominate an entire region of the world.The Germans under Hitler the same. The Confederates where fighting a defensive war and still managed to whip the Yankees with less men and less ammunition for half. You are truly the only person I have ever had a conversation with who called them cowards. North or south.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@festdir AS for uneducated white trash. Come on you can do better than that can't you? Is uneducated white trash the only nasty description of southerners some of you northners know. We have had a spirited discussion, but no one has started calling personal insults. As for Germany and the south being compared. That would actually be Lincoln and Hitler. Have you ever studied National Socialism? Every check Clay's and Lincoln's internal improvements plans?
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan Cont: Or how about Clay"s..(Lincoln's hero) view of indians. " The Indians' "disappearance from the human family,", "will be no great loss to the world."
These were cruel, pork barrel big government statist. I wouldn't be surprised if Hitler and others didn't study them to get ideas. There are northern leaders I respect and northerners but it's hard to abide a hypocrite. I have never once states slavery was A OK. Some of you have made excuse after excuse for genocide.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "[CSA] managed to whip the USA"
By surrendering. Great Point. Really.
"Nazis & the CSA"
Yes, however could a govt founded on racial superiority be compared to the Nazis? Outstanding observation.
"CSA were fighting a defensive war"
Defensive wars are easier. Vietnam vs US, Viet vs France, Viet vs China, Finland vs USSR, US vs GB, Afgan vs USSR.
All of these nations were dealing with a far worse position than the CSA & they managed to keep the sovereignty the CSA never earned.
festdir 2 months ago
@festdir The CSA out numbered won many battles early on. They ultimately lost. Germany and the CSA fought about the same amount of time and the result was the same yet you call Nazis and Japanese more brave than Southerners. Yes...you could compare a nation founded on racial superiority to the National Socialist...but you have to compare both the United States government before and after the war as well as the Confederates. It was the U.S. government that allowed segregation to continue.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan Cont. AFTER they won the war to supposedly free the slaves. You telling me the little old Klan and others defeated the entire might of the United States army? Nope. The north were full of racial bigots as much as the south. All the nations you mention had modern weapons and most were supplied by other nations. The south was not. It fought as long as it did with a block cade most of the conflict. What a silly silly argument. But you continue.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "supposedly free the slaves"
They were freed, no 'supposedly' about it.
"US govt that allowed segregation to continue"
By not stepping into the filthy cesspools of the trailer-dwelling southern states sooner? I agree. In 1964 the federal govt. resolved this wrong & taught them decency.
Time & again it has proven that the southern states need the federal govt to teach the filthy cowards decency.
I am pleasantly surprised you agree.
festdir 2 months ago
@festdir You keep talking about trailer living cesspools. I Have been to your great northern cities. Detroit, Chicago, Philly, Boston, New York. With the exception of some really " closed " communities in N.J. New York, a couple of others. What I mostly saw were folks living like rats in crowded neighborhoods and rampant crime and ghettos. As for 1965..you telling me the great heroic northern army couldn't subdue a bunch of trailer dwellers after fighting the great war of emancipation?100yrs
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "The CSA outnumbered"
Tell that to the Vietnamese, the Finns, the US. The US's meager advantage in numbers was not nearly enough to overcome the CSA's defensive advantage.
"modern weapons & were supplied"
Afghan were supplied donkeys & fought a superpower that had far more modern weapons. Your excuse making for the pathetic cowardice of the immoral traitors change nothing.
"US govt allowed segregation"
By not stopping the southern states? Fortunately that mistake was resolved
festdir 2 months ago
@festdir You are seriously deluded. Your hatred keeps you unbalanced. The only reason the north ever freed their slaves is they couldn't get them to work in their death factories like they could orphans and immigrant women. They were happy to sell them to the southern states and later happy to use it as an excuse to destroy half the country to instill imperialism and industrialism. I bet you love Che Guevara also.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "north ever freed their slaves.."
They did free their slaves...& they beat decency into the immoral traitors of the CSA, as well.
"Detroit, Chicago, Philly, Boston, NY"
Every one of the states these cities reside in have a higher education ranking than the southern states....as you are so thoughtfully illustrating.
"65"
1) 1964, moron
2) You are right...the federal govt should have stepped in earlier, to teach decency to the immoral part of the country. Glad you agree.
festdir 2 months ago
@festdir You know what they say about folks who must call names and who argue rather than discuss. Their points are weak so they must resort to arguing. You need to realize...none of your name calling has any effect on me or most other sane men and women. It shows your lack of maturity. Or course the north will have higher education standards. They destroyed the south's education and 80% of the blacks live in the south to skew the results of any poll.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@festdir As for 64, You are right. I was confusing it with the Immigration act of 65 which I was going to post as yet another northern liberal communist new world order group... whose goal was to stymie the immigration of Germans, Italians, Poles, Russians and etc and bring in more Asian, African and Middle eastern cheap labor. Watering down American European culture into a multi cultural cesspool of folks looking for a handout or special privileges for being non white.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@1Atomtan "[north] destroyed the south's education"
Oh fun, a conspiracy theory! Do continue.
"80% of the blacks live in the south to skew the results"
Dear god this is racist. How surprising.
"northern liberal communist new world order group"
Makes perfect sense. Doesn't sound like the retarded rambling of uneducated white trash at all!
Please; Do Continue!
festdir 2 months ago
@festdir Facts seem to bother you Che Guevara tee shirt wearing crowd. Blacks have lower test scores than whites. That is a fact. The north claimed to free blacks but simply left them out to dry. There was cruelty, but there was also help from Southerners with organizations such as Tuskegee. The only time northerners attempted anything again was when a bunch of N.E. Yankee communist saw an opportunity to destroy the republic with multi culture and forced diversity. ON THE SOUTH. Not up N.
1Atomtan 2 months ago
@festdir I don't run away from some of the evil done by some southerners as you Yankees do. Your side won the war, had the money, ability and supposedly the moral high ground and motivation towards blacks? What happened? A bunch of trailer living white trash keep you from it. Most blacks are starting to wake up to your lies. They know right where they stand with those who really run this country. Many may not embrace the Confederacy, but they know the N was Full of shit.
1Atomtan 2 months ago