Civil War... "Setting the Record Straight" V

http://survivalgearchecklist.net An economic collapse is imminent... is your family prepared?... food, shelter, water.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• South
• southern
• dixie
• politically
• correct
• incorrect
• history
• confederate
• Jefferson
• Davis
• CSA
• civil
• war
• between
• states

[tikijane]

Obviously the north has some 'splaining to do. Much of the wealth of the New England states was built on the slave trade both in the US and the Caribbean. It's crazy. Nice job on the history lesson!

[unitasetmagus]

Please dude, make your vids longer, i can't follow them properly, but i would like to.

[FastPonyGT]

No. The greedy Northern gov't was moving to a major centralized government that now makes us all slaves. To the tune of a 15 trillion debt and we ain't seen nothing yet. That is why.

[HopeForPeaceNow]

The North was moving AWAY from slavery in 1860.

The South was making slavery the cornerstone of it's government.

That's why.

[SouthernBoy4life1]

Actually at the time of the civil war only 10% of the South owned slaves.

[eflint1]

The CSA was an independent, sovereign nation. Therefore, the U.S. troops to them were foreigners.

[eflint1]

Actually, the emancipation proclamation almost destroyed the Union cause. There were race riots in major northern cities and desertions in the Union army skyrocketed because, as THEY put it, the soldiers did not want to "fight to free niggers". The North ws just as racist as the South.

[eflint1]

Nor is there any provision in the Constitution prohibiting secession. The Federalists papers make it clear that the States retain their sovereignty upon entering the Union. If a State can't secede,then it is not sovereign. Again I remind you that Lincoln denied that the States EVER were sovereign. This was one of the main factors that led the more moderate upper South States to secede,plus his calling for troops. Had he not done this, the upper South probably would have stayed with the Union.

[Rockroi]

As far as the slave population growing, I brought this up because if slavery was truly on the decline, surely the numbers of slaves would reflect this. Surely if it was a dying institution, I would be able to see that slaves were not needed and Gradual Emancipation (Greatest. Myth. Ever.) taking hold. Nope. Slaves were in demand; hence, there was a large supply. The most valuable commodity in America was a slave. This is all proof that slavery was still a thriving institution in 1860.

[Rockroi]

When the war started, the North was in turmoil. They knew why the South seceded (slavery). Hence, there was considerable trouble with Northern White people dying for Southern Black people.  It was a very hard war to fight for just "Union" and "Country." However, once Lincoln (brilliantly, mind you) issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil War became a crusade to free black people from unjust bondage. War was over in a year and a half after that. South never stood a chance at that point

[Rockroi]

But the North was not "foreign." There is no right to secede from the Union in the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers and "James Madison" by Ralph Ketcham that make great arguments that the South was living in an "ignorance is bliss" world where they convinced themselves that they could get out of the Union whenever they wanted.

It was simply a dream; there is no inherent right to secede; it is not "retained" by the states. Madison et al knew that going in.