Change???

[Minister of Truth]

Oh no, not Period, End of Story. You want it to be that, you want to portray this as some great moral crusade the North was on, and the South didn't want to go along with, but that was not the case. "The North" was not attacking anything before the Civil War, because there was no "The North" and there was nothing to "attack." Congress had opportunities to make slavery illegal, to emancipate the slaves, to have stopped the practice before it ever started in America! They didn't do this, why not? Were they a bunch of racists? Why did YOUR US government fail to deal with the problem of human slavery before the Civil War, and in fact, deemed slaves as "property" under the Constitution? The South didn't do this, it was done by the US Congress.

That's the part of the story you don't want to tell. It doesn't fit your idiotically simple idea of the slavery issue, or what you thought the Civil War was about. The issue of the war was states rights, and whether the federal government had the Constitutional right to mandate state law. It regarded slavery only in the sense that slaves were legitimately owned property at the time, and the Constitution has never granted our federal government the power to just seize private property. In other words, it was a Constitutional dilemma and both sides of the issue had a legitimate argument to make. It was settled by the war, but emancipation of the slaves was only made a stalwart issue when Lincoln thought the war was about to be lost. At that time, he emancipated only Southern slaves, any "owned" black people in the North, would have to wait until a few years after the war to be free. If this was such a Great Moral Crusade To Free The Black Man, as you seem to want to claim it was, why did Lincoln only free the Southern slaves?

And until about 2 1/2 years into the Civil War, many did not view it as a moral issue. Slavery had been practiced in America since the 1660's, when the rise of the English economy made Servitude pretty much useless and non-profitable. The Black Codes began to be formed about that time.

During the Revolution, the spirit of liberty took hold in the North, and all except Deleware set about abolishing slavery. This was an option that the South did not do, and in an attempt to creat a Union that included the South, the issue of slavery was not addressed, and the 3/5 Clause was adopted which eventually allowed the South to take control of the presidency through inflated Electoral Votes.

Under the Washington Administration, Hamilton proposed a vision of a industrial and market success, which the South rejected. As the moral abolitionists began to gain ground in such notable activists as John Quincy Adams and William Lloyd Garrison, the prospects of the Northern economy began to grow, and the free labor abolitionist movement took off. In all of these years, the South had continued to refuse to reform its economy, thanks to the introduction of the Cotton Gin in 1793.

Reason and liberty were given the opportunity time after time, and every time the South chose to dig itself further into a black hole. While the Free Labor North envisioned a Western Land for white men to move to after factory work and start a family and homestead, the South through its "expand or die" theory sought to expand slavery out West.

The setbacks encountered in California and Kansas, and the election of Lincoln convinced The South that Free Labor would win in the West and that slavery would be--though not abolished out right--set on the road to extinction. It refused to accept such a perfectly logical outcome, and seceeded. That is fucking pathetic, Dixie. Its states sovereignty was never threatened, nore was tyranny immenent, considering the nature of the 1860 Election. But pathetic as the South can be, it up and left: over the matter of slavery, and nothing else.

You are also an idiot to believe that slavery could survive in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, W. Virginia and Deleware after the war. You know nothing of how to be a politician. What Lincoln and the GOP had proposed was and always was to only way to deal with slavery - Containment.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh my God, you are full of misconceptions, aren't you? I notice you didn't really answer my question. If this was such a great moral issue for the North, why hadn't the US Congress outlawed slavery before the Civil War? And I don't want to hear some song and tapdance about how the South made them keep slavery in order to keep the peace, that is patently absurd, and you know it.

LOL @ Delaware, the great agricultural mecca it was! Of course they abolished slavery, there were probably no slaves living in Delaware at the time! As I said, plantation slaves were found mainly on Plantations, which were mainly in the Southern states because of climate.

I have never argued that I thought "slavery could exist in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, W. Virginia and Delaware after the war." Where did you get that from what I said? In fact, I said just the contrary, that slavery was on its way out, and everybody knew it. Only 2% of Southerners owned slaves, which is a testament to how little it was being practiced by that time. Your argument, that we fought the bloodiest war of all time in America, in order to maintain a practice that was on the decline and becoming more and more socially unacceptable, has no basis in logic or reasoning. Yes, it is stupid to think we would have kept enslaving blacks if the South had won the war! This is more evidence the war was not about the issue of slavery.

Think. Just stop your mind from being prejudiced by your viewpoint for a second, and think. Our nation could have outlawed slavery when we wrote the Constitution. They could have banned the practice in the Bill of Rights, in the 84 years between the founding of the nation and the Civil War, they could have Amended the Constitution to abolish slavery, but the US government failed to do so. Instead, they ruled that slaves were property. Now, this presented a quandary, how can you 'emancipate' someone's property? Our Constitution and rule of law do not allow such a thing! There is no basis in our laws for such an act. According to the Constitution, this was an issue to be settled by the state, like Delaware chose to abolish slavery.

It is easy to put the Civil War in context of today's modern thinking, and political correctness, and pretend it was some great moral crusade to free the blacks. It simply wasn't that, and it would take another century for blacks to even be treated as equals. Those who argued for abolition in the day, mostly favored a plan to ship them all back to Africa, to solve the "problem" of mixing them into our society. This is from the people who wanted to free the slaves, not 'Southern Racists'!

The 1800's Abolitionist viewpoint was not based on equality of race, they were not fighting for blacks to be treated the same as whites, and for the most part, they felt blacks were inferior to whites. The opposition to slavery was purely humanitarian. The amazing thing is, and something you don't often hear in debates on this topic, is there was moderate support for abolition of slavery, even in the South! It was one of those issues where a lot of Americans (northern and southern) were okay with abolition of slavery, the problems were rooted in how to do it, and how to deal with the consequences of it. This is where the point of contentions all came to a head, and the Southern plantation owner who used slaves as his means to provide labor, couldn't comprehend how the US government could take what amounted to 'his property' in violation of his 4th Amendment rights, simply because they felt like it. Granted, we look at it in retrospect and don't see the argument because blacks are free people with equal rights of white people and have been this way according to the law, most of our lives, but in 1861, they were not viewed this way by anyone, and the US Courts had ruled they were property.

This said, the Civil War was not fought over the concerns or views of 2% of the Southern population. Where all viewpoints seemed to come together regarding abolition, slavery, and property rights, was the very strong Constitutional argument of state's rights. Did the Federal Government have the authority to usurp state power? Federalists said, YES... Confederates said, NO! ......and war was inevitable.

When I argue that the Civil War was not about Slavery, I am correct. It was not about slavery, it was about a more fundamental Constitutional question and cause. Slavery was a part of the issue, it played a supporting role for the argument, but it was not the reason for war.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Oh my God, you are full of misconceptions, aren't you? I notice you didn't really answer my question. If this was such a great moral issue for the North, why hadn't the US Congress outlawed slavery before the Civil War? And I don't want to hear some song and tapdance about how the South made them keep slavery in order to keep the peace, that is patently absurd, and you know it.

Only an idiot such as you could possibly make this argument. Why do you think Congress never passed the bill? No Southerner would have voted for it, and no Dem president would have signed it. You ever notice how emancipation occurred only after Southerners were not present in the Congress? And there is a difference between moral outrage against slavery and moral outrage against racism. Remember, anti-slavery sentiment first grew out of the religious revivalism known as the 2nd Great Awakening.

LOL @ Delaware, the great agricultural mecca it was! Of course they abolished slavery, there were probably no slaves living in Delaware at the time! As I said, plantation slaves were found mainly on Plantations, which were mainly in the Southern states because of climate.

I have never argued that I thought "slavery could exist in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, W. Virginia and Delaware after the war." Where did you get that from what I said? In fact, I said just the contrary, that slavery was on its way out, and everybody knew it. Only 2% of Southerners owned slaves, which is a testament to how little it was being practiced by that time. Your argument, that we fought the bloodiest war of all time in America, in order to maintain a practice that was on the decline and becoming more and more socially unacceptable, has no basis in logic or reasoning. Yes, it is stupid to think we would have kept enslaving blacks if the South had won the war! This is more evidence the war was not about the issue of slavery.

Then why did you ask a senseless question like "Why didn't Lincoln abolish slavery in the North?" You just admitted yourself that it was a pointless and moronic question to ask. Secondly, the South seceeded over slavery - hence the war was about slavery. If more people could afford slaves they would have bought them, yet the above bolded statement is a flat out lie. The 1860 Census concluded that 1/3 of all Southerners owned slaves:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

Think. Just stop your mind from being prejudiced by your viewpoint for a second, and think. Our nation could have outlawed slavery when we wrote the Constitution. They could have banned the practice in the Bill of Rights, in the 84 years between the founding of the nation and the Civil War, they could have Amended the Constitution to abolish slavery, but the US government failed to do so. Instead, they ruled that slaves were property. Now, this presented a quandary, how can you 'emancipate' someone's property? Our Constitution and rule of law do not allow such a thing! There is no basis in our laws for such an act. According to the Constitution, this was an issue to be settled by the state, like Delaware chose to abolish slavery.

Our Constitution was founded on the basis of Lockean Natural Rights principles. Life and liberty come before property, and the 4th Amendment would have preceeded the 10th. The Constitution was written with the intent of bringing all states into the Union. As I have said, I don't consider Unionism worth the baggage of carrying the South along with us, but that is what they chose to do. You know perfectly well along what lines the vote would have gone. Furthermore, Jefferson of all people did attempt to attack slavery in the Declaration, but it was deemed politically incorrect and edited out...

It is easy to put the Civil War in context of today's modern thinking, and political correctness, and pretend it was some great moral crusade to free the blacks. It simply wasn't that, and it would take another century for blacks to even be treated as equals. Those who argued for abolition in the day, mostly favored a plan to ship them all back to Africa, to solve the "problem" of mixing them into our society. This is from the people who wanted to free the slaves, not 'Southern Racists'!

Even at the time, most abolitionists viewed slavery as immoral. They didn't all agree on the matter of civil rights, however. Very few people believed in the Back to Africa Movement, however the city of Monrovia in Liberia is testament to Pres. Monroe's experiment in the idea. It declined in 1860 when abolition seemed probable, and rose again in 1877 ([ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Africa_movement[/ame]) when Reconstruction had failed. BTW the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments passed, surprise, when the South was unable to voice an opinion on the matter. Seems to me the North supported them though...

The 1800's Abolitionist viewpoint was not based on equality of race, they were not fighting for blacks to be treated the same as whites, and for the most part, they felt blacks were inferior to whites. The opposition to slavery was purely humanitarian. The amazing thing is, and something you don't often hear in debates on this topic, is there was moderate support for abolition of slavery, even in the South! It was one of those issues where a lot of Americans (northern and southern) were okay with abolition of slavery, the problems were rooted in how to do it, and how to deal with the consequences of it. This is where the point of contentions all came to a head, and the Southern plantation owner who used slaves as his means to provide labor, couldn't comprehend how the US government could take what amounted to 'his property' in violation of his 4th Amendment rights, simply because they felt like it. Granted, we look at it in retrospect and don't see the argument because blacks are free people with equal rights of white people and have been this way according to the law, most of our lives, but in 1861, they were not viewed this way by anyone, and the US Courts had ruled they were property.

The SCOTUS has made some other wonderful decisions besides Dred Scot v. Sanford, such as Plessey v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. US, & Roe v. Wade. I take it you like all of them too?

This said, the Civil War was not fought over the concerns or views of 2% of the Southern population. Where all viewpoints seemed to come together regarding abolition, slavery, and property rights, was the very strong Constitutional argument of state's rights. Did the Federal Government have the authority to usurp state power? Federalists said, YES... Confederates said, NO! ......and war was inevitable.

When I argue that the Civil War was not about Slavery, I am correct. It was not about slavery, it was about a more fundamental Constitutional question and cause. Slavery was a part of the issue, it played a supporting role for the argument, but it was not the reason for war.

Your 2% lie again? This is as bad as 1/3! http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

Again, the South seceeded over one issue, slavery, making it the cause of the war. It was a war fought over slavery, and it yielded the 13th-15th Amendments. You can claim otherwise, but in the end, your just an ignorant Southerner who hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Basically threedee is an idiot. Case closed.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Then why did you ask a senseless question like "Why didn't Lincoln abolish slavery in the North?" You just admitted yourself that it was a pointless and moronic question to ask. Secondly, the South seceeded over slavery - hence the war was about slavery. If more people could afford slaves they would have bought them, yet the above bolded statement is a flat out lie. The 1860 Census concluded that 1/3 of all Southerners owned slaves:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

The emancipation proclamation was more a way to punish the south than anything else. The border states that still had slavery were unaffected. Of course, the 13th amendment was supported by Lincoln, so it pretty much nullifies that argument. Except, of course, considering that Lincoln made the proclamation in 1863, and needed those states votes in the election of 1864. The fact that the border states weren't included was mainly a political calucalation

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The SCOTUS has made some other wonderful decisions besides Dred Scot v. Sanford, such as Plessey v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. US, & Roe v. Wade. I take it you like all of them too?

Dred Scott and Plessey were nothing but judicial restraint at its worst.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The US government should've bought out the slaves and banned slavery from then on, if for no other reason that it would have been far cheaper than the civil war. I know that human lives don't matter to a barbarian like three, only money.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Threedee is officially schooled, asshat style.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Only an idiot such as you could possibly make this argument. Why do you think Congress never passed the bill? No Southerner would have voted for it, and no Dem president would have signed it. You ever notice how emancipation occurred only after Southerners were not present in the Congress? And there is a difference between moral outrage against slavery and moral outrage against racism. Remember, anti-slavery sentiment first grew out of the religious revivalism known as the 2nd Great Awakening.

Again, you want to place me in the position of arguing for slavery, and that is silly. I have made no such argument here or anywhere. Please stop it. You don't have to misconstrue what I am arguing to make your points, do you? We are not discussing whether slavery should or shouldn't have been legal, or if people should or shouldn't have been in favor or opposed to it, in 1860 America. The issue is, what was the reason for the Civil War?

Then why did you ask a senseless question like "Why didn't Lincoln abolish slavery in the North?" You just admitted yourself that it was a pointless and moronic question to ask. Secondly, the South seceeded over slavery - hence the war was about slavery. If more people could afford slaves they would have bought them, yet the above bolded statement is a flat out lie. The 1860 Census concluded that 1/3 of all Southerners owned slaves:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

LOL at an AOL member website for reference! LOLOLOLOLOL!! FOOL!
Go to the census reports of 1860, find the number of people living in the South and the number of households that owned slaves and divide. You will find that roughly 2% of them owned slaves. The war was NOT about slavery, because the issue of emancipation could have easily been taken care of by Congress and the people, if that had been the issue.

Our Constitution was founded on the basis of Lockean Natural Rights principles. Life and liberty come before property, and the 4th Amendment would have preceeded the 10th. The Constitution was written with the intent of bringing all states into the Union. As I have said, I don't consider Unionism worth the baggage of carrying the South along with us, but that is what they chose to do. You know perfectly well along what lines the vote would have gone. Furthermore, Jefferson of all people did attempt to attack slavery in the Declaration, but it was deemed politically incorrect and edited out...

Again, I am not arguing that slavery was right and should have remained. This continues to be the argument you would like to have me make, but this is not arguable, and it's patently unfair of you to continue to cast my argument in this light. I will ask you once again to please stop doing this and stick to the issue at hand.

It is correct to say, the vote to abolish slavery would not have passed, because the nation was sharply divided on the issue. Since most of those who owned slaves lived in the South, there were naturally more non-abolitionists in the South, but this does not make slavery the issue of the war, or the South, solely responsible for slavery! When Jefferson (a slave owner) tried to "attack" slavery, it was deemed politically incorrect, not by a Confederacy of Southern states, but by Congress and the people as a whole. I realize you would like to escape this guilt and put it all on the lowly Southerners, but that is again, intellectually dishonest and patently unfair. Slavery was an issue because we as AMERICANS, both northern and southern, had not dealt with it! When we DID deal with it, we determined that slaves were legally owned property of the individual, and thus, protected under the 4th Amendment. The SOUTH didn't do this, the US Congress did!

Even at the time, most abolitionists viewed slavery as immoral. They didn't all agree on the matter of civil rights, however. Very few people believed in the Back to Africa Movement, however the city of Monrovia in Liberia is testament to Pres. Monroe's experiment in the idea. It declined in 1860 when abolition seemed probable, and rose again in 1877 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Africa_movement) when Reconstruction had failed. BTW the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments passed, surprise, when the South was unable to voice an opinion on the matter. Seems to me the North supported them though...

Yes, abolition was much more popular in the north, that still doesn't make it why the Civil War was fought. The reason it was more popular is simple, Northern people were not less racist or more inclined to give rights to black people, they just didn't own any slaves, so it didn't matter to them. It was going to cost them nothing to free the slaves, they had no economic sacrifice or interest in the outcome or consequences, and so human morality prevailed and most people in the North, favored emancipation. Of the abolitionists who favored 'Back to Africa' was one, Abraham Lincoln, and he said as much in the debates with Douglass.

The SCOTUS has made some other wonderful decisions besides Dred Scot v. Sanford, such as Plessey v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. US, & Roe v. Wade. I take it you like all of them too?

Again.... we are not arguing whether the SCOTUS was right or wrong, or whether slavery was right or wrong, or whether I "liked" their rulings, that should be inherently obvious. The fact is, this is how the SCOTUS had ruled, it WAS the law at the time. I can't help that, I wish it wasn't the case, I wish our Founding Fathers had not been racist bigots who paved the way for other racist bigots to determine black people were property, but they did.

Your 2% lie again? This is as bad as 1/3! http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

Again, the South seceeded over one issue, slavery, making it the cause of the war. It was a war fought over slavery, and it yielded the 13th-15th Amendments. You can claim otherwise, but in the end, your just an ignorant Southerner who hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

No, you are ignorant because you haven't answered the questions. If the issue was Slavery, why hadn't it been settled by the US Congress and SCOTUS before 1860? This is the way we've changed and altered our laws and Constitution since the beginning, not with Civil War, so there must be some valid reason this couldn't be done. The 'valid reason' is, because America, both Northern and Southern, was a racist place where only white people were allowed to have a political voice. You can pretend some myth is true, or you can accept this fact of reality, I really don't care.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Jefferson attacked slavery? That's actually completely absurd. It's a sad fact that so many of our founders, even Washington, owned slaves. Although Washington set free all of his slaves, it was only after he died, and only because he couldn't sell them off without separating the families (which was against his own personal code of owning other humans).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Slavery was the 800 pound guerilla in the room at the time of the civil war. There has been a great deal of revisionism about this fact in the south but it's the truth. The nation was deeply divided over the Kansas-Nebraska act, and we had two successive southern-sympathizing Democratic presidents who did nothing to keep the union together. The southern reaction to Lincoln getting elected was selfish, but it was typical of a place ruled by rich men who send the poor to fight for them.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Jefferson attacked slavery? That's actually completely absurd. It's a sad fact that so many of our founders, even Washington, owned slaves. Although Washington set free all of his slaves, it was only after he died, and only because he couldn't sell them off without separating the families (which was against his own personal code of owning other humans).

Which is precisely why I put quote marks around "attacked" when referencing 3d's statement. I find it ironic that he thinks a slave owner was "attacking" slave ownership in establishment of the Constitution, but it was his point, not mine.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Slavery was the 800 pound guerilla in the room at the time of the civil war. There has been a great deal of revisionism about this fact in the south but it's the truth. The nation was deeply divided over the Kansas-Nebraska act, and we had two successive southern-sympathizing Democratic presidents who did nothing to keep the union together. The southern reaction to Lincoln getting elected was selfish, but it was typical of a place ruled by rich men who send the poor to fight for them.

The "revisionism" has come from Northerner's like 3d, who want to depict the war as being fought over the issue of slavery, when that is not the case. They seem to want to make it this war of moral courage waged by the North to free black people and give them rights, when that was not the case at all. It took another century to give black people the basic rights to vote in America!

The Southern reaction to Lincoln, and indeed the issue of emancipation, was rooted in the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which gave them a legitimate argument against the Federalized central government. You can't very well say they had no argument based on laws and rulings passed years after the Civil War! At the time, Negro slaves were property, and the Constitution doesn't allow the government to just seize your property because they see fit to do so! I am not arguing that slaves should have been considered property, or that it was correct for the US Supreme Court to rule this way, I am only stating the fact that this WAS how it WAS!

 

[Minister of Truth]

You guys are both idiots. Dixie is retared and Watermark is way underperforming in his trolling. Yes, Dixie, your arguements have all been in defense of slavery (there is a good book of the same title which you should read). Watermark, Jefferson wrote a couple of charges against slavery, and as much as I hate him, its historical fact. BTW it was the Declaration, not the Constitution, Dixie, in which he wrote them.

The fact that secession was over slavery makes the war about slavery, and you're an idiot Dixie--and you a punkass Water, for egging him on! You are also lying about the stats, Southern wonderboy! But if you can't grasp 1/3, I suppose stats are impossible as well...

BTW Dixie, it is actually the South who unwittingly made the US Constitution refer to slaves as persons. In their maniacal attempts to write Southern dominance into the Constitution (Virginia Plan, etc.), they allowed the phrase "3/5 of all other persons" to be used. Thus, the Constitution refererred to black slaves as people, despite what you and the idiot Chief Justice Roger B. Taney thought...

Remember, I'm the guy who actually has a history degree...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You guys are both idiots. Dixie is retared and Watermark is way underperforming in his trolling. Yes, Dixie, your arguements have all been in defense of slavery (there is a good book of the same title which you should read). Watermark, Jefferson wrote a couple of charges against slavery, and as much as I hate him, its historical fact. BTW it was the Declaration, not the Constitution, Dixie, in which he wrote them.

The fact that secession was over slavery makes the war about slavery, and you're an idiot Dixie--and you a punkass Water, for egging him on! You are also lying about the stats, Southern wonderboy! But if you can't grasp 1/3, I suppose stats are impossible as well...

BTW Dixie, it is actually the South who unwittingly made the US Constitution refer to slaves as persons. In their maniacal attempts to write Southern dominance into the Constitution (Virginia Plan, etc.), they allowed the phrase "3/5 of all other persons" to be used. Thus, the Constitution refererred to black slaves as people, despite what you and the idiot Chief Justice Roger B. Taney thought...

Remember, I'm the guy who actually has a history degree...

Dixie got schooled again, Asshat style.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You guys are both idiots. Dixie is retared and Watermark is way underperforming in his trolling. Yes, Dixie, your arguements have all been in defense of slavery (there is a good book of the same title which you should read). Watermark, Jefferson wrote a couple of charges against slavery, and as much as I hate him, its historical fact. BTW it was the Declaration, not the Constitution, Dixie, in which he wrote them.

The fact that secession was over slavery makes the war about slavery, and you're an idiot Dixie--and you a punkass Water, for egging him on! You are also lying about the stats, Southern wonderboy! But if you can't grasp 1/3, I suppose stats are impossible as well...

BTW Dixie, it is actually the South who unwittingly made the US Constitution refer to slaves as persons. In their maniacal attempts to write Southern dominance into the Constitution (Virginia Plan, etc.), they allowed the phrase "3/5 of all other persons" to be used. Thus, the Constitution refererred to black slaves as people, despite what you and the idiot Chief Justice Roger B. Taney thought...

Remember, I'm the guy who actually has a history degree...

The fact that the secession couldn't be about slavery, as I have demonstrated here, means the war wasn't about slavery. We've already been through it, had the issue been "slavery" this could have and would have been dealt with politically, through the courts, and that didn't happen. Had the US Congress and SCOTUS voted to emancipate slaves and make them free, and THEN the South seceded and started a war, you would have a valid point. But that is NOT what happened, so you have no validity to your point, rendering what you say as pointless. You can continue to repeat your pointless commentary and false statements all you like, it will still not make it true.

 

[Beefy]

The fact that the secession couldn't be about slavery, as I have demonstrated here, means the war wasn't about slavery. We've already been through it, had the issue been "slavery" this could have and would have been dealt with politically, through the courts, and that didn't happen. Had the US Congress and SCOTUS voted to emancipate slaves and make them free, and THEN the South seceded and started a war, you would have a valid point. But that is NOT what happened, so you have no validity to your point, rendering what you say as pointless. You can continue to repeat your pointless commentary and false statements all you like, it will still not make it true.

Interesting read.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

BTW Dixie, it is actually the South who unwittingly made the US Constitution refer to slaves as persons. In their maniacal attempts to write Southern dominance into the Constitution (Virginia Plan, etc.), they allowed the phrase "3/5 of all other persons" to be used.

LOL... So the North wanted to keep them as non-people? Hmmmm... interesting!! I thought they were on a moral crusade to free the black man? It seems the least they could have done was allow them to be called whole people, doesn't it? It's also amazing that you continue to cite examples of how the US government (not Confederates) had violated the human and constitutional rights of the black man up until, and even after the Civil War. Do you think this makes a compelling case for your argument that the issue of the Civil War was slavery? I think it helps bolster my argument, that the issue was not slavery, or civil rights for black people in any way.


Look, here is what you really need to face Mr. History... It was the US government who declared slaves as personal property, not the Confederate States of America. It was the US government who declared blacks to be 3/5 of a person, not the Confederate States of America. It was the US Constitution interpreted by the US Court, not the Confederates. It was US politicians and leaders who had ignored or prolonged dealing with the issue of slavery, long before the Civil War, not the Confederates. It was a US president who freed only the Southern slaves, DURING the Civil War!

You live in some perverted liberal fantasy world, where you think Lincoln was down with the brothers, and out there fighting for their civil rights like MLK! The Civil War is like a retrospective predecessor to Civil Rights of the mid 1960's! Bunch of racist and heartless Southerner's wanted to keep slaves and the North had to stand up for the noble and moral cause of Freedom For All! Really, it's fine if that is what you want to believe, it's just not rooted or based in reality. It is a typical American public school textbook viewpoint of the Civil War!

You must try to broaden your intellect here, and understand that we are talking about war. Not just ANY war, but a Civil War, a brutal and costly Civil War, with casualties higher than any we have ever endured as a nation. Wars do not happen (in the real world) over simple things. Simple 'right/wrong' issues like Slavery, are easily settled. To argue that we fought this most brutal of wars over a single simplistic 'right/wrong' issue, is on about a 12-year-old level of intelligence.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Interesting read.

LOL. Whenever I saw Dixie's rants the first thing I thought about was that retarded book. They actually carry it down here at our barnes and nobles. Complete and total southern revisionism we should've done away with a hundred years ago. Whenever I was in primary school my teachers would always tell me that slaves had it good on the plantation, and that they were treated well. This was in 1996.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The fact that the secession couldn't be about slavery, as I have demonstrated here, means the war wasn't about slavery. We've already been through it, had the issue been "slavery" this could have and would have been dealt with politically, through the courts, and that didn't happen. Had the US Congress and SCOTUS voted to emancipate slaves and make them free, and THEN the South seceded and started a war, you would have a valid point. But that is NOT what happened, so you have no validity to your point, rendering what you say as pointless. You can continue to repeat your pointless commentary and false statements all you like, it will still not make it true.

Dix, there was a call for a secession conference in 1850 during the controversy over the Compromise of 1850 (see The Confederate States of America for more details), because it was seen as selling out. Until Winfield Scot (viewed as anti-slavery) ran in 1852, the Whigs never inspired fear in the South, but the moment the GOP rose up, there was talk of secession in the event that either Freemont or Lincoln got elected. Secession was only ever threatened in the event of a threat to slavery. The South viewed such an outcome as being no different than an acutal vote or ruling.

LOL... So the North wanted to keep them as non-people? Hmmmm... interesting!! I thought they were on a moral crusade to free the black man? It seems the least they could have done was allow them to be called whole people, doesn't it? It's also amazing that you continue to cite examples of how the US government (not Confederates) had violated the human and constitutional rights of the black man up until, and even after the Civil War. Do you think this makes a compelling case for your argument that the issue of the Civil War was slavery? I think it helps bolster my argument, that the issue was not slavery, or civil rights for black people in any way.

Given their way, total Union being the goal, the North would have completely ignored the matter. But when the South demanded that slaves count as population, the North couldn't completely call bullshit (Franklin famously demanded that Pennsylvania be allowed to count cattle), so they offered 3/5.

Look, here is what you really need to face Mr. History... It was the US government who declared slaves as personal property, not the Confederate States of America. It was the US government who declared blacks to be 3/5 of a person, not the Confederate States of America. It was the US Constitution interpreted by the US Court, not the Confederates. It was US politicians and leaders who had ignored or prolonged dealing with the issue of slavery, long before the Civil War, not the Confederates. It was a US president who freed only the Southern slaves, DURING the Civil War!

So, you deny ever having been a part of the US, Mr. Mathematician? Since blacks were called "persons" it was illegal for them to be regarded as property. 56 years of Southern rule meant the Court was packed with liberal justices, as you very well know. When the people you are attempting to work with are total morons from the South and you are determined not to cause any ruptures, the matter gets swept under the rug (ala Whig Party). Dix, your lies and distortions are completely evil. I already explained why Lincoln didn't declared slaves free in the border states.

You live in some perverted liberal fantasy world, where you think Lincoln was down with the brothers, and out there fighting for their civil rights like MLK! The Civil War is like a retrospective predecessor to Civil Rights of the mid 1960's! Bunch of racist and heartless Southerner's wanted to keep slaves and the North had to stand up for the noble and moral cause of Freedom For All! Really, it's fine if that is what you want to believe, it's just not rooted or based in reality. It is a typical American public school textbook viewpoint of the Civil War!

I think it is clear Lincoln was not racist. Even compared to his fellow abolitionists, Lincoln was particularly caring for the slaves.

You must try to broaden your intellect here, and understand that we are talking about war. Not just ANY war, but a Civil War, a brutal and costly Civil War, with casualties higher than any we have ever endured as a nation. Wars do not happen (in the real world) over simple things. Simple 'right/wrong' issues like Slavery, are easily settled. To argue that we fought this most brutal of wars over a single simplistic 'right/wrong' issue, is on about a 12-year-old level of intelligence.

You have yet to write anything intelligent. This is standard from you, and I see it everywhere you post. There is a reason why everyone here thinks you are an idiot. I also take offense to be called a liberal. The people who lost the Civil War were liberals. Don't come to me mincing labels. Just because the South lost control of its liberal party to a new, Northern liberalism does not mean we all have to play ignorant about how to name spades (I find the whole Neocon label to be a bad joke).