Change???

[Minister of Truth]

Oh, and Dix: your sophomoric argument that the Congress never moved for a ban gives me the priviledge to say that since the North did abolish slavery after the war and issued a civil rights amendment and act, that they were non-racist, because look at what they did on paper!!!!

I mean, forget rationalism. Forget reading between the lines, all the bullshit they teach you in poli sci classes, and forget sociology and psychology, and the human condition. Clearly all Northerners were just like Lincoln and MLK!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

Even though actual votes and rulings is how we had operated as a nation the preceding 80-some-odd years? That makes no sense, it defies rational logic that the south would abandon the method of resolving these issues which had worked so well to that point. Secession was threatened because of a federal power play on the states with the election of Federalist, Abe Lincoln. During the campaign of 1860, Lincoln ran away from the Abolitionist label like Obama is running from the Liberal label. In order to reassure his voters, he said, "I don't believe the Negro to be equal to the white European, and would never suggest they should hold the same place in society with them."

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.

Franklin wasn't around for the Civil War, it was after his time. But still, you throw out example after example to prove my point, it was not the CSA who had denied rights to black people all those years, was it?

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.

I never denied anything, moron. You seemed to be denying the US had any culpability regarding slavery, and it was only something the Southern Confederacy favored, in fact, you consider this the issue the war was fought over! The fact is, it WASN'T illegal to regard them as property, the US Supreme Court had determined this, and it was the Law of the Land!

And OMG... The Southerners were packin' the court with activists, they packed Congress with racists, and they controlled all branches of government for 80-something years before the Civil War, and suddenly Lincoln managed to win an election, and the Brave Noble Moral Crusaders from the Abolitionist North who didn't have a racist bone in their bodies, could finally stand up and defeat the racist slave-holding South! Man, you live in a fucking delusion!

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

Read the quote I posted above, doesn't it sound a lot like something David Duke might say? In fairness, we are talking about a different era, a different time, a different social culture, and this is where your argument fails. You don't seem to understand the United States of America hasn't always been this big politically correct liberal activist paradise where we loved everyone of all races, ethnicity, and creed. You have presented a false argument which says the South favored slavery and the North didn't, and this was the reason for the war. That has been demonstrated not to be the case, in regard to the previous history of the US in the years preceding the Civil War. The issue of Slavery was similar to the issue of Abortion today, in that, it crossed state lines, it was mixed in almost every part of the nation. Certain areas favored one side over another more, because of the circumstances regarding the issue itself, but by-and-large, America was deeply divided for many years, over the issue of slavery.

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).

Well you sure as fuck are responding an awful lot to someone who isn't posting something intelligent, what does that say for you? I have often found, attacking someone personally because you can't refute their points, is not a very good debate tactic.

I don't know if you are a Liberal or not, you certainly are a bigot. You have stereotyped Southerners as racists who fought for slavery, and have built this huge perception in your mind of how the North was not racist at all, and they had to defeat the South to free the black man. I have shown you where you are wrong, in some cases, with your very own points!

The issues surrounding the bloodiest war in our history, are complex and not easily resolved. I have outlined most of them in this thread, but the point has been to refute your simplistic notion that the war was based on the issue of whether humans should be kept as slaves and property. If this had been The Issue, we could have simply avoided war by having a vote! Better yet, we could have lobbied our elected representatives and had them amend our Constitution! The point I have been trying to get you to understand, is the war was not about Slavery, or any one single, simple, easily settled issue.

Yes, slavery played a supporting role, I haven't denied that. At the time, slaves were considered by the US court and the US government, to be personal private property, and the 4th Amendment is very clear about governments ability to seize or confiscate personal private property. You continue to ignore this point, but it is a fact you have to accept to understand the complexity surrounding the reasons for the war.

To continue an argument which casts the South as racists who wanted slavery and the North as Anti-racists who wanted Abolition, is an unfair analysis of the facts and reality of the time. You do this to prop up your myth that all Southerners are racists, always have been, always will be! This is how a bigoted mind works, and why I said you were indeed a bigot.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Even though actual votes and rulings is how we had operated as a nation the preceding 80-some-odd years? That makes no sense, it defies rational logic that the south would abandon the method of resolving these issues which had worked so well to that point. Secession was threatened because of a federal power play on the states with the election of Federalist, Abe Lincoln. During the campaign of 1860, Lincoln ran away from the Abolitionist label like Obama is running from the Liberal label. In order to reassure his voters, he said, "I don't believe the Negro to be equal to the white European, and would never suggest they should hold the same place in society with them."

How we had operated from 1801 to the 1850's was via the 3/5 Clause and Southern rule. No votes were taken on the matter, and Supreme Court rulings were ignored when Dems didn't like them (Trail of Tears) and worshiped when the Dems did like them (Dred Scot). Lincoln could not have won with the Abolitionist label - today's Dems are stupid to think that running from labels will win them elections (ala Kerry, who still lost handily).

When Freemont lost in 1856, the Dems realized that for a Republican to win next time, all they would need to do is capture the remaining Whig holdouts which upset the election, and acquire Indiana which had gone for Buchanan. Had Freemont won, the secession would have occurred in 1856, because Freemont was unabashedly abolitionist and proud of the label!

Franklin wasn't around for the Civil War, it was after his time. But still, you throw out example after example to prove my point, it was not the CSA who had denied rights to black people all those years, was it?

But you spoke of the Founding, also, so try to follow a conversation to wherever you draw it to, por favor. Yes, ONLY Southern states balked at the idea of abolition while EVERY Northern state except Deleware had abolished it during the Revolution (something about wanting to live up to its principles or sickening schmaltziness to that effect).

I never denied anything, moron. You seemed to be denying the US had any culpability regarding slavery, and it was only something the Southern Confederacy favored, in fact, you consider this the issue the war was fought over! The fact is, it WASN'T illegal to regard them as property, the US Supreme Court had determined this, and it was the Law of the Land!

And OMG... The Southerners were packin' the court with activists, they packed Congress with racists, and they controlled all branches of government for 80-something years before the Civil War, and suddenly Lincoln managed to win an election, and the Brave Noble Moral Crusaders from the Abolitionist North who didn't have a racist bone in their bodies, could finally stand up and defeat the racist slave-holding South! Man, you live in a fucking delusion!

You have repeatedly referred to "my" government and Constitution, in order to throw the blame in my direction. This means you deny being a part of the same system. First of all, it was 60 years. Secondly, the South was the most populous region in 1789 but slowly lost that edge while immigrants poured into the North. Lincoln did not "suddenly win," the breakthrough came in 1856 when Freemont nearly won. It was an incident waiting to happen, and it did. Oh, and you're right - the North couldn't have had a single racist bone in its body because it passed three amendments and a civil rights bill, and it impeached a Democrat, nearly throwing him out of office.

Read the quote I posted above, doesn't it sound a lot like something David Duke might say? In fairness, we are talking about a different era, a different time, a different social culture, and this is where your argument fails. You don't seem to understand the United States of America hasn't always been this big politically correct liberal activist paradise where we loved everyone of all races, ethnicity, and creed. You have presented a false argument which says the South favored slavery and the North didn't, and this was the reason for the war. That has been demonstrated not to be the case, in regard to the previous history of the US in the years preceding the Civil War. The issue of Slavery was similar to the issue of Abortion today, in that, it crossed state lines, it was mixed in almost every part of the nation. Certain areas favored one side over another more, because of the circumstances regarding the issue itself, but by-and-large, America was deeply divided for many years, over the issue of slavery.

We are not talking about different times. As you said, where is the legislation (well, there was all of those Civil War and Reconstruction era actions)? Abortion today has been targeted by the GOP with the exact same strategy - contain and smother it, and Roe is the Dred Scot that pissed us off and spurred us to action because it forced the issue upon our states.

Well you sure as fuck are responding an awful lot to someone who isn't posting something intelligent, what does that say for you? I have often found, attacking someone personally because you can't refute their points, is not a very good debate tactic.

I don't know if you are a Liberal or not, you certainly are a bigot. You have stereotyped Southerners as racists who fought for slavery, and have built this huge perception in your mind of how the North was not racist at all, and they had to defeat the South to free the black man. I have shown you where you are wrong, in some cases, with your very own points!

The issues surrounding the bloodiest war in our history, are complex and not easily resolved. I have outlined most of them in this thread, but the point has been to refute your simplistic notion that the war was based on the issue of whether humans should be kept as slaves and property. If this had been The Issue, we could have simply avoided war by having a vote! Better yet, we could have lobbied our elected representatives and had them amend our Constitution! The point I have been trying to get you to understand, is the war was not about Slavery, or any one single, simple, easily settled issue.

Yes, slavery played a supporting role, I haven't denied that. At the time, slaves were considered by the US court and the US government, to be personal private property, and the 4th Amendment is very clear about governments ability to seize or confiscate personal private property. You continue to ignore this point, but it is a fact you have to accept to understand the complexity surrounding the reasons for the war.

To continue an argument which casts the South as racists who wanted slavery and the North as Anti-racists who wanted Abolition, is an unfair analysis of the facts and reality of the time. You do this to prop up your myth that all Southerners are racists, always have been, always will be! This is how a bigoted mind works, and why I said you were indeed a bigot.

Yes, I am a proud bigot towards the South. What is there to like about it? I see nothing except a stupid people who ruined my country and celebrate an evil past not worth a warm bucket of spit.

As you said, let's look at the actions of those involved, and the North freed the slaves and granted them civil rights, so they must have not been racists, right? The truth is, my nation's bloodiest war was not bloody enough, because clearly not enough Southerners died it. Sadly, we didn't have patriot missiles and nuclear bombs in the Northern arsenol back then, and only one General Sherman fighting for us.

What I will say is that, I am a traditional conservative Republican who would have voted for Coolidge, Dewey, and Eisenhower while Southerners voted solidly for Dems like Truman and Stevenson. This is why I think America has finally run out of options, because now the Left has taken over most of the states and the GOP has turned to South - if America needs the South to survive then it must be already dead and just hasn't dropped yet (luminous poisoning, anyone?)...

This is why I am here debating with you. I am looking back at all the failures that brought us to this dark moment, where the end appears near. Hopefully, like everyone else who has ever asserted that, that I have made the same miscalculations, but I doubt it... Thanks for nothing South - it seems obvious that Unionism was not worth a damn because it included you in it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How we had operated from 1801 to the 1850's was via the 3/5 Clause and Southern rule. No votes were taken on the matter, and Supreme Court rulings were ignored when Dems didn't like them (Trail of Tears) and worshiped when the Dems did like them (Dred Scot). Lincoln could not have won with the Abolitionist label - today's Dems are stupid to think that running from labels will win them elections (ala Kerry, who still lost handily).

The 3/5 Clause was the work of the United States government, not the Confederate government, that IS my fucking point! I don't give a shit about party affiliations or which party was fucking up the works for whom, the FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT was responsible for slaves being deemed property, for the Supreme Court that repeatedly ruled they were property, and for the Constitution that prohibited the government from seizing said property. This has nothing to do with political parties or ideologies, it was the fucking law of the land since our inception, and if they didn't want it to be, they would have changed it!

When Freemont lost in 1856, the Dems realized that for a Republican to win next time, all they would need to do is capture the remaining Whig holdouts which upset the election, and acquire Indiana which had gone for Buchanan. Had Freemont won, the secession would have occurred in 1856, because Freemont was unabashedly abolitionist and proud of the label!

Again, you are bogging yourself down in minute details of political nuances from that day, and forming some rather obvious speculative opinions on the way. The bottom line is this, slavery was legal, it was upheld by the US Supreme Court, not the CSA, not The South, not the Confederacy.

But you spoke of the Founding, also, so try to follow a conversation to wherever you draw it to, por favor. Yes, ONLY Southern states balked at the idea of abolition while EVERY Northern state except Deleware had abolished it during the Revolution (something about wanting to live up to its principles or sickening schmaltziness to that effect).

If only the Southern stated balked at the idea, then it would have easily passed in Congress, had they taken action on it. But they didn't, and you will honestly admit why they didn't outside the context of this point, which is why I don't follow your thinking here. On the one hand, you say it was so popular an idea, all the northern states except Delaware had done it, but on the other hand, it wasn't a popular enough idea for Congress to take action, for a President to be elected on it, or for the Supreme Court to overturn their ruling slaves were property and 3/5 of a person. Sorry, but you just can't have it both ways, it was either widely popular or it wasn't popular enough. The only explanation you have had, is this little tapdance you want to do regarding Southern strong-arm dominance for all those years, keeping the North from doing what they wanted all along.

You have repeatedly referred to "my" government and Constitution, in order to throw the blame in my direction.

Yes, as an American, I want you to share the blame and stop casting it only on Southern Americans. Stop pretending the North was this bunch of righteously moral non-racist people who had always opposed slavery and finally became able to do something about it. To me, that is offensive and sickening. It undercuts the responsibility our entire nation bears for the issue of slavery, and it is patently unfair and an unfair stereotype to cast on one particular region because you are a fucking bigot.

We are not talking about different times. As you said, where is the legislation (well, there was all of those Civil War and Reconstruction era actions)? Abortion today has been targeted by the GOP with the exact same strategy - contain and smother it, and Roe is the Dred Scot that pissed us off and spurred us to action because it forced the issue upon our states.

Again, you can't point to legislation that was passed in the wake of the Civil War to exonerate US responsibility for slavery before the war. The question was, where was the legislation BEFORE the war? Did the brave and noble moral crusader from the North even attempt to emancipate the slaves? No... they protested them even being called whole people, likened them to cattle, and were just as racist toward black people as the Southerners ever were.

Yes, I am a proud bigot towards the South. What is there to like about it? I see nothing except a stupid people who ruined my country and celebrate an evil past not worth a warm bucket of spit.

At least you admit you are bigoted. Most bigots are simply too narrow minded to think they are.

As you said, let's look at the actions of those involved, and the North freed the slaves and granted them civil rights, so they must have not been racists, right?

The North didn't "free" anyone or give anyone "civil rights" the US government did. The US Government freed the slaves after almost a century of calling them property, and gave them civil rights after yet another century of denying them equality under the law.

The truth is, my nation's bloodiest war was not bloody enough, because clearly not enough Southerners died it. Sadly, we didn't have patriot missiles and nuclear bombs in the Northern arsenol back then, and only one General Sherman fighting for us.

What Sherman did, would have made Abu Grahib look like a Sunday School Picnic. There is arguably no greater war criminal to ever serve the US military.

What I will say is that, I am a traditional conservative Republican who would have voted for Coolidge, Dewey, and Eisenhower while Southerners voted solidly for Dems like Truman and Stevenson. This is why I think America has finally run out of options, because now the Left has taken over most of the states and the GOP has turned to South - if America needs the South to survive then it must be already dead and just hasn't dropped yet (luminous poisoning, anyone?)...

I don't really give a fuck what you are, as far as I am concerned you are an ignorant hate-filled bigot. You deserve spit in the face, and that is about it.

This is why I am here debating with you. I am looking back at all the failures that brought us to this dark moment, where the end appears near. Hopefully, like everyone else who has ever asserted that, that I have made the same miscalculations, but I doubt it... Thanks for nothing South - it seems obvious that Unionism was not worth a damn because it included you in it.

No, you are wallowing in your hatred and bigotry for the South, and trying to find a way to assuage your guilty conscience by transferring your guilt to the South in the form of blame for something they weren't responsible for.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Dixie, the US government from 1861 through the decade did not include the South. Hence, the NORTH freed the slaves. The North never wanted unfree men to count as census population (whether in full or part), nor did it want slavery to exist at all - Hence, the SOUTH is entirely responsible for it. Try casting blame on me on your day of judgement, when you are called to answer for you defense of Southern secession. I am also using your argument to paint the Northerners as angels, so, whatever...

The fact is, morals and character count for everything. You are displaying none, and Southerners back in the day did the same. They can all burn in hell for that. I consider Sherman to have been a great man, btw. Its your damn region that is responsable for the failure of the Spirit of '76 to enspire good governance under the Constitution.

Also, because they were called "persons" the US government never called them property until Dred Scot. The Southern Constitution of 1861 did call them slaves, however, substituting the word for persons. Now I will go wallow in my complete and total hatred and bigotry for the South.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, the US government from 1861 through the decade did not include the South. Hence, the NORTH freed the slaves. The North never wanted unfree men to count as census population (whether in full or part), nor did it want slavery to exist at all - Hence, the SOUTH is entirely responsible for it. Try casting blame on me on your day of judgement, when you are called to answer for you defense of Southern secession. I am also using your argument to paint the Northerners as angels, so, whatever...

The fact is, morals and character count for everything. You are displaying none, and Southerners back in the day did the same. They can all burn in hell for that. I consider Sherman to have been a great man, btw. Its your damn region that is responsable for the failure of the Spirit of '76 to enspire good governance under the Constitution.

Also, because they were called "persons" the US government never called them property until Dred Scot. The Southern Constitution of 1861 did call them slaves, however, substituting the word for persons. Now I will go wallow in my complete and total hatred and bigotry for the South.

Well, good, hope you have a nice wallow in it. For the record, anytime you admit a bigoted view, you immediately nullify any and all credibility on an issue. This would be like me arguing racial equality with a racial bigot, it is futile because of the bigotry. You want to pretend the South fought the Civil War over Slavery, and nothing I can show you to the contrary matters, that is what you want to pretend is reality. You want to imagine a North which was devoid of racism and sought only to free the poor oppressed black man, when I have shown you, this is far from the case. You can't provide any answer for why this country had not dealt with the issue before the Civil War, other than some silly and ridiculous claim that the Southerners blocked any attempts made, even though, there were no attempts ever made that I am aware of. You want to blame the US Supreme court ruling that slaves were property, on the Confederate States of America who hadn't even been established when that decision was reached. You want to blame the South for relegating blacks to 3/5th's personhood, when it was the South who argued for them to be counted as whole people, and the North refused for political reasons. The North didn't give a shit about black people or their rights, they cared about political power and control. Yet, you will find a way to blame it all on the South, because the South is a scapegoat for your bigotry and hate.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, the US government from 1861 through the decade did not include the South.

This is incorrect. 1861-1864 the South was part of the CSA. After the Civil War, they were part of the US. Ironically, the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Lincoln, didn't free a single slave, it ordered slaves freed in states under control of the CSA, and border states were not effected.

Some other interesting tidbits you have failed to mention...

In August of 1861, (the US) Congress passed (nearly unanimously) the Crittenden-Johnson resolution declaring that the war was not fought for the purpose of "overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States," but only to "defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union.

On 2 March 1861, the Lincoln controlled 36th U. S. Congress (minus, of course, the seven seceded states of the Deep South) passed by a two-thirds majority a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Had it been ratified by the requisite number of states before the war intervened and signed by President Lincoln (who looked favourably on it as a way to lure the Southern states back into the Union), the proposed 13th Amendment would have prohibited the U. S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state.

The pretense that the North was really fighting to end slavery had made a few converts in Europe, but when General Fremont emancipated the slaves in his military district in Missouri, Lincoln promptly dismissed Fremont, rescinded his emancipation order, and sent slaves back to their masters...."from the book "When In the Course of Human Events".

Of even more interest is the fact that all reports acknowledge that black slave labor was used as late as 1865. This means that, according to what is preached by modern, politically correct historians and the NAACP, while the Northern forces of Abraham Lincoln were invading and sacking the South under the guise of freeing slaves, the U.S. government was using slaves to build their government buildings. The hypocrisy in these contradictory actions is too glaring to ignore.

West Virginia was the last slave state admitted to the Union, annexed in 1863. If the western counties of Virginia stuck with the Confederacy, they'd be forced to free their slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation. If they joined the Union, they could keep them. There's just no argument here. You can't say the Union fought to free the slaves when they were busy admitting a new slave state at the same time, as well as having 1/2 million slaves in Union border states. What hypocrisy!

There was a bill before the US congress in 1862 which would have abolished slavery. It was "defeated", even though the Southern States were not in the union.

C'mon Mr. History Man, step up to the plate with your bigoted bat and spin us a yarn about how the wicked South cast some sort of spell on the Northerners to cause all of this! ....Maybe it was the work of Brent's Gnomes and Faeries?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is incorrect. 1861-1864 the South was part of the CSA. After the Civil War, they were part of the US. Ironically, the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Lincoln, didn't free a single slave, it ordered slaves freed in states under control of the CSA, and border states were not effected.

That statement contradicts itself. It ordered slaves free in the CSA but it didn't free in slaves? You do understand that the union was in control of most of the CSA by that time?

Also, Lincoln supported the 13th amendment, which freed all slaves. The fact that the emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves in the border states was probably because he was hesitant to use wartime emergency powers within the homeland. It was a political consideration and a constitutional one.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That statement contradicts itself. It ordered slaves free in the CSA but it didn't free in slaves? You do understand that the union was in control of most of the CSA by that time?

Also, Lincoln supported the 13th amendment, which freed all slaves. The fact that the emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves in the border states was probably because he was hesitant to use wartime emergency powers within the homeland. It was a political consideration and a constitutional one.

The point is, at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, the states he freed slaves in, were not in the control of his government, they were part of the CSA. The war wasn't over, so the CSA still existed and controlled the states in question. The border (US) states were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation, only the CSA states. Strange that this man who wanted nothing but to free the slaves, didn't do so in his own proclamation.

How did West Virginia come into existence? Well, I'll tell you... the people of western Virginia had to decide whether to accept the Emancipation Proclamation, or not... If they accepted it, they got to join the Union and keep their slaves, if they rejected it, they would join the South and have to free their slaves. This was how West Virginia came to be, a Northern state formed on the basis of accepting Emancipation of Southern slaves. But I am sure 3D has a perfectly reasonable explanation for how the South strong-armed them into doing this against their will.

And yes, Lincoln did support the 13th Amendment, but the first version he tried to get passed, would have effectively ended ANY US government action to abolish slavery in ANY State, EVER!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Speaking of facts, Dixie, I don't see you touting the 2% number anymore, just as you no longer debate the merits of 1/3. Despite what that fool Francis Bacon once posited, a rational person can make a clear, reasoned argument despite holding onto idols/prejudices. Afterall, we have them, and there is nothing to be done about it. Usually when you debate with a racist, you are arguing with someone who is too stupid to be considered rational.

Secondly, Dixie, you are trying to use your lack of political astuteness to argue that the Emancipation was meaningless, when you are the only one who doesn't seem to get what the intention behind it was. Secondly, the Critendon Amendment you are referring to was an attempt to preserve the Union, but since the South pulled out, it stopped in its tracks. Finally, the South had no say in government after the war, seeing as how they were mere occupied territories. Thus, the NORTH passed those amendments, and the South had to agree to them when they reapplied for statehood.

Also, most of my rhetorical arguments about racism have been on the basis of the line of argument that you introduced into this debate: that only acts of Congress as seen on paper can be used to define people and issues. Based upon this argument, we can only assume that Northerners were not racists. It is a dumb line of "thought" but throwing it out now would effectively kill all of your arguments.

You have also issued another moronic line of "thought" into this argument. It basically amounts to the "idea" that what one American does represents everyone. The North accepted Southern slavery to preserve the Union, so we are all as equally depraved and evil as the South was. Following this line of "thought," we are all responsible for Japanese internment, segregation, abortion, the Trail of Tears, Waco, and perhaps even acts of terror like the Oklahoma City bombings and Columbine. While this exists in your mind as logical, I can assure you it has no basis in reality.

Finally, and most importantly, you have not offered one shread of evidence of what issue prompted the South to seceed, and what stance exactly that Lincoln held over said issue that would have driven the South to seceed upon his election. Everyone knows that the issue was slavery, and that Lincoln's official stance was to mild to warrant such action on the part of the South (so his official stand on your selected issue may not matter since you could blame paranoia) .

Nice try, Mr. Mathematician.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Speaking of facts, Dixie, I don't see you touting the 2% number anymore, just as you no longer debate the merits of 1/3. Despite what that fool Francis Bacon once posited, a rational person can make a clear, reasoned argument despite holding onto idols/prejudices. Afterall, we have them, and there is nothing to be done about it. Usually when you debate with a racist, you are arguing with someone who is too stupid to be considered rational.

I see no reason to re-post points I have already made, which have not been refuted, what would be the purpose of me doing that? I will be glad to debate 1/3 with you, 1/3=.333E! --I win. Just as 2% of southerners owned slaves, according to the census reports of that time. It's not debatable.--I win!

As for your statement about prejudiced people forming a rational argument, it would be nice if you accepted this with regard to the Southerners of 1860 America. Their rational argument was over tariffs and government punishing agriculture to subsidize the industrialist north. The rational argument surrounding slavery was, if the slaves are property, what "right" does the government have to them? I don't have to agree with this argument to recognize it is a legitimate argument, those are two different things. Usually when you debate with a bigot, the same thing happens with a racist.

Secondly, Dixie, you are trying to use your lack of political astuteness to argue that the Emancipation was meaningless, when you are the only one who doesn't seem to get what the intention behind it was.

No no no... I never argued that the Emancipation Proclamation was meaningless. I stated a fact about the actual proclamation issued by the "abolitionist believer in equal rights for blacks" Abe Lincoln. He emancipated the slaves in the states which were part of the CSA, but NOT the 1/2 million slaves in the US border states. Before you throw out the "Southern Strong-arm" argument again, the Southern states were part of the CSA at the time, they didn't do this, Lincoln and the US did.

Secondly, the Critendon Amendment you are referring to was an attempt to preserve the Union, but since the South pulled out, it stopped in its tracks.

Well, yeah, I guess the war kind of settled the issue of dangling a carrot to the South, didn't it? Remember, I am not arguing in favor of slavery or for the purity of the South here, you have argued for the purity of the North and blamed the South. I am schooling you on what took place during that time, and demonstrating that the North was just as racially prejudiced against blacks and just as supporting of slavery as the South. They weren't "diligently working to try and free the slaves" while the South dominated them.

Finally, the South had no say in government after the war, seeing as how they were mere occupied territories. Thus, the NORTH passed those amendments, and the South had to agree to them when they reapplied for statehood.

Where did you learn US History? The southern states were as much a part of the United States as any, after the Civil War. We had Reconstruction, but the states elected representatives and sent people to Congress and participated in the process. For a brief period after the war, the South was an "occupied territory" and books have been written about how the Union Army was instructed to literally starve Southerners to death, rather than having to take care of them or house and shelter them as refugees. Another chapter in your illustrious US History you apparently want to forget about, and hoped that I didn't know about.

Also, most of my rhetorical arguments about racism have been on the basis of the line of argument that you introduced into this debate: that only acts of Congress as seen on paper can be used to define people and issues. Based upon this argument, we can only assume that Northerners were not racists. It is a dumb line of "thought" but throwing it out now would effectively kill all of your arguments.

You already assume Northerners are not racist!!!! That has been your idiotic point all along, that you think Southerners are racists who wanted to keep slavery and Northerners were pure as the wind-driven snow abolitionists who had been fighting to free the poor black people for years. You are a total crock of shit.

I've not argued anything, I have presented FACTS! What is on paper, what is the record of events, what is the evidence to show or prove your point, are valid and important things to introduce in a debate or argument. I certainly understand why you want to throw out the facts and pretend what's on paper doesn't exist, but it does and you need to face the truth and stop lying to yourself.

You have also issued another moronic line of "thought" into this argument. It basically amounts to the "idea" that what one American does represents everyone.

WTF? ...Ever heard of "Democracy?" I think this is a pretty general "thought" among people who believe in American liberty and freedom.

The North accepted Southern slavery to preserve the Union, so we are all as equally depraved and evil as the South was.

No, we settled this before... The North accepted Northern slavery while emancipating Southern slaves. See: Emancipation Proclamation

Following this line of "thought," we are all responsible for Japanese internment, segregation, abortion, the Trail of Tears, Waco, and perhaps even acts of terror like the Oklahoma City bombings and Columbine. While this exists in your mind as logical, I can assure you it has no basis in reality.

In a sense, we are all responsible. There is no escaping our responsibilities for what America has done. Some of us can construct bigoted stereotypes, as you have, and manage to convince themselves they have no responsibility in the matter, it was all someone else's fault. Or, we can accept our role as humans, admit we have made terrible mistakes in our past, our government has not been perfect, injustices have happened, and we are all responsible as the people who's voice is heard through the electorate.

Finally, and most importantly, you have not offered one shread of evidence of what issue prompted the South to seceed, and what stance exactly that Lincoln held over said issue that would have driven the South to seceed upon his election. Everyone knows that the issue was slavery, and that Lincoln's official stance was to mild to warrant such action on the part of the South (so his official stand on your selected issue may not matter since you could blame paranoia) .

Nice try, Mr. Mathematician.

No, everyone doesn't "know" it was slavery, you want to argue it was slavery, but that argument has been soundly refuted and proven inadequate.

You want evidence the South was not prompted to succeed over the issue of slavery? Ok, how about this... not one southern state who threatened to succeed, even used the word "slavery" in any of their formal arguments. The formal positions taken by every southern state, regarded tariffs and unfair taxation of agricultural business in the South, and states rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Then there is the 1862 resolution passed (almost unanimously) in Congress, (with no southern states) which specifically says the war was not about slavery.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dixie, if you really want to learn about the Civil War you need to read a credible source, such as Shelby Foote instead of some lunatic fringe writers.

 

[Onceler]

Wow - sounds like one of Dixie's "Iraq wasn't about WMD's" rants...

 

[Socrtease]

Can ANYONE point to a single document of Secession where Slavery was not the overwhelming cause mentition for Secession? South Carolina talks most of the document about the history of the US and that the constitution was a contract which they could breach when they felt the ends of the government are destructive to the people of South Carolina and they they talk about nothing but slavery, how the northern states violate the Fugitive Slave Act, how slavery is a state issue how Lincoln is hostile to slave states.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html


Mississippi's document literally can't get through 3 sentences without saying that Slavery is the reason they are leaving.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_mississippi.html

This is the FIRST LINE of the Georgia document: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_georgia.html

By the third Paragraph of the Texas document they are on slavery.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html

The issue of slavery was the ONLY overwhelming issue that the south thought was a "State's rights issue" even though the term state's rights was rarely if EVER used early in the conflict.

 

[Epicurus]

To say that the war was fought over state's rights is not to deny that it was also fought over slavery. The issue of slavery was a subsection of the larger issue of state's rights.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

To say that the war was fought over state's rights is not to deny that it was also fought over slavery. The issue of slavery was a subsection of the larger issue of state's rights.

Correct, and this is the point I have been making. The viewpoint that the Civil War was fought over slavery, is the common 8th grade understanding because this is what our kids are taught in public school. That is why you have so many morons here, insisting they know what the fuck they are talking about. Most of them went to public school, made it to the 8th grade, and remember some teacher telling them this was the reason for the Civil War.

When you intellectually consider this, it fails every test of common sense and logic. No war is ever fought over simple 'right/wrong' single issues like slavery. Especially not a country where the foundation is We The People, and these issues can easily be settled at the ballot box or through elected representation. Slavery itself was not the issue, and had it been, it could have been resolved without bloodshed.

States rights was the primary fundamental issue, and it had more to do with unfair tariffs and federalism, than slavery. The actual issue of whether blacks should be enslaved, was also not the issue regarding the debate of slavery. The US Supreme Court and US government, had officially recognized slaves as personal property, and according to the 4th Amendment, wasn't the federal government's concern. If Ferguson and Plessy had been ruled on differently, this might not be the case, but it was the US Supreme Court who determined what they did, and the South simply pointed out this glaring contradiction with regard to the issue of slavery and abolition.

My point has not been to defend slavery, or attack abolition, but merely to point out some relevant facts and come to the understanding the war was not fought over the simple issue of enslavement. But beyond this point, is the fundamental and ethical point of respect for those who have died in battle. Not a single Confederate soldier ever owned a slave, and probably never would have, even if the South had won the war. Those young men were as American as you and I, and they fought bravely for a cause, and that cause was not slavery. I have two ancestors (brothers) who fought and died in the Civil War, and I have an ancestor who fought and died in the American Revolution. To me, all 3 of them were brave and courageous men who don't deserve to have their names besmirched and the flag they died fighting under, relegated to some perverted symbol of racism.

People see my avatar and assume I support the KKK, but I deplore what these groups have done with the Confederate flag. It is largely because of their actions, we have this politically correct disdain for the flag, and gross misconceptions about the war itself. I use the avatar out of respect and reverence for my dead relatives, and to combat the myths surrounding our most bloody war. I find it amazingly handy at pointing out and exposing bigots for what they are, because those who see my avatar and make prejudiced stereotypical judgments based on it, are most often bigoted in their views.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Can ANYONE point to a single document of Secession where Slavery was not the overwhelming cause mentition for Secession? South Carolina talks most of the document about the history of the US and that the constitution was a contract which they could breach when they felt the ends of the government are destructive to the people of South Carolina and they they talk about nothing but slavery, how the northern states violate the Fugitive Slave Act, how slavery is a state issue how Lincoln is hostile to slave states.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html


Mississippi's document literally can't get through 3 sentences without saying that Slavery is the reason they are leaving.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_mississippi.html

This is the FIRST LINE of the Georgia document: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_georgia.html

By the third Paragraph of the Texas document they are on slavery.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html

The issue of slavery was the ONLY overwhelming issue that the south thought was a "State's rights issue" even though the term state's rights was rarely if EVER used early in the conflict.

I have read every one of those, and none of them specify slavery as the issue prompting succession. In almost every case, the reasons cited for succession is the rights of the states as guaranteed by the Constitution. There are many points made about Federal encroachment on states rights, and this seems to be a common complaint among the documents you posted.

I encourage you all to read these, and not only read the words and try to find things to hurl at me in rage or hate, but really read the words with an open mind, and in the context of 1860 America, with the contextual understandings of what the courts and laws were at that time. It is not a support or endorsement of slavery to admit the South had a legitimate complaint.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, if you really want to learn about the Civil War you need to read a credible source, such as Shelby Foote instead of some lunatic fringe writers.

Being that I am a Son of the Confederacy, I have probably read more books on the Civil War than you've read books. It's not fringe lunacy to point out the legitimate arguments made by the southern states. It may be politically incorrect to point these out, you may have a bigoted mind that prevents you from seeing the point or understanding the fundamental principles and concerns, but that doesn't equate to fringe lunacy.

 

[Socrtease]

To say that the war was fought over state's rights is not to deny that it was also fought over slavery. The issue of slavery was a subsection of the larger issue of state's rights.

Really which ones, and show me in each of the secession documents HOW much of the document is involved in describing those issues.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Really which ones, and show me in each of the secession documents HOW much of the document is involved in describing those issues.

The issues, as they pertained to slavery, doesn't make the issue slavery. This seem to be what you are missing. Keep in mind, slavery was not illegal, and the US courts had ruled slaves were personal property. Here's a little experiment you can use to prove the point, take any one of those documents and replace the word "slave" and "slavery" with "auto" and "automobile" and see if you conclude they succeeded because of "cars."

Right now, buying and owning a car is legal in America. Your car is your property, and the government is not entitled to it, according to the US Constitution. Now, what IF... Liberals began a movement to eradicate all cars and car ownership in America? Would the issue be seen as "CARS" or would it be the issue of government's right to seize your property? If some states protested this unconstitutional action by the government, would they be seen as people who just wanted to keep driving cars, or would it be a more fundamental issue of property rights?