TX schools will now teach that Civil War was all about slavery!!!

[Text Drivers are Killers]

suggest you read the articles of secession by the various traitor states. Secession was indeed all about slavery in the traitors own words.

How many times must we explain this??? Everyone agrees the south supported slavery and it was a major reason why they seceded. But the south did not want a war and did not start one. There should have never been a civil war. The union should have let the south go.

Secession is very common in history.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

i actually do hate this. Once you say "slavery" the mind just turns off and repeats that as the cause of the civil war. It removes all opportunity for critical thinking such as economic issues, foreign policy issues, etc etc.

Oh please spare me any idiotic Lost Cause revisionist excuses.

Want to know what the biggest primary issue the American Civil War was about?

Go read the articles of succession by the seceding States.

Now let’s keep in mind TDK is using a very cleverly phrased title. The American Civil war wasn’t “All” about slavery. The facts are overwhelming that the single issue that caused the war and for which it was fought over was slavery. No issue of slavery, no Civil War. That’s a fact and it was known as such at the time of the war as evidenced by the primary sources of that time.

It was after the Civil War in the late 19th century that Southern apologist felt compelled to rationalize the South’s losing a war defending a truly terrible cause that they trotted out their lost Cause mythologies.

So if you’re going to trot any of those bogus arguments out and have the unmitigated gall to accuse others of not thinking critically than you sir will be guilty of projection,

But feel free to try. The Lost Cause Mythologies are childishly easy to refute with the facts.

 

[Minister of Truth]

How many times must we explain this??? Everyone agrees the south supported slavery and it was a major reason why they seceded. But the south did not want a war and did not start one. There should have never been a civil war. The union should have let the south go.

Secession is very common in history.

If the CSA didn't want a war, then why did it attack America?

 

[kudzu]

If the CSA didn't want a war, then why did it attack America?

Remember Fort Sumter?

The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina by the Confederate States Army, and the return gunfire and subsequent surrender by the United States Army, that started the American Civil War. Following the declaration of secession by South Carolina on December 20, 1860, its authorities demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor.

On December 26, Major Robert Anderson of the U.S. Army surreptitiously moved his small command from the vulnerable Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress built on an island controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor.

An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area except for Fort Sumter.

continued

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

 

[kudzu]

The Religious Defense
of American Slavery Before 1830

Larry R. Morrison

Historians, because of their own moral sensibilities, have consistently undervalued
the slaveholding ethic. However, as Donald G. Mathews has recently
shown, this viewpoint was just as natural and consistent as was evangelical
abolitionism.1

The foundation upon which the slaveholding ethic and the
proslavery argument was built was the scriptural defense of slavery.
Nearly every proslavery pamphlet, or article, or speaker made at least some
reference to a biblical sanction of slavery. The reason for such a position should
be clear. From the very beginning much of the attack upon slaveholding had
always been upon moral grounds.

Opponents of slavery claimed that it was a sin
to hold slaves; the principle of right and wrong involved with slavery became
fundamental to the argument. The South's use of the Bible to defend slavery and
the master-slave relationship was thus an attempt to erect a moral defense of
slavery. The emphasis from proslavery defenders was always upon a literal
reading of the Bible which represented the mind and will of God himself.


Slaveholding was not only justified but also moral because it was recognized as
such in Holy Scripture. Slavery's defenders relied on this literal reading as a
response to the emphasis upon the "principles of Christianity" used by those
opposed to slavery. Proslavery advocates continually contrasted the Tightness of
their position, based on such a literal biblical reading, to the open-ended
interpretive religion implied by those opposed to slavery.

In 1820, for example,
in the midst of the debates over Missouri statehood, the Richmond Enquirer went
to elaborate lengths in a long editorial to emphasize the literal truth of the Bible
and its sanction of slavery. After a long section giving various scriptural
sanctions, the article concluded by giving "a plain concise statement of certain
propositions that we presume few faithful believers will controvert." There were


continued

http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/The religious justification of slavery before 1830.pdf

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Try and focus on the topic at hand and quit going off in the bushes

you mean like the utter lies you're spewing? I am on topic. don't stray. just answer the questions

 

[SmarterthanYou]

In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional

in their opinion, what part of the constitution did they cite that says states are not authorized to leave the union once they've joined???????

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Very true, but the issues are interrelated. States' rights is what allowed states to choose to adopt slavery and its expansion in the new states. That does not mean slavery was not the prime issue, it is simply not that simplistic to say it is the only issue.

State rights certainly wasn’t an issue at the time of the war. In fact the Southern States time and time again, through their disproportionate influence in Congress, tried to force the Federal Government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in the Northern States which many Northern States were ignoring. For years up to and including the lead up to the Civil War the Southern States tried to force the other States and Territory’s to recognize their rights in violation of the very laws of those States prohibiting Slavery. That doesn’t sound like they gave a shit about States Rights to me.

I offer to you as a primary source document to that fact the infamous Dred Scott decision. In which a Southern dominated SCOTUS declared that Blacks had no rights anywhere in the US or it’s territo that a white man was obligated to respect. That don’t sound to “States Rights” friendly to me.

States Rights was never an issue in regards to the Civil War. In fact the opposite is true. The Southern States tried to force proslavery Federal Laws Gia the Federal Government that violated the existing laws in Northern States.

States rights was not an issue during the Civil War and is a Lost Cause mythology propagated by Southern Historians and polemicist during the late 19th Century. It wasn’t an issue.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

State rights certainly wasn’t an issue at the time of the war. In fact the Southern States time and time again, through their disproportionate influence in Congress, tried to force the Federal Government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in the Northern States which many Northern States were ignoring. For years up to and including the lead up to the Civil War the Southern States tried to force the other States and Territory’s to recognize their rights in violation of the very laws of those States prohibiting Slavery. That doesn’t sound like they gave a shit about States Rights to me.

I offer to you as a primary source document to that fact the infamous Dred Scott decision.

States Rights was never an issue in regards to the Civil War. In fact the opposite is true. The Southern States tried to force proslavery Federal Laws Gia the Federal Government that violated the existing laws in Northern States.

States rights was not an issue during the Civil War and is a Lost Cause mythology propagated by Southern Historians and polemicist during the late 19th Century. It wasn’t an issue.

so you're saying that the union declined to enforce the law?

 

[jimmymccready]

. Slavery was a central cause of the War, and any who say 'no' can be dismissed outright.

2. Lincoln was able to keep those states in the union despite slavery. He would have done the same for the other slave states as well as long as they (1) recognized federal law in the South; (2) federal property in the South; and (3) did not take their slaves into the Territories.

3. Grant never owned a slave; to say he did is to be wrong. His wife did own slaves.

4. General Scott offered command of the Union armies to Lee, not Lincoln.

5. Slavery was the root cause for the symptoms of sectionalism and states' right

Your assertion is false. Your comment about Lincoln is a misstatement. Your conclusion is inaccurate.

your knowledge of history is overshadowed by a baby with shit in it's diaper. stop drinking the koolaid and following your brainwashers.

In other words, you have no idea about what you are discussing.

Now shut your mouth, pay attention, and learn.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

lets say there were no slaves only white farmers picking the cotton. There may have still been a war when the north insisted on placing tariffs on Europe to help their industries grow at the expense of the south who relied on the european cotton markets. The north would literally have destroyed the south economically slaves or no.

No there wouldn’t, unless they were white slaves. The entire cotton economy of the South was completely dependent on slavery to be profitable. The primary industries adversely affected by tarrifs we’re agricultural industries dependent on slavery. No slavery, no tariff problem. That’s just another Lost Cause mythology.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

. Slavery was a central cause of the War, and any who say 'no' can be dismissed outright.

try being consistent. slavery ended up being a central cause, but it did not start as a central cause.

2. Lincoln was able to keep those states in the union despite slavery. He would have done the same for the other slave states as well as long as they (1) recognized federal law in the South; (2) federal property in the South; and (3) did not take their slaves into the Territories.

in other words, lincoln did not care about the cause of slavery, only about defeating states that dared leave his union.

3. Grant never owned a slave; to say he did is to be wrong. His wife did own slaves.

irrelevant to me

4. General Scott offered command of the Union armies to Lee, not Lincoln.

irrelevant, again.

5. Slavery was the root cause for the symptoms of sectionalism and states' right

meh, partially.

Your assertion is false. Your comment about Lincoln is a misstatement. Your conclusion is inaccurate. In other words, you have no idea about what you are discussing.

Now shut your mouth, pay attention, and learn.

suck my ass. go take a history class that's not disseminated by a biased organization. until then, you're nothing but a jack booted point talker and kool aid drinker

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No there wouldn’t, unless they were white slaves. The entire cotton economy of the South was completely dependent on slavery to be profitable. The primary industries adversely affected by tarrifs we’re agricultural industries dependent on slavery. No slavery, no tariff problem. That’s just another Lost Cause mythology.

taken in a big picture context, this would mean that liberals do approve of tariffs when it promotes their own ideology, am I right?

 

[jimmymccready]

The big picture context is that smarterthannoone lies and cries and denies.

The facts are, Fact: no slavery, no Civil War.

Agreed that the south did not want a war. Tough beans: the North, Republicans and joined by northern Democrats, once Old Glory was fired on at Ft Sumter, were committed to war.

Smarterthanyou is using indefensible revisionism in support of the South and opposition to the North.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

One of my brothers thought it was called the Silver War and spent a good bit of his childhood thinking they were fighting over money. Ironically, he wasn't as far off the mark on the latter as one would think.

Not really off the mark at all. The vast majority of the wealth of the South was invested in Slave property. It represented most of the South’s GDP. The South, if viewed as an independent nation, was the sixth wealthiest in the world at that time. For them to have given up that vast amount of Capital they had invested in slaves without a fight would have been unheard of in human history and fight they did.

 

[jimmymccready]

floridafan White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional

HAHAHA. Courts are not allowed to rewrite the constitution, you ignoramus. Show us where the constitution says anything about secession.

You stupid, uneducated, unread redneck: you are no authority on the federal judiciary and its powers. You cannot show us that you are right. You are a stupid, stupid schmuck.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wasn't the only issue,but the issue that made the war inevitable

actually he’s wrong. They weren’t interrelated. In fact many of the so called issues they trot out were mythologies. They were either not issues at all or so insignificant as to be hardly relevant.

 

[kudzu]

No there wouldn’t, unless they were white slaves. The entire cotton economy of the South was completely dependent on slavery to be profitable. The primary industries adversely affected by tarrifs we’re agricultural industries dependent on slavery. No slavery, no tariff problem. That’s just another Lost Cause mythology.

With the introduction of the cotton gin the number of slaves needed was declining.. and they were in fact becoming a burden for most planters.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

floridafan White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional


You stupid, uneducated, unread redneck: you are no authority on the federal judiciary and its powers. You cannot show us that you are right. You are a stupid, stupid schmuck.

who wrote the constitution? who do you THINK has authority over the constitution?

 

[jimmymccready]

No slavery, no Civil War.

Anyone who says the federal judiciary cannot interpret the law is an idiot and can be used as an example of a dummy to a history class or a government class. Such a person does not understand Article III of the US Constitution.

Anyone who trots out Lost Cause revisionism can be used as examples of dummies to the history class.