A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

reply to post by krossfyter


Since you posted in both, I'll reply in both.

Wrong.

It was not Treasonous, because they were voluntary members of the Republic of the United States of America, and they had ever right to sedition. Now, when the war ended, and there was no longer a Republic of States, instead there was a new entity based around an all-powerful central Federal Government, but the legal sedition happened before the creation of that new entity, so it could not possibly have been treasonous, and in fact, what we have today is an illegal occupation of the Southern States. Just sayin.

This general says they weren't fighting for slavery which is bull slavery was one of the things they were fighting for. I guess he never bothered to read their constitution.

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

reply to post by getreadyalready


if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....well....

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Contracts are always entered into voluntarily, otherwise they are null and void.

Define voluntarily. Most of the states in this Union were carved out of Union territory, they were not independent or sovereign nations prior. Kalakaua, king of Hawaii in the 19th century, was forced to sign the 1887 constitution of the kingdom of Hawaii, tranfering power and influence to American elites, this eventually paved the way to Hawaii's annexation into the United States. California, Arizona, New Mexico, were part of Mexico and were annexed by force by American forces some 10-20 years prior to the civil war. The United States did not form through purely voluntary means, this is nonsense. If this was the case, the United States would've ceased to be the United States a long time ago. Such a Union as ours is unsustainable longterm through purely "voluntary" means. The European Union is a good example of this.

When they decided to secede, and the North decided to go to war over it, that was an act of aggression,

of course they did. The South was Union territory. If the western portion of Texas decided to voluntarily seceed from the rest of Texas, do you think Texas will just let this happen? The States are Union territory, this is the reality. Whether you believe that states should have these "rights" is irrelevant, sovereignty is often only achieved by force. This is true for the United States and many other countries.

When the North attacked the South,

No, the North recovered it's southern territories. The Confederates lost the war.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


And he wanted to send any brown skinned person to Africa. It didnt matter that these people were born on American soil and had never seen the shores of Africa he wanted to send them all there.

reply to post by Honor93


There were some black land owners. Saying quite a few implies that this was a normal thing. It was not. There were some but they were few. Some were schooled, most were not. Some became business owners, most did not. It is still believed by some here in the south that the black man is somehow different from the white man. Some still want segregation because they feel that the black man is somehow less human than they are. I swear this is true. I am a transplant here. I was born and raised in NY but now live in VA. Its not common, these thoughts but some older people still hold them. Sad and ignorant.

Regardless of where one falls, there is simply zero doubt that the public education system indoctrinates propaganda into our youth to ingrain the idea that the federal government is necessary to protect the weak.
I would certainly be of the opinion that the federal government generally takes advantage of the weak to ensure its own power - and that applies to both modern political parties.

Acc to many on the left, the government should provide food, shelter, security, healthcare (cell phones, laptops, tattoos, air conditioning, unicorns pooping rainbows, etc). Much like Massuh did (minus the things in elipses). The question is , what do you give up?

At no point in human history has any dependent (at least a poor one) ever had any political power. And at no point in the future will they. The Dems/Most Repubs/the banks/international corporations/the upper level bureaucrats want to buy your freedom.

A free man is self reliant, personally responsible, and independent. that may be an ideal, but an individual who is directly tied to their direct community, and is productive for it, is much more sovereign than some schlub who relies on unknown people from hundreds of miles away to survive. The second guy is essentially a slave. That is where we are headed.

To blame Lincoln for our current state is foolish, though. He was certainly the most tyrannical President up to his time. He did effectively end the Republic and begin the Empire (Have no doubt, the South was conquered, occupied, and economically raped for decades after the war). However, Lincoln also pushed through the Homestead Act, which was a major boon to normal citizens. At least the ones with the cojones to head into the frontier. And they enjoyed more freedom than anyone else. My feeling is that Lincoln was a good man who was forced to do things he didnt care to. I disagree with many of his policies. My home state was burned, pillaged, robbed, and torn asunder by some of his less scrupulous generals. It was war, though.

At the end of the day, Americans had plenty of time to reject Empire and tyranny. We never chose to. We could have called Woodrow Wilson on some of his treason. We could have reversed some of FDR's federal abuses (I put him in the same category as Lincoln - good man in difficult times). We could have rejected the abuses of Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 1. By the time 9-11 happened it was too late.
We broke it, we buy it.

In brief reply to many of the emotions and hurt feelings - the Civil War was the most complex conflict the US ever found itself in. To boil it down to "slavery" is rather foolish and logically dimwitted. All I ask is that anyone who feels this way actually look at primary source documentation. That means more than just the articles of secession which were largely written by one small faction (The Fire eaters) that were in no way, shape, or form representative of all Southern motivations, beliefs, or values. The arguments have already been done to death, but it is clear slavery IS a factor. Just not in the way that children (or ignorant adults) are led to believe. The war was about alot of things. The morality of slavery mattered to a tiny, tiny few at the time (At least insofar as going to war over it).

reply to post by karen61057
Karen,
the truth that southern black land owners existed is more on target than the original post that declared "all blacks born in the south were slaves".

i would suggest, if you are really curious, check the census records.
that's how i found out that more slaves resided in the North than the majority of the South at that time.

i agree that prejudice dies hard, if at all.
however, it is not the duty of our generation to harbor such prejudice.

yes, it is sad that it has carried on this long, however,
we have the power to change it, don't we?
back then, folks relied on the word of a neighbor and often, it came too late.
let us not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.

reply to post by Honor93

I know that in Louisiana there were many black slave owners. That is a fact.
Louisiana has a very different history than any of the other Confederate states, though. I cannot speak for them, but the placage system produced many biracial "Free People of Color" who actually thrived in much of the state. They were not granted the same rights as whites, but were legally recognized and white men had certain legal obligations to their black mistresses and their children.
FPOC generally had higher social standing than Irish immigrants, who were the lowest of the low in New Orleans at the time.
Ironically (or not), the Irish service during the Civil War, boosted their status while FPOC were lumped into the same category as freedmen during Reconstruction and their status plummeted. The first black unit of the War was a Confederate unit, The Louisiana Native Guards, made up of Free Men of Color, who were concerned about their property and families.
At least until the 1960s, the biracial class in Louisiana fared much worse than they did prior to 1865.
Take a look at the modern political leadership in New Orleans. Most of the political class (mayors, councilman, judges) are light skinned blacks. History isnt really history. It is still around.

Point being, even racial politics aren't always black and white. Pun intended.

superb thread, and may the spirit of the South indeed rise again over the oppressive and stifling federal forces,......Obama is a fitting figure head

Originally posted by Southern Guardian The European Union is a good example of this.

what a stupid analogy, the European "UNION" will inevitably disintegrate, yet you hold this as a defence of your United States


ha ha ha ha

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Since you posted in both, I'll reply in both.

Wrong.

It was not Treasonous, because they were voluntary members of the Republic of the United States of America, and they had ever right to sedition. Now, when the war ended, and there was no longer a Republic of States, instead there was a new entity based around an all-powerful central Federal Government, but the legal sedition happened before the creation of that new entity, so it could not possibly have been treasonous, and in fact, what we have today is an illegal occupation of the Southern States.

Just sayin.

You are spot on the money getreadyalready, but rather unfortunately so many people have been indoctrinated by our de-facto federal government that trying to explain to them the difference between de facto and de jure is an act of futility.

History has been revised an untold number of times and the meme that Southerners are racist pigs who play Sweet Home Alabama at every chance has been effectively propagated.
(sweet song by the way)

I fear that we are a dying breed my friend.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
thanks for the addition.
unfortunately, i am not so familiar with LA history outside of the Plessy plight ... when i first ventured out of PA, LA was in my sights until close friends reminded me that "my heritage" would likely impede any progress.

being young and dumb, i heeded their warnings and went further west. (what a mistake)
after discovering some of the Southern truths hidden for so many years, i began to understand the real "concept" of propaganda and just how well it worked. (sad for us)

well, if i do nothing great in this life, at least i've given the greatest gift i can ... knowledge.
add to it, share it and with any luck, it will hold when the propaganda machine devours itself.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Southern Guardian The European Union is a good example of this.

what a stupid analogy, the European "UNION" will inevitably disintegrate,

You didn't read my last post properly now did you? I used the European union as an example of why voluntary Unions are unsustainable long term, you just agreed with my point. The United States is not like the European Union because the vast majority of the states were not sovereign nations prior, many of those that were, like that of Hawaii, were brought into the Union by force.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
oh come on, now ... you gotta a link for this ??

like that of Hawaii, were brought into the Union by force

i call BS and i'd double down on that bet.
www.hawaiifreepress.com... e-not-antiAmerican.aspx

The winners always re-write history, the Middle East being the best example. But because of the internet, the truth is getting out there.

With regards to Abraham Lincoln:

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

- Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

reply to post by Honor93


You're still responding to me? What happened to me not being worthy to debate a person of your skills and intellect?

Your link does not work by the way.

reply to post by gladtobehere


So very right, the victors write the history books. Your quote from Lincoln is very accurate and very telling, Lincoln went out of his way especially during the campaign to befriend slave owners and the institution. Lincoln cared more about the Union and he was prepared to jump through hoops for southern support and cooperation, but in the end they forced his hand.

Southern representitives brought it upon themselves when they decided to seceed following Lincolns election win, in fear that their precious assets, black slaves, would be taken away from them. They should have listened to Lincoln, but instead they ended up not only losing the elections, but the institution of slavery and a large chunk of influence in Washington DC.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by stanguilles7

So... You're saying you think the civil war was fought to end racism?

Yes it was a great part of the reason, but not the only reason.

Please. One can argue it had to do with ending slavery, but not racism. The 'North" was easily just as racist as the South, and sill is.

Violence against Itallin immigrants in US

reply to post by Southern Guardian

no, not to you specifically, just your false statement.
they're getting easier to pinpoint

well, at least i provided a link, one that can be easily searched.
you on the other hand ... still waiting for any valid source for your BS.
got one yet ??

psssst: never once did i question your worthiness, however, your skill set doesn't seem to be improving in the slightest.