40 Percent Of Southerners Still Side With Confederacy

[heckofajobbrownie]

So let's try again: does the South Carolina document suggest that South Carolina's main dispute with the federal government, and the main reason they chose to withdraw, was slavery?

 

Or to ask it another way: can you read?

[calfoxwc]

forget it, Heck. Steve is actually right. BTW, your papers are not the end all authority of why the states seceded, and went to war.

 

It's more complicated than you seem to be able to grasp. Most confederate soldiers didn't fight over slavery. They fought over

 

southern culture, southern pride, and southern independence.

 

Most southern farmers were too small to buy or own slaves. They couldn't afford to buy them, Heck. so, ask yourself - why

 

do you allegedly think that all those soldiers fought over the right to keep slaves? It's ridiculous.

 

All your papers probably mean, is slavery was a big reason to fight - only for the large, wealthy, big farmers who had the influrence,

 

if not the actual positions in gov to have the power, to state that slavery was the reason to secede and fight it out.

 

To put it another way, how about you learning to read outside of your assigned readings? maybe start reading for the TRUTH of matters,

 

instead of being led to readings that only support your liberal causes? Here, read this, It's just one of the readings you were never assigned to read.

 

Start thinking and reading for yourself. It's the first step toward having legit, honest discussions on a lot of subjects...

*******************************************************************************

 

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, it's okay if you cede this one to me. The South's main gripe was slavery, and the states clearly stated so at the time of secession. The effort to pretend it wasn't the main driver is political, and not based in historical fact.

[calfoxwc]

Again, to the brick wall with no principles,...

 

the generalization "the South" is ridiculous when you talk about slavery. The states were not issuing papers on the reasons, with input

 

from all the small farmers who had no slaves.

 

The South's culture was fiercely proud and independent. Slavery was a big reason, but like you already admitted - it was not the reason

 

Lincoln went to war. He went to war because he wanted to keep the country intact.

 

Why are you so adamant about quibbling about this, too, and you can't bring yourself to ever have the nads to take a position for or against your failed president?

 

You really need to try to be serious about talking about issues with Obamao etc, honestly. I am not the only one who would appreciate it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Slavery was a big reason, but like you already admitted - it was not the reason

 

Lincoln went to war. He went to war because he wanted to keep the country intact.

 

Um, we're talking about the reasons the Southern states seceded (primarily slavery), which are different than the reasons Lincoln went to war.

 

Why don't you let Steve and I have this discussion? Sit this one out.

[Bob806]

Um, we're talking about the reasons the Southern states seceded (primarily slavery), which are different than the reasons Lincoln went to war.

 

Why don't you let Steve and I have this discussion? Sit this one out.

 

 

It is a public forum...

[Mr. T]

Um, we're talking about the reasons the Southern states seceded (primarily slavery), which are different than the reasons Lincoln went to war.

 

Why don't you let Steve and I have this discussion? Sit this one out.

 

 

Because you close your ears and eyes to the truth you do not want anybody else chiming in.

 

Isn't it a shame that you cannot paint southerners as racists?

 

This seems to be the only card left for Obammy supporters to play since every policy that their messiah has tried has failed.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Anyone who disagrees with Heck is a racist. I wonder how many blacks or other races he has lived/worked/and fought with in his life? I love these couch potato's who know everything.

[calfoxwc]

Um, we're talking about the reasons the Southern states seceded (primarily slavery), which are different than the reasons Lincoln went to war.

Why don't you let Steve and I have this discussion? Sit this one out. Heckleberry Flim flam

**************************************************************

Heck translation: "I'm a little sissy boy and I want to bully somebody, but I can't bully more than one guy at a time, especially when

every one of them kicks my little sissy behind. "whimper, whimper, cry"

 

Awww, whatsamatteryu?

You sound just like your whiney beeach failure president Obamao when he got angry at a few hard questions.

During a 7 minute granted interview, he wanted the interviewer to allow him to "answer" for six and a half minutes. I think not.

And now, little liberal college dweeb can only try to intimate one poster at a time?

Now, little Hecky, what DID I say, about comprehensive thinking, and linear thinking?

You are the linear thinker. You don't grasp information comprehensively.

And, no, Heck, I won't stop discussing it, so you can keep trying in vain to get the best of one guy, especially when Steve regularly makes you look sick.

 

Another board lib trying to control this board, by attempting to make self-serving rules for the rest of us, that he won't apply to himself. It's an alarming trend in all libs.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Guess you've ceded this one, Steve. Probably wise.

[Westside Steve]

Guess you've ceded this one, Steve. Probably wise.

 

 

No Heck.

When it becomes a waste of time why bother?

 

I think the southern states were treated like second or third class citizens for decades and taxed to the brink of rebellion.

Just like the original 13. Slavery was a means to an end. Like WMDs.

All od a suddent their natural resources were extremely valueable.

Like Iraqi oil.

 

But if third grade history pleases you fine.

 

PS I don't believe Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac either.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Okay, just to be clear - you "think" they seceded because they were "treated like second or third class citizens for decades and taxed to the brink of rebellion."

 

Let's return to our declarations of Southern secession:

 

Number of times Mississippi mentions taxes: zero.

Number of times Georgia mentions taxes: zero.

Number of times Texas mention taxes: zero

Number of times South Carolina mentions taxes: once. And it's mentioned only in reference to their right to own slaves:

 

"The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor."

 

Meanwhile, Mississippi's declaration is all about slavery. It says so right up top. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

 

Number of times Mississippi mentions slavery: seven.

 

Georgia's declaration is also entirely about slavery, and begins this way: "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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."

 

Number of times Georgia mentions slavery: 35 times.

 

Texas declares that slavery is the reason as well. It says this right up top: "She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

 

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

 

Number of times Texas mention slavery: 22.

 

Number of times South Carolina mentions slavery: 18. As I've already shown, their entire document is about the dispute over slavery.

 

Point being, I know you "think" certain things, but that doesn't make them true. And I know you'd like to dismiss all of this evidence by first ignoring the inconvenient parts, and then posting South Carolina's document, which you thought made your case. Except that it made mine, and clearly you hadn't read it in full. Fast forward to your latest shift: now you're dismissing it by making up a theory that slavery was just what they said the issue was, but they really meant taxes, and how they felt like second class citizens. Just like Bush did with WMDs.

 

First of all, this is some really weak shit, even for you. Of course, this is not supported. Not here, not anywhere. I've never even heard someone put forth the theory that slavery was just what they sold the war on, but what they were really upset about was taxes. Honestly, I think you just got backed into a corner and made that up.

 

Secondly, WMD were one of the main reasons Bush went to war, so I don't know how that makes your point either.

 

The primary reason for Southern secession was slavery. It wasn't primarily a dispute over taxes, or about how they got tired of being treated like second class citizens. When it came to economic arguments, the primary economic argument was also about slavery, i.e. cheap labor, not taxes. Why you're so resistant to accepting our history is anyone's guess. But like we said, it is typical.

[Mr. T]

Are Progressive Liberals Racists?

 

Why do they love dividing our country?

[Paxton]

Liberal fascists love intolerance. Period.

[calfoxwc]

Arguing over the primary reason the states seceded based on the declarations by the cherry picked states,

 

is ridiculous.

 

If there had been no slavery, the South would still have seceded. Slavery was simply the final straw, and the major reason

 

the big, wealthier farmers demanded secession. And they had their huge influence. But, regardless of the states' declaration

 

of why, they wouldn't have does it for that reason, if most of the rest of the south wasn't already fed up and ready to roll...however,

they didn't populate the southern armies. The South demanded their independence - of southern culture, and control of their economics,

 

of which slavery was a part.

 

But "final straw" doesn't mean "main reason".

 

Liberals always pick one line of reasoning, as the only line of reasoning. It screws them up, and they don't take to reality well.

 

Reality is far more complex than liberals and their one train of thought on one aspect of reasoning can grasp.

 

That's why we see Heck quibbling forever and twenty million posts later... on one single, cherry picked item that he

argues... never a thought about how complicated issues can be.

 

Just because slavery... the "final straw",... was mentioned by the states, doesn't mean it is the primary reason.

The most recent outrage, to them, was used to explain their actions. But, the sum total of emotions at the time,

surpasses the single point about slavery. But, bickering over the "primary reason" about the civil war era, surely

makes Heck happy - he doesn't have to admit any shortcoming, any of Obamao's extreme failures as president,

doesn't have to admit Obamao's presidency is trouble (remember when the libs brought up Bush's approval rating

every other post? Not no more, eh?)...

and he doesn't even have to admit that we are in big, big trouble... because our country is....

and ulterior motives reek - and they make up most of any discussion on any subject. Because

liberals -feel-, ... they don't comprehensively analyze, and reason.

[MLD Woody]

Wow Heck, I'm surprised you stuck around. Dealing with this for this long, and longer.

 

Some vintage Retard Mr T

Cal chiming in and being way off base

Steve being, well,... Steve I guess

 

 

damn

[The Cysko Kid]

Ah yes, paxton. Another face of the hydra. Cut off one head and it spawned eight more.

[The Cysko Kid]

I think he brings up an interesting point, heck. If the media then had the technology they did today, there would probably be some international outrage (maybe outrage is too strong a word, but there'd be some sort of negative response). I mean, everyone knows what happened to South Vietnam once we left. The decision to enter total war is a bitch. And while it wasn't total war, how much did video footage of the Highway of Death in Desert Storm have to do with us not eliminating Saddam then and there? I wouldn't know, I was only 3 or 4 at the time. I just remember reading that there was a negative reaction to it.

 

I think it's a different, but legitimate perspective on the situation, and I'll admit that, until this conversation, I haven't seen it as such. My experience while being educated about the Civil War was basically that Sherman was a badass and burned down Georgia, killing all the men who wouldn't defect. The decision to go to total war ultimately lies on Lincoln's shoulders, and strategically, it was a good move given that this was a conventional war. The South had superior generals, and more Union soldiers were killed in the war than Rebels; the North won because they were simply able to throw more troops at them.

If there were media coverage then...Andersonville...

[The Cysko Kid]

Arguing over the primary reason the states seceded based on the declarations by the cherry picked states,

 

is ridiculous.

 

If there had been no slavery, the South would still have seceded. Slavery was simply the final straw, and the major reason

 

the big, wealthier farmers demanded secession. And they had their huge influence. But, regardless of the states' declaration

 

of why, they wouldn't have does it for that reason, if most of the rest of the south wasn't already fed up and ready to roll...however,

they didn't populate the southern armies. The South demanded their independence - of southern culture, and control of their economics,

 

of which slavery was a part.

 

But "final straw" doesn't mean "main reason".

 

Liberals always pick one line of reasoning, as the only line of reasoning. It screws them up, and they don't take to reality well.

 

Reality is far more complex than liberals and their one train of thought on one aspect of reasoning can grasp.

 

That's why we see Heck quibbling forever and twenty million posts later... on one single, cherry picked item that he

argues... never a thought about how complicated issues can be.

 

Just because slavery... the "final straw",... was mentioned by the states, doesn't mean it is the primary reason.

The most recent outrage, to them, was used to explain their actions. But, the sum total of emotions at the time,

surpasses the single point about slavery. But, bickering over the "primary reason" about the civil war era, surely

makes Heck happy - he doesn't have to admit any shortcoming, any of Obamao's extreme failures as president,

doesn't have to admit Obamao's presidency is trouble (remember when the libs brought up Bush's approval rating

every other post? Not no more, eh?)...

and he doesn't even have to admit that we are in big, big trouble... because our country is....

and ulterior motives reek - and they make up most of any discussion on any subject. Because

liberals -feel-, ... they don't comprehensively analyze, and reason.

 

Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. God so very wrong.

[calfoxwc]

Cysko translation:

 

"Please, let's not talk about Obamao's scandals. Please...boo hoo hoo"

 

BTW, do your research on the subject.

 

Then you can come back and sing the "I'm so frickin sorry" song.

[Westside Steve]

Cysko, so you believe that Lincoln went to war to free people?

And you believe the reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was altruism and not a desire to cripple the economy of his enemies?

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Oh god. What have I done?

[The Cysko Kid]

Cysko, so you believe that Lincoln went to war to free people?

And you believe the reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was altruism and not a desire to cripple the economy of his enemies?

WSS

Where do you get that? Do you know anything about the civil war? The abolition movement and Lincolms election caused sucession. Lincoln went to war to preserve the union saying if he could preserve the union he'd free the slaves. If be could preserve the union without freeing them he'd do that too. If he could preserve the union by freeing some and leaving others he'd do that too. Lincoln didn't give a rip about the slaves, he was not a huge proponant of abolition. The south forced his hand.

 

The south, however, cared a lot about the slaves. Slavery was in fact the main issue that caused succession.

[Westside Steve]

Woody....

Nothing. Nothing at all. As usual. No worries.

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

Cysko translation:

 

"Please, let's not talk about Obamao's scandals. Please...boo hoo hoo"

 

BTW, do your research on the subject.

 

Then you can come back and sing the "I'm so frickin sorry" song.

Cal translation: "yay! I'm special! Pay attention to me! Yay!"

 

[Westside Steve]

Cysko I think that is fairly close to what I believe. With this exception:

the main economy of the South was driven by agriculture, mainly cotton which was the oil of its generation.

at that time slavery was important means of getting that product to market to the European buyers. Business was good.

because of that the southern states got the idea that there was no real reason to send a cut to the bosses in the north. Much like George Washington realized that if he didn't want to pay the crown they probably didn't have the power to come and get it.

 

anyway as I said slavery was important to make that business flourish at that time.

with agricultural product as important as it was to the Union Lincoln could ill afford to allow the south to secede.

and the south probably would have been pretty successful on its own.

 

I just asked you what I did because you gave an answer to a post with a vague wrong wrong wrong wrong and something else.

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

The emancipation proclamation was not issued until after the battle of antietam which was a tenuous union victory after a string of disheartenimg losses. It couldnt be enforced in the south. It was a political ploy to build support for the war and to change the focus and make it a moral cause. At the time a lot of the North was starting to favor just letting the south go, and Lincoln couldn't have that.

[Westside Steve]

I know that.

it was a tactical move.

and a fairly successful one.

 

I do wonder what things would be like today had the south been successful.

 

not that it really makes any difference, just curious.

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

Much worse race relations I'm sure.

[Westside Steve]

hard to say. Slavery I believe was on its way out. First of all the world opinion and the opinion in the US was turning against the practice.second it was quickly becoming too costly and dangerous to keep.

 

I'm sure the influx into the separate country in the north would have still been significant.

 

WSS