- This topic has 331 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Did they have a moral case for their independence?
-
RULE BRITANNIA
BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES-
Answer the question
-
Moral? Probably that their interests weren’t being upheld as the constitution requires.
-
I mean they were, they just became, super bitchy and paranoid because John Brown scared the shit out of them
-
>John Brown
who -
To be fair, Northern politicians openly supporting a full blown terrorist who explicitly targeted and murdered civilians (including free black civilians mind you) and plotted to murder even more, to the point of making him a damned martyr, is still a big fat freaking yikes
-
-
-
-
No
fpwp
-
cool flag
-
Canada’s coat of arms is goat. Imagine replacing it for a freaking leaf.
-
-
They have a cool flag. That’s literally it. Fuck the people who censor this flag and take down cool civil war monuments because some black person (more likely a white liberal) was offended. Its history, its cool. I like statues of generals on horses. Confederate uniforms looked cool. The flag looks badass. That’s literally all I care about.
-
anon that’s not the flag, this is the flag
-
That flag was already obsolete before Appomattox
At least use the blood stained banner or something, dumbass
-
-
Such monuments were installed well after the war for a specific reason.
Bear in mind Americans removed British statues upon becoming a republic.
-
>Bear in mind Americans removed British statues upon becoming a republic.
They also didn’t reunite with Britain back under one nation.We still have statues of native american leaders though.
-
-
>city monument statues are "history"
Name a more scrotebrained freaking take-
Lol this negro is mad and thinks destroying statues (historical culture) will cause racism to end. What a joke lol.
-
And here we have a perfect example of a scrotebrained culture war obsessed meme brained rightoid attempting sophistry
-
-
-
-
They had an interesting legal perspective of ‘no law says we can’t do this,’ but that’s it.
-
There’s no mortal case for independence. You either win or lose. If you win, congrats, you’re a sovereign state. If you lose, sucks to be you.
-
This. Morality is determined by winners. If you lose, you were evil. If you won, you were the good guy. Simple as
-
>mortal
kek
-
-
>When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
>…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The political power of the South was waning and thus the wants, needs, and lifestyle of the South were threatened. Instead of stay in a union plagued by major sectional differences with a government they hated they reasonably decided to form their own government for the benefit of themselves after Lincoln won ( with less than 40% of the popular vote). -
No, because their political project was founded on the maintenance of slavery, and slavery is morally abhorrent in every possible way.
-
is it?
-
Yes.
-
So every human society before ours was abhorrent?
-
No.
-
Then what are you talking about
-
Slavery is morally abhorrent, but slavery has not existed in every single human society in history, and the fact that slavery exists in a society does not mean that society is abhorrent in its totality
Hope this helps
-
so your entire argument is void
-
What are you talking about
-
>south bad cuz slavery
>slavery bad absolutely
>but slavery doesn’t make a society bad
>but south still bad cuz slavery
37 IQ -
The question wasn’t whether the South is bad as a society. That would be a stupid question. Societies are too complex to say that they’re "good" or "bad" in their totality unless you’re a child.
The question was whether the South had a moral claim to independence. And they didn’t. The reason that they wanted independence was so they could continue to practice slavery, and slavery is morally wrong, so they didn’t have a moral claim to independence.
-
Oh so you’re just a scrotebrain and conflating slavery with southern independence
-
Slavery was the predominant reason that the South seceded.
-
Secession is legal, if it was the reason they seceded you’d still have no argument. Also, if slavery was the reason they seceded, then why did they promise to secede if a Republican was elected? As far as I remember Southern slavery wasn’t even on the table in the Republican foundation
-
>Secession is legal, if it was the reason they seceded you’d still have no argument.
This thread is about whether secession was moral, not whether it was legal. I didn’t make the OP.
>Also, if slavery was the reason they seceded, then why did they promise to secede if a Republican was elected? As far as I remember Southern slavery wasn’t even on the table in the Republican foundation
Lincoln was not going to end slavery, but he was a hardliner on the issue of not allowing the expansion of slavery to new territories. And Southern slaveholding elites generally thought that would inevitably bring about the end of slavery down the line as free states and abolitionists gained more and more representation in government. Also, they hated and feared the Republicans in general, thought that they were part of a conspiracy to end slavery and destroy the south, and pretty much thought Lincoln was the devil, so there wasn’t a lot of trust in his promises especially among the more extremist Southerners. -
So it’s possible, that if secession wasn’t for the sole purpose of slavery, that it was a moral decision?
-
Maintaining slavery wasn’t the sole purpose of slavery, but it was the predominant purpose, especially in the deep South states that actually instigated secession. And there’s not a lot of ambiguity about this; they loudly proclaimed the fact that they were fighting for slavery and thought slavery was really good.
-
Slavery was written into the Constitution. To attack Southern slavery without congressional approval is an attack on the Constitution and the Union.
-
I don’t see what that has to do with anything I said or with the topic of the thread
-
The Constitution is a moral document, the United States were formed on the foundational of Southern Slavery being allowed. Attacking Southern Slavery without amending the constitution goes against the agreement of the union. Therefore the Union is null for any self respecting moralizing individual regardless of their opinion on slavery. Once again, you’re conflating slavery with secession.
-
It’s possible for the Constitution to be imperfect, legally, politically, and morally. That’s precisely why we have an amendment process.
The Constitution was morally wrong when it enshrined slavery. The Southern states were morally wrong when they practiced slavery. And secession was morally wrong because the primary moral justification for it was the defense of slavery.
-
If you believe the Constitution is imperfect there is an amendment process. When you skip over this process again and again over an agreement within the constitution that formed the Union then eventually the aggrieved party has a right to secede.
-
What constitutional violations do you have in mind, and do you think that the supposed right to secede is legal or moral in nature?
-
Secession is very legal and very moral. Are you no longer conflating slavery with secession?
-
I don’t know why you keep talking about "conflating" slavery and secession as though they’re unrelated. From the point of view of morality and political legitimacy, secession is legitimate or illegitimate by virtue of the causes and justifications that impel it. The cause that was used to justify Southern secession was slavery. So trying to separate the two is fundamentally impossible.
-
OP is specifically talking about independence, not slavery. You keep bringing up slavery as if that has anything to do with the fundamental act of secession
-
The morality and legitimacy of an act of secession or independence are woke af on specific causes and justifications. The two things can’t be separated. Evaluating the moral legitimacy of secession requires evaluating the moral justification for it.
That’s why both the American colonists and the Confederates laid out their rationale for secession. The American Declaration of Independence didn’t say "We are declaring independence because we have a moral right to independence, peace out bitches". It laid out the abuses that they believed justified their claim to independence and gave them the moral right to do what they did.
The Southern states did the same thing; their justification for independence was that they believed independence was necessary in order to keep slavery in place. And that’s not a legitimate justification, since slavery is morally evil.
-
Their justification was that the North was knowingly and had for some time refused to follow agreements made in the Constitution without amending it
-
That’s just not true. I mean that really was not their justification. You can go back and read their justifications for secession, and it’s not any kind of abstract concern for constitutional rights. It’s a concern with slavery as such. You may wish that they had chosen other justifications. But in the actual historical fact, their justification was slavery. At least in the deep South states that actually instigated the secession process.
-
>You can go back and read their justifications for secession, and it’s not any kind of abstract concern for constitutional rights.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the
common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing
the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the
Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United
States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common
Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the
public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to
citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been
used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be
excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged
against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding
States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have
become their enemy. -
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public
opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief. -
I think this demonstrates that the secession was about slavery, yes
-
The thing is, the democrats could have won the election if they didn’t have like, 3 different people running as democrats in the south
-
Can you specify the agreements that the north was violating? I ask this in genuine good faith
-
Many. Off the top of my head I think it all started with a state’s right to self determination to allow slavery within its own borders. The north didn’t like that so they created the Missouri Compromise, which divided the nation between slave and free territory, North and South. This set a limit on how many states could be won over by slavery for a time. Then they found Gold in California and everything was flipped on its head. Californian’s addition as a free state went through a questionably legal and undoubtedly corrupt process.
-
Thanks for the response. Basically burning Kansas but a few decades earlier.
-
Bleeding kansas, yes. This wasn’t some moral dilemma that the country was having, it was simply a race to get more voters.
-
https://i.4cdn.org/his/1631893534710.jpg
The other guy is not really correct in his premise. The issue of self-determination was not in reference to the allowance of slavery within state’s borders, but its disallowance. The seceding states actually did not have or voice any real grievances about interference in their own states, (besides their perception of looming threat of such), but their political and financial interests in foreign states and territories.
A major one was the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. Basically the free states were obligated to form and fund slave catchers to round up escapees within their own states and deliver them back to their owners. In states where slavery was outlawed, this was considered literally kidnapping and downright evil. They said, "fuck you, state’s rights bitch" and either ignored or just softballed the duty. It was actually this exercise of state sovereignty by free states that caused Secessionists to reason thus: whatever binding compact under the Constitution there may or may not have been, it was effectively dissolved. Not by themselves, but by uncooperative free states.
Yes, the matter of the territories and new state admittance was a huge issue too. It was a Southern position that slavery was the law of the land, and under no authority or circumstance could slavery be banned in a territory. Many also held that a state could not be incorporated as a free state. I don’t believe they denied that an admitted state could then ban slavery. But the issue of slavery in territories was all about giving slaveholders the foothold to control the politics of the state when it does form. Also further establishing federal representation for slaveholding interests. This pissed off anti-slavery people, but also regular folk who just wanted to set up farmsteads and have a chance at making a life, without being crushed by well-heeled large planters with slave labor, and then being crushed again in D.C. by slaveholders’ delegations.
-
Well "free states" weren’t really "free" when they stopped paying to catch slaves. It’s ironic that people would make the argument that the North was the aggrieved party when they were still capturing black criminals in the North and selling them into slavery, but if a black murderer slave escaped into the North they wouldn’t touch them. Also the general ban on black emigration into the North nukes your argument from orbit. It can be argued that the north hated blacks more than the south.
>But the issue of slavery in territories was all about giving slaveholders the foothold to control the politics of the state
So the Civil War was really just about votes as I said. -
>the North was more racist, so they’re in the wrong
My prior picrel would have hated your guts. Every thread, one or two dipshits actually want to take their Lost Cause apologia down this rocky road to shame and embarrassment.Let’s make this clear: Nobody has ever said that Northerners weren’t racist. I’m from Boston. I didn’t argue or even imply that they weren’t. The public consciousness of the morality and politics of slavery as an institution was in fact more complex than whatever people personally felt about negroes and their fitness for equality, or their potential for political and social participation. For many anti-slavery people in America and abroad, the question of slavery was actually more about the dignity of white people than that of negroes.
>juts about votes
hahahaha votes about what, fucktard? Why do you think someone would want a freaking pro-slavery congressional delegation, fucktard? -
Pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming the North was killing its own citizens was moral should be common sense. Especially when you’re trying to also use a moral argument for why the South standing up for itself was immoral. The argument that the North was moral in their actions is incorrect.
>why do you think somebody would want a competition political foundation to gain footholds in the territories
You wouldn’t that’s why there was a civil war -
>Why do you think someone would want a freaking pro-slavery congressional delegation
>w-well because they didn’t okay?
Yeah, it’s well understood that you aren’t comfortable answering the question. You people hinge your own moral superiority on a deliberately obfuscative charade that you in fact believe pursuit of power, in itself and to no particular purpose, is the ultimate good and justifies anything. It’s bizarre. Here’s the true story: a political and social institution subject to changing moral attitudes was jealously upheld by people whose attitudes had not yet changed, and whose real and imagined investment in same was too entrenched to consider that it could be bad or wrong.What you would have us believe is that Southern leaders wanted power without compromise "just because." That they visited war on their common people just for power’s own sake. Is that really the better image? Than the image of a South that saw power as means to secure an institution whose time was very nearly past? Or isn’t that really making rank Satanism out of mere conservatism?
it takes a big dummy to think that principle ever exists in vacuum from issue.
-
You didn’t ask a question you just called me a fucktard for pointing out that the north never cared about blacks and that the war was about votes.
-
I asked you two very simple questions, fucktard. Did you think they were rhetorical? Why would that be? I know you read what I asked because you greentexted some bullshit overgeneralized question specifically to evade answering the important ones. you slithering snake, coward etc.
-
Listen homo, all I said was that the Civil War was over the political control of the territories after the Mexican american war. You’re agreeing with me in saying that "why would the north allow the south into the new territory", it was never over slavery, it was over influence. I don’t know why this makes you so angry.
-
>it was never over slavery, it was over influence.
You are still flopping around embarrassingly in generalities and abstractions. Specifically to do WHAT with that influence? Why does anyone want power? To get what they want. What did they want?These are not rhetorical questions. Your whole bullshit depends entirely on having a very clever and specific answer for these questions. Why on earth would a pro-slavery bloc wish to have power over an anti-slavery bloc, fucktard?
-
>I’m from Boston.
That’s great, now shut your dirty freaking yankee mouth. -
You say this as if you’ve read the different state’s reasons for succession. In pretty much all of them they say they’re succeeding to keep slavery in place
I’m not making this up, you can go and read them yourself
-
You mean the constitution is a legal document?
-
Within the constitution the founding father’s morals were laid bare. That’s what makes it so great, it’s both a legal document and a philosophical one
-
I agree with your sentiment but it’s strictly a legal document, nothing more. To me, it’s even more philosophically powerful because of that fact
-
to each his own
-
No it freaking wasn’t. The founding fathers explicitly excluded mentioning slavery in the constitution because they were kicking the can down the road in the hopes that the issue would die out on its own without ripping the country apart
-
You stupid poopyhole, what is the three-fifths compromise then?
-
The Constitution refers to slavery three different times (fugitive slave clause; three-fifths compromise; prohibition on outlawing slave trade before 1808).
But Lincoln didn’t try to attack slavery before the war; he passed the Emancipation Proclamation strictly as a war measure through his power as commander-in-chief; and the abolition of slavery came through the amendment process. So it doesn’t really have anything to do with anything.
-
Was the 21st amendment an assault on the constitution too? Was letting white men who didn’t own property vote an attack on the constitution? Universal Sufferage? Presidential term limits? The 13th amendment? Your argument is trash
-
Do you look up "how to refute the constitution" blogs?
-
This is a history board. I study history, even stupidly went to school for it and graduated with a focus on American history. This is all common knowledge
Do you have an argument? -
You just sound to much like a stereotypical reddit atheist for me to even engage you
-
>throws out a bunch of buzzwords and slinks back under his rock
what a scrote -
I dont use reddit but you also don’t present arguments. Did you think you were going to have everyone agreeing with your scrotebrained assumptions and wrong interpretations and patting you on the back? Remain a scrotebrained scrote
-
I would assume that most somewhat healthy people here have a positive view of the constitution and don’t have "anti-constitution" talking points burned into their mind, yes.
-
I am thoroughly a supporter of the constitution lol, pointing out how you’re wrong and an idiot does not make my correct points anti-constitution. Christ, how old are you? 15?
-
Property ownership and voting rights was a makeshift version of naturalization. Very few people owned property when the Constitution was signed but by the time it was ratified around a third of Americans already owned property.
-
Literally makes no difference and is still not an argument but ok. You don’t even understand what I’m saying. Let me try to break it down for you, you cretin:
You said that an attack on slavery was an attack on the values of the constitution, which is scrotebrained, but ok. You justified this bizarre assessment with the fact that slavery is referred to and "sanctioned" in the constitution. Again, this is freaking scrotebrained. Jefferson despised slavery, though didn’t know how to resolve it, and didn’t sell his. Ok
Adams despised slavery.
Franklin despised slavery.
Need I say more?
You ignore that the document, like the Declaration, would never have been ratified had slavery been outlawed. It never would have happened, the southern states never would have let it happen.
People with a brain call this a measure of political expediency. It’s not complicated.
I proceeded to list common knowledge examples of laws that changed the constitution, legally, and asked if you thought they also represented an affront to the values of the founders.
You then got mad and stopped making arguments – even shitty ones.
Stop posting. -
No, he’s staying on topic and discussing the morality of their movement , you’re just debating semantics at this point
There was no compulsory emancipation you stupid scrote, there wasn’t even an attempt
Lincoln campaigned on it throughout the 1850’s and got nowhere. The south absolutely refused to even consider it
-
Lincoln didn’t mention slavery ever until 1854
-
>what is the Wilmot Proviso?
-
Can you actual cite anywhere before 1854 that Lincoln was ever publicly recorded as saying he supported the Wilmot Proviso?
-
Supporting it cost him re-election in the house
-
Lincoln was voted out of the House because he didn’t support the Mexican-American war. There’s nothing in recorded history that suggests it was because of his support for the Wilmot Proviso
-
>every other western power frees their slaves through compensatory emancipation without incident
>south absolutely refuses compensatory emancipation, chimps out when they lose an electionHalf truths and false comparisons are the bread and butter of deceitful, lazy dixiecuck arguments
-
There was no compulsory emancipation you stupid scrote, there wasn’t even an attempt
-
-
Quit being obtuse, I’m not that guy but you’re being a jag. Previous societies aren’t all losers your original point is erroneous.
History is written by the winners is true far more often than it’s false
-
So the south isn’t bad because of slavery?
-
The South isn’t bad at all you freaking scrotebrain. It just was what it was. Leave the moralizing to the busybodies and read the facts. Nothing else matters
-
-
-
-
-
freaking scrotebrain
-
-
Yes.
-
-
Yes
-
Yes
-
Yes, this is why they were stronger than us.
-
-
-
-
And the north was better? The only reason the north said they are against slavery, is so Britain won’t help the confederate anymore. After the civil war, it took years for slavery to stop.
-
Why? Look what scrotes are doing now. They were better as slaves
-
I had a black friend and he was always going on about how scrotes built America. And I always thought, ya as slaves, it was like the scrote gold age. You should go back to being slaves and actually building shit.
-
-
-
They wanted the freedom to take away other people’s freedom.
How does that not work just as well as a Justification for the Union?
Well, by force, you made these scrotes your slaves, and by force, we made you our slaves and set the scrotes free and eventually we’ll put them in charge of you.
Since you like taking other people’s freedom away, don’t be a hypocrite now the chain is on the other leg.
That’s the problem with letting might make right, it’s a two-way street and what goes around comes around and there’s always a bigger fish.
-
>free and eventually we’ll put them in charge of you.
I wish. Fuck southerners
-
-
>1776 GOOD
>1861 BAD-
if you walk your kid to school because you’re in the same grade… you might be a redneck
-
>Event that built my country good.
>Event that destroys my country bad.No freaking shit?
-
Did Ireland leaving the UK destroy the UK?
Did Korea leaving Japan destroy Japan?
Or any other colonial empire giving up its colony?
The North could have let the South leave but their collective ego go in the way. Now Northerners can’t stop seething at the South for existing in the Union.-
The South was not a colony of the North.
-
It served the same purpose. It provided raw goods for the North to refine and sell. The South’s representation was nominal, the North was instituting policies in favor of their own interests and the differences were irreconcilable.
Regardless of the finer points or the morality, the South leaving would not have "destroyed" the Union, any more than the UK was destroyed when the US left it.
-
>The South’s representation was nominal,
This is perhaps not the most accurate analysis of American politics in the pre-Civil War period -
The South had and has disproportionate influence in the US government
-
>the souths representation was nominal
You’re just making shit up
-
-
-
A closer comparison is the North and South Korean divide.
Neither of the 2 couldn’t stomach each other’s existence and both states believe they’re the legit government and shoul unify the whole damn thing.
-
>The North could have let the South leave
No they couldn’t. Eventually the scrote population of the South would have surpassed that of free white men and you would have experienced demographic collapse or a shift of power. If the South still existed by the 1900s, it would have been a backwater shithole governed by mullatos. Eventually the stink and burden of having such a scrotebrained and undeveloped neighbor would have forced the Union to muster its most effective tard wranglers to re-conquer the South and absorb them into the Union.
-
-
-
This but unironically
-
-
did the north have a moral case for burning the south to the ground?
-
Yes. They started a war. But compared to the losers in civil wars in other countries, they got the velvet glove treatment
-
Yes. Winning the war is better than not winning the war, and you don’t start a war unless you can stand your cities being annihilated. Hard war – total war. It’s hell.
-
-
>“The war…must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks…unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence,and that, or extermination, we WILL have”
-Jefferson Davis
Oh no no no bros….-
Even before the war ended the south realized that slavery was a losing argument and were pivoting away from it in a desperate bid to save face
-
-
Independence yes, slavery no
-
I still find it pathetic that White Americans killed each other over freaking basket ball Americans. And nobody thought to just send them back to Liberia?
The North was gay: They wanted basketballs to have positions of power in government and society, look how that turned out.
The South was gay: They died so the rich 1% could own basketballs. Lincoln at least kidn of wanted to send them back to Africa but he didnt before his dumbass went and got shot. Everyone involved was a freaking idiot and they are all responsible for the modern day state of things in this country. Basketballs should be free and have a country, and White Americans should be free and have a country -
They were getting raped by tariffs for thirty years, you tell me.
-
They unironically would have if not for the fact that they tied their cause so closely to slavery.
-
No
-
Not really. The south was used to always getting their way in the federal government but saw the wind was changing and the north was only going to grow in political strength so they took a gamble with secession and lost.
-
Independence is only as moral as the victor decides it is.
-
Lincoln said he was going to ignore the Supreme Court and ban slavery in the territories. Once a president says he will not follow the constitution and will ignore Supreme Court rulings. All gloves are off.
-
He did not say that.
-
Lincoln did a lot of shady shit. Even id South Carolina’s secession was preemptive it was definitely warranted
-
“ Lincoln focused on what he saw as a more politically practical goal: preventing the expansion of slavery into the new Western territories, leading to new slave states.[5] He supported excluding slavery from territories”
Can you find me a quote of Lincoln saying that he would *outlaw* slavery in the territories? I agree that he would do everything under his constitutional power to prevent the expansion of slavery in the territories and the states. But that’s not the same as saying that he would outlaw slavery in the territories, which is what the Dred Scott decision had forbidden. Just finding a Wikipedia quote saying that he was against the expansion of slavery in the territories does not demonstrate that he was going to ignore the Supreme Court.
Also, the Dred Scott decision was substantially wrong.
-
If a supreme court decision can be wrong then that clears up a lot of bullshit going on today
-
OK, so you can’t find me a quote of Lincoln saying he would outlaw slavery in the territories?
Lincoln had 0 constitutional power to stop the expansion of slavery under Dred Scot and was openly flouting not following the ruling. Don’t forget Dred Scott also legalized slavery in the NORTHERN states.
> Also, the Dred Scott decision was substantially wrong.
You don’t get to decide that, the president doesn’t get to decide that. Only the Supreme Court does. And if you start saying courts are wrong and I won’t follow them, you became a tyrant. Also in a literal sense you are wrong because Dred Scott has never been officially overturned.
>Lincoln had 0 constitutional power to stop the expansion of slavery under Dred Scot
Well, that’s just not true at all. For instance, Congress has the power to admit states, meaning that a Republican Congress could simply accept applications for statehood from free states but not slave states.-
>Republican Congress could simply accept applications for statehood from free states but not slave states.
You don’t understand Dred Scott. After the decision there was no such thing as a free state. Slavery became legal in every state.
And I don’t need to dig for a Linclon quote, his entire 1860 platform was stopping slavery in the territories.
-
>After the decision there was no such thing as a free state. Slavery became legal in every state.
This is not what the Dred Scott decision said at all, you’re completely wrong.And if that was what the Dred Scott decision said, then it would be totally at odds with the idea of popular sovereignty, states’ rights and self determination. If that was the cause that the Southern states were fighting for, then they would be even less morally justified than they already were.
-
-
-
-
That doesn’t matter. Roe v Wade was decided wrong, on the merits of the Constitution and on the laws then on the books.
If Lincoln proposed to pull the black robes down some pegs, that’s a point for Lincoln. The Republicans have been consistent on little over the generations, but at least they’re woke af on the black robes.-
The black robes are there to guide the country and prevent things like the civil war from happening. It wasn’t in Lincoln’s power to do what he did and without him essentially breaking the law the civil war would have never happened
-
-
>I agree that he would do everything under his constitutional power to prevent the expansion of slavery in the territories and the states.
Lincoln had 0 constitutional power to stop the expansion of slavery under Dred Scot and was openly flouting not following the ruling. Don’t forget Dred Scott also legalized slavery in the NORTHERN states.
> Also, the Dred Scott decision was substantially wrong.
You don’t get to decide that, the president doesn’t get to decide that. Only the Supreme Court does. And if you start saying courts are wrong and I won’t follow them, you became a tyrant. Also in a literal sense you are wrong because Dred Scott has never been officially overturned.
-
-
-
Yes he did. Lincoln’s entire campaign platform in the 1860 election was ending Slavery in the territories. This action would be directly against what the supreme court said in Dred Scot. So you had a president saying that he would refuse to uphold the constitution.
“ Lincoln focused on what he saw as a more politically practical goal: preventing the expansion of slavery into the new Western territories, leading to new slave states.[5] He supported excluding slavery from territories”
-
“ The (1860 Republican) party platform[7] promised not to interfere with slavery in the states, but opposed slavery in the territories. “
-
-
Lincoln also said he was going to have every slave owning senator and congressmen hanged, while their wives would be gangbanged by their slaves in front of them as they were strangled to death.
-
-
Yes, insofar as they were seceding from a ""country"" which wasn’t a legitimate state to begin with.
Treason against traitors isn’t treason. -
About just as much as the founding fathers in 1776
>we have to betray the crown for these free mason plantation slave owners (our founding fathers) because they don’t want to pay taxes
>bb-b-but muh confederacy you darn traitors and racists!
Too bad Canada is gong to be like 50% white English in 20 years.-
>Too bad Canada is gong to be like 50% white English in 20 years.
This doesn’t connect with the first part
-
-
Yes, the Federal government was overstepping it’s boundaries
-
The emancipation proclamation and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
-
yes.
They had a right to preserve their customs and fight imperialism -
>Actively try to flood every new territories with blacks
>Refuse to industrialize
>Want to create a new third world country that will inevitably turn into Zimbabwe or South Africa
Why are people even supporting these freaking scrotebrains?-
The north didn’t want the south to industrialize, that’s why they tariff’d steel 90%
-
Part of my problem with the CSA. From a natsoc point of view the elite class were buying and breeding a foreign people to do work instead of paying their own countrymen a decent wage. Like that one guy said, the flag is cool, the uniforms are cool, statues are cool, and I understand why people romanticize that period of history. I don’t think the Lost Cause is completely bullshit, and I respect the nationalist desire many poor Southern men like my family were willing to fight and die for.
-
It’s just like today, wages were lower but everything was cheaper. I forgot the exact amount but you could basically live off of steak due to the abundance of cows in the South where in the north you’d be living on gruel
-
I don’t know man. My family has always lived in the South are were working poor. A lot of white Southeners were suffering and starving before and after the war, because how could you compete with free labor? My great grandparents were picking cotton and had problems feeding their children (raising my gramps and his siblings) and were struggling to survive. It wasn’t until Democrats like Huey Long and other types like him gave them a helping hand that they were able to live decently.
-
Well of course after the war the south was a desolate wasteland. They were in the hole financially until the 1920’s, so as soon as things started looking up they got hit by the great depression. That’s probably a reason why they latched onto FDR’s pork barrel "ill fix the south by throwing money at it" platform. It had nothing to do with blacks.
-
And I know slavery was long gone, but the effects of slavery (no generational wealth because of competition with slave labor) were still felt. And the destruction of the South and the wealth that had been built were gone. Not to mention many families were left without fathers and siss and sons, also contributing to the generational and family wealth problem. Point being is that whites suffered badly and the freedman buraeu weren’t helping them out. But libtards don’t care because blah blah blah racism.
-
>no generational wealth because of competition with slave labor
Where are you getting this?-
It’s easy. White Southeners are competing with free labor. Therefor they remain poor because many farms, ranches, businesses, factories, etc. don’t hire for menial tasks. They can’t build generational wealth because they’re barely getting by with sharecropping. They can barely get hired on as a maid or a farmhand because the merchant class has slaves to do this shit. I’m not "blaming blacks", I’m just stating the fact that the elite class used them as slaves (free labor) and therefore many white people suffered because they couldn’t get jobs doing menial work. Most White Southeners are decendants of share croppers. They couldn’t build generational wealth. My grandparents left me a house. They were able to work themselves out of poverty (with a helping hand), built some savings up, bought a house, and when they died I got it. That’s generational wealth. Poor White sharecroppers couldn’t do this. Many were starving and miserable.
-
That’s a cool theory but you’re not just coming up with it yourself right?
-
It’s reality you freaking idiot. Libtards are always going on about generational wealth and the disparities within non-white communities, why is it so hard to acknowledge that White people had problems too? My family were sharecroppers. They didn’t have pots to piss in. How could they give their children anything if they didn’t own the land, were renting the shack they lived in, were busy starving, and probably had a few trinkets at most that were personal possessions? How can pass down wealth like that? This is my family’s story and most of my friend’s family stories. Some of my ancestors died and got injured in that war. I sure do bet the guys that lost limbs were able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become landowners after that war. I’m sure that when my uncle died he was able to provide for his family beyond the grave, despite not having anything when he enlisted or when he died in Virginia. Yep, white people bootstrapped themselves up right after the war they lost, they all became millionaires. A great American rags to riches story. Use logic moron and accept that White people didn’t have it as easy as you think.
-
>It’s reality
Can you cite anything that supports your theory? -
Apply the basic theory of generational wealth to someone. If you come from a poor family who owns nothing, you will inherit nothing when they die. I’ve known people who lost money when their family members died, because they didn’t own a thing or have any decent amounts of cash or assets nor did they have life insurance. Now, I’m going to ask you to apply this thinking to White sharecroppers. They couldn’t build wealth and then died, leaving their children nothing. I don’t know books on White Poverty in the South before and after the war but I’m sure some have been written on it. Stop using your Anti-White bias and just accept that well accepted theories can be applied to Whites.
-
If it’s so obvious then why have you done none of your own research to see if anybody else believes what you do
-
I’ll be honest with you right now, I’m not sober. I’ll comment in thread later when I can argue properly
-
Everyone knows and accepts the idea behind generational wealth. Your tactically ignoring it, most likely because of anti-White bias. White poverty existed and in certain areas, widespread, directly due to lack or employment.
Now, logically apply the well accepted theory behind generational wealth. These people had nothing, were uneducated, oftentimes illiterate, and hungry. When you have nothing to pass down when you die, your children will inherit nothing, and you can’t build on it. You have to build from scratch. You would have no problem with this basic concept if I applied it to illegal immigrants and their children, but your anti-White priors seem to hold you back. Now, clear your head, accept that elite classes perpetuated slavery and white people suffered because of this, and therefor, were not creating wealth and the passing it down.
-
>the vast majority of non-slave owners were not “poor white trash” but landowning self-sufficient farmers. These “plain folk” did not resent the planter class but looked up to them as examples of what they could become. A common southern culture united these people and they were relatively happy with their lot amongst the bounty that southern life provided.
Your own source says they weren’t white trash -
That was one thesis, and if you continue reading it tears it apart.
Here’s another good source:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/167224 -
That was one thesis, and if you continue reading it tears it apart.
Here’s another good source:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/167224If you bothered to read the whole thing it states the vast majority of Whites were self sufficient agrarians.
-
"Self sufficient agrarians." Sharecroppers are poor you dumbass. Please look at all 3 articles I sent you.
-
>things are bad because they didnt have lots of money
what kind of negro view is this? only a garish african mulatto could believe the final moments of life will be reflecting on shiny objects or how many horses you owned.
freaking idiot.
also
most of these people were armed and strong, they were obviously a large basal group or a root stock of the American south.
not an impoverished niche, like say modern blacks.>these people were enslaved
>"thats not how slavery works"
how does slavery work?They were enslaved, and their rebellions failed pitifully.
-
>>"thats not how slavery works"
Except nobody said this, you illiterate scrotebrain. -
black could do something, they tried, they failed, as per usual, and they remained slaves.
unlike Native americans. Natives actually staged successful rebellions, whereas blacks failed utterly in America, or maybe Americans just too chad for the negro. -
>black could do something, they tried, they failed, as per usual, and they remained slaves.
Yes, that’s how slavery works. Slaves can’t usually do much, because they’re slaves, scrotebrain. -
>slaves cant do much
Its really blacks that cant do much, numerous non-black slaves revolted in history. -
If you look at the three articles I posted, it clearly references how many poor whites were destitute. They often faced hunger, and were severely uneducated. Many did not own a piece of land or a home. I’m not saying they had to have millions of trinkets, I’m arguing that they didn’t have basic necessities like food, a roof over their head that they owned, or land that they owned. That’s why they were poor.
So we’re back to "where the fuck did you come up with that?" Where are you getting this? Can you prove that white sharecroppers in the south were poor and can you also desperately prove because of slavery, even after the Civil War?
You are so freaking dishonest right now and you know it you freaking scrote. Read those articles. Many couldn’t find work because they’re competing with free labor.
-
How were white farmers competing with slavery after the civil war
-
They weren’t. But poverty doesn’t disappear in a day either. Often it takes a lifetime if not a few generations.
-
So then how were blacks the source of white poverty in the south when blacks are still predominately in the South today
-
I see we may have had a misunderstanding. I am not blaming black people. It wasn’t their fault that they bought from African slave traders and forced to work in America and undercut white labor. I blame the elites that chose to do this.
-
Nothing that you’ve said makes any sense
-
Explain it to me.
-
Explain what I said that confused you.
-
So we’re back to "where the fuck did you come up with that?" Where are you getting this? Can you prove that white sharecroppers in the south were poor and can you also desperately prove because of slavery, even after the Civil War?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Even if you don’t consider slavery morally wrong, the fact of the matter is that the future confederate states ultimately rebelled because they refused to accept the results of a fair election, because Lincoln had opinions on the expansion of slavery that differed from theirs. The confederacy had the morals of a child who runs away from home when his parents take away his favorite toy.
-
What does slavery have to do with secession? You know the north contemplated secession multiple times, right? Was that automatically about slavery?
-
>what does slavery have to do with secession
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Read, scrote.-
Okay, but secession is a right, it has nothing to do with slavery.
-
Unilateral secession is not a right under the US constitution.
-
Then why was it taught as a right at West Point since its founding?
-
It doesn’t matter what they taught at west point. What matters is the SCOTUS decision, and it says that secession was never legal. Also, I suggest you stop name-dropping a school you think might be prestigious enough to back your point. But if you like, you can post a source instead.
-
>the truth doesn’t matter, all that maters is the north won
okay?-
The truth is that the constitution does not allow for unilateral secession, and it could not possibly be legal. Go ahead and cite your West Point source. I’d love to take a look at it.
-
How is secession not legal, the US is a VOLUNTARY union
-
See: Texas v. White
Leaving the union would require an act of congress. Maybe confederate scrotebrains should have petitioned congress instead of firing on federal forts and acting like scrotes. -
>the truth doesn’t matter, all that maters is the north won
Great argument -
So you didn’t read the case. It’s pretty obvious that the US has an obligation to defend its borders. It also has the duty to put down rebellion. That’s all the confederacy ever was. No foreign government ever recognized it, and congress never consented to it. It was illegal. Get over it.
-
>the truth doesn’t matter, all that matters is the north won
Great argument -
Notice that nobody said that. Why do you refuse to read?
-
Your argument is "the truth doesn’t matter, all that matters is the north won." I don’t see how that’s an open door for conversation. Are you so addicted to (You)s you automatically reply to me?
-
I didn’t make that argument. You’re attacking a strawman of your own making. And no, I’m interested in the truth, a quality you certainly lack.
-
You’re interesting in the post war truth created by the north, as is apparent that you can only cite post war events to support your beliefs. You’re actually a pathetic scrote
-
>as is apparent that you can only cite post war events to support your beliefs.
Okay, can you support any court decisions to support you? -
Dred Scott
-
Dred Scott doesn’t support the idea of secession. In fact, it shits all over the perceived notion of states’ rights.
-
Implying things agreed upon in the Constitution in order to form a Union aren’t universal to the continuation of that Union.
-
And those things would be?
-
Slavery is an agreed upon institution in the Constitution and if the North didn’t like it anymore they could have amended the constitution and paid the South for their slaves like literally ever other slave owning empire did in the 19th century
-
Can you name an action the US government took to abolish slavery? Or is that just cope from people that didn’t like the outcome of an election?
-
Missouri Compromise -ignored by the federal government
Kansas-Nebraska act -ignored by the federal government
Dred Scot decision -ignored by the federal governmentI’m sure there’s more
-
Genuinely, what the fuck are you talking about.
How did the federal government ignore the Dred Scott decision when James Buchanan was the president at the time of the Dred Scott decision and actively convinced the Supreme Court to issue the Dred Scott decision
-
If blacks aren’t citizens and have no rights then why was the North so worried about slaves in new territory, and why weren’t they okay with shipping them back to the South?
-
Explain how James Buchanan ignored the Dred Scott decision
>If blacks aren’t citizens and have no rights then why was the North so worried about slaves in new territory
They were worried about slaves in new territory because they were morally opposed to the expansion of slavery because slavery is evil -
Explain how blacks being federally recognized as not having any rights made the North fear their presence in the west enough to start a civil war over it.
-
expansion of slavery in any way was morally unacceptable
the North didn’t start the Civil War
-
So we’re back to "law doesn’t matter it makes me sad"?
-
We’re back to you desperately twisting and turning from one load of bullshit to another. You go from saying that James Buchanan ignored the Dred Scott decision – which he didn’t – to saying that the North started the Civil War – which it didn’t – with no apparent compunction, and then you move on to another argument. What kind of shit is that?
The thread OP asks whether the South was morally justified or not. If you want to answer that question, you have to look to moral justifications, not legal ones. No amount of legal justifications would ever make a moral justification, even if your legal justifications were actually coherent. Being opposed to slavery and the expansion of slavery was not against the law, and it was morally correct.
-
>lose argument
>gets mad
If secession is legally the only route the South had then it was morally justifiable. -
The only morally justifiable thing the South could have done was immediately end slavery.
-
The north didn’t even want to end slavery so how were they supposed to do that
-
Every slaveholder should have immediately manumitted their slaves. Every voter in a Southern state should have immediately voted to abolish slavery in their state.
-
Yeah how were they going to do that when slavery wasn’t even an issue until the end of the war? Did they have some sort of crystal ball apparatus or what?
-
There were many people in the United States before the war who loudly said that slavery was evil.. There were former slaveholders who denounced slavery and joined the abolitionist cause. And slaveowners had the moral sense common to all human beings. So they had every opportunity to see the moral evil of slavery.
-
About 2% of the North were abolitionists, was the south supposed to take their minute presence as a sign and destroy their entire economy? Lets be realistic
-
If the question is about morality, than there’s no doubt that the abolitionists were morally right
-
Well how do you convince a completely different society you’re right when your voice is so small?
-
That’s kind of a different question. There’s a conversation about what the most effective way is for a group like the abolitionists to make the change they desire in their society. That’s a very difficult question. But it’s a pragmatic question, not a question of principle. There’s all kinds of considerations you can look at in terms of the size of the abolitionists and what political avenues were available to them and so forth.
But none of those considerations add up to a moral justification of slavery. If literally everyone in society believed slavery was morally right, it might be an excuse for the wrongdoing of slaveholders. But it wouldn’t be a justification – it wouldn’t make slaveholding morally acceptable. Slavery was morally wrong at every time and in every place. And regardless, that was not the case in America – there were abolitionists and they did a very good job spreading their message.
-
I think you’re retroactively applying your morals to a society that didn’t believe what you believed, and that’s foolish.
-
No, I’m looking back at one group of people at the time and saying that they were obviously right. I don’t see how it’s retroactively applying morals to the past, when there were people in that time period who were loudly and consistently morally opposed to slavery. That’s emphatically a thing that people thought at the time. The abolitionists were right at the time, and the slaveholders were wrong at the time.
It’s certainly easier for me to come to that moral conclusion than it would have been at the time, because I have the benefit of hindsight. But that doesn’t change the reality that, again, the slaveowners were wrong and the abolitionists were right.
-
2% isn’t much of a majority. If there were no abolitionists at all would you still say that secession was immoral? Also I don’t see how it’s the south’s fault for not bending their knee to what amount to fringe social theorists in their basement
-
>If there were no abolitionists at all would you still say that secession was immoral?
I think that’s basically a counterfactual – if there were no abolitionists, that would probably mean that slavery wouldn’t be a political issue and wouldn’t have taken place. And it’s very difficult to answer that kind of counterfactual. If secession had happened for some reason other than slavery, then it would depend on what the reason was. I would definitely still say that slavery was immoral if there were no abolitionists, although it would be easier to excuse slaveowners for not realizing it.
>Also I don’t see how it’s the south’s fault for not bending their knee to what amount to fringe social theorists in their basement
Well, because the fringe social theorists were completely right. -
Slavery factually wasn’t any of Lincoln’s motivating factors for the Civil War. Abolitionism, as explained, was a fringe social theory movement, only 2% of Northerners belonged to an Abolitionist organization or a general organization that popularly espoused abolitionism.
-
Ending secession was Lincoln’s main motivating factor for the civil war, and protecting slavery from the perceived threat of Northern opposition was the main motivating factor for secession. Debates over slavery and the expansion of slavery were an all-consuming part of American politics leading up to the war, and opposition to slavery and its expansion was a common view among Northerners. Not all opposition to slavery was on moral grounds, and not all people who were opposed to slavery or the expansion of slavery were abolitionists (and probably not all abolitionists joined abolitionist organizations).
But I do think that abolitionists played a leading role in spreading opposition to slavery and I think they played a particularly large role in the Southern perception that slavery was threatened. So I do think that, without abolitionists, the slavery debate would not have taken on the proportions that it did, and the South would not have felt that slavery was so threatened that they seceded.
And, again, however many abolitionists there were, they were absolutely right in principle.
-
All states except South Carolina were motivated at least partially to secede after the US War Department ordered federal troops to occupy Fort Sumter in South Carolina (which basically controlled all trade in and out of the state).
-
"at least partially" is doing an incredible amount of work here. Slavery was the primary issue and driver for secession especially among the states that instigated the whole process, and secession would never have happened without the slavery conflict as the casus belli
Political control of the territories was important because of its implications for the slavery debate.
Also, Republicans were opposed to expansion of slavery to the territories on moral grounds as well as on political grounds.
-
>Slavery was the primary issue
No I’d say the primary issue of secession for a few states other than South Carolina was the North giving their promise that the unfinished Fort Sumter would remain empty and then turned around and ordered a bunch of federal troops to occupy it and to destroy anything that gave them even a hint of a threat that approached the fort. -
Slavery was *the* primary issue for South Carolina and most of the other states that seceded early in the process. Slavery was one issue among many for the border states that seceded later in the process. And the issues about Fort Sumter only arose because South Carolina had seceded in the first place. Without slavery as an issue, secession would not have taken place. Slavery was the predominant cause and motivating driver for the secession process as a whole, even though it wasn’t the primary motive of every single state that seceded.
-
6 states seceded within a month of Lincoln ordering Fort Sumter occupied, 3 within 2 days.
-
Do you have an argument against anything that I said? Slavery was a primary motivating factor for most of the states that seceded, in their own words, and secession would not have taken place without slavery as the key inciting issue.
-
Slavery was not the primary factor, war was. This is also echoed by many of their declarations of secession where they feared an all out attack from the north. Moving federal forces into southern territory in one of the main trade routes of the South is an obvious act of aggression.
-
South Carolina seceded specifically because of slavery. All of the state of affairs you’re talking about, the fear of war and the acts of aggression and so on and so forth – none of those things would have taken place if South Carolina hadn’t seceded in the first place. And South Carolina seceded explicitly over slavery.
It’s completely illogical and absurd to say that war was the primary issue, when the state that started it all seceded because of slavery and not war.
Moreover, a bunch of other states also said that they seceded over slavery.
-
Even South Carolina cited war as one of the main reasons they were seceding
-
No they freaking didn’t
-
Yup, from the Declaration of Immediate causes of Secession for South Carolina
>This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.>On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
-
don’t tell me you’re so daft you think they’re referring to a literal war in that passage
did you just ctrl+f the whole document and pick the sentence that contained ‘war’ -
They mention war many times, specifically referencing standing up against the British tyrants mirrors their desire for secession and due representation
-
so use those passages to support your argument, first grader
-
I just assumed that both of had read the document you’re so mad about and not just me
-
South Carolina said that they were seceding because they thought a war would be waged against slavery until it would cease throughout the United States. And what you’re telling me is, they seceded primarily because they were afraid of a war and it had nothing to do with slavery. Come the fuck on, man, do you hear how stupid you sound? They thought the North would exterminate slavery. That’s what they were concerned with. It’s incredibly clear from reading the document as a whole that their primary reason for seceding was to defend slavery.
-
The north was going to crush the south because they demanded just representation and the adherence to the constitution. Not because they were slave owners
-
The South thought that the North was going to crush them because they hated slavery and wanted to exterminate it. That was the South’s fear and that’s why they decided to secede: to protect slavery from a perceived threat.
The funny thing is that the Southerners were not at all bashful about slavery being good and worth defending. They were extremely forthright and enthusiastic about it. They talked about it all over the place.
-
>that’s why they decided to secede: to protect slavery
To protect THEMSELVES you stupid scrote. -
From what?
In their own words, that you yourself posted, they thought they were protecting themselves from a war against slavery.
-
As already stated in this thread multiple times, almost all states seceded after Lincoln moved troops into South Carolina’s main port.
-
I had previously read this is as just sensational rhetoric about a figurative "war" on slavery. Do you believe they meant it literally? Could they really have been that brazenly mendacious?
-
That’s true. However, many of those states had mostly had secession rumblings already; rising tension and military confrontation simply forced the moment to take sides and throw in. And they took sides either openly or tacitly because they found common cause in the priority of securing slavery. And though there was some diversity of outlook in the North over the right to secession, no free state was thus motivated to secede or to join their slave federation. Not that they’d be allowed in. They weren’t really forming a federation for fed-hating freedom lovers down there, you understand
-
Yes tensions were high and the obvious preparation for war by the north in disputed territory was the trigger.
-
The trigger, yes, in some cases (like Texas). but not the cause. The powder, as it were, was slavery. And like I said this has been very clearly enunciated by the people responsible for those decisions. They were public about it. Remember, at this time, these people believed that slavery was right and good, and justified their actions. It’s later people, like Reconstruction era fee-seekers and revanchists, and yourself, who thought and think slavery would be a bad reason to secede and fight a war.
-
Slavery was the original reason why tensions arose and that’s why they mentioned it in their reasons for secession. But usually the first things they mention is their fear of war with the north when they actually did secede.
-
>they needed to secede because unless they seceded the North would attack them for seceding
OK -
They cited many things that the founders of the country did. Like the original Confederation of states that united in order to take on the British freaking Empire. The Confederacy in their eyes was the same as the original confederacy to fight the British.
-
>They cited many things that the founders of the country did.
Yes, mostly slavery
>The Confederacy in their eyes was the same as the original confederacy to fight the British.
Yes. But they had different justifications for seeking independence, as laid out in their respective declarations of independence or secession. And the principal justification for the Confederacy was the defense of slavery. -
Not really, their justifications included but were not limited to refusing to follow the constitution. Then right after that that they feared war was certain what with Lincoln occupying South Carolina
-
>refusing to follow the constitution.
specifically, the parts that had to do with slavery
>Then right after that that they feared war was certain what with Lincoln occupying South Carolina
So that’s why South Carolina seceded? Were they time travelers?it literally says "a war against slavery" lmao. and he’s trying to pretend that section had nothing to do with slavery
-
A violation of constitutional rights is a violation of constitutional rights, please stop talking in circles it’s annoying.
-
A federal system inevitably involves all kinds of disputes about constitutional rights and state laws and federal prerogatives. Violations of constitutional rights don’t always lead directly to secession. This picture you’re painting that the Confederates stood up and said "there is some violation of our constitutional rights here, in regards to some topic that we don’t care about or need to go into detail on, and so we have no choice but to secede" is ridiculous and ahistorical.
The fact that it was a right concerned with their ability to practice slavery is why it was so important to them and why they viewed the conflict as so fundamental, impossible to compromise on, and why they thought the differences were irreconcilable. They thought that slavery was good, they thought it was a necessary part of their society, they thought the North was dedicated to eliminating it, and that’s why they seceded. And they said so, at length, over and over.
-
Why didn’t the North amend the constitution then instead of continuing to violate it?
-
Often, states simply disagree about the correct interpretation of constitutional issues.
Just because they seceded after Fort Sumter does not mean that Fort Sumter was their primary reason for seceding, and it obviously wasn’t South Carolina’s motivation for seceding at all.
-
>Just because they seceded after Fort Sumter does not mean that Fort Sumter was their primary reason for seceding
Source? -
their declarations of secession
-
Mississippi seceded the day Lincoln put federal troops in Fort Sumter and lists it as a reason for seceding and even called it "an invasion." You’re factually wrong
-
I didn’t say that Fort Sumter played no role at all. I said that it was not their primary reason for seceding.
Mississippi mentions Fort Sumter, but it places it in the context of the slavery struggle: the "invasion of a state" is evidence of "the dangers to our institution", IE, "the institution of slavery". Mississippi makes it abundantly clear how they view the situation: the North is opposed to slavery, and Mississippi is seceding because of this opposition. "We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers."
Woke af on Mississippi’s declaration of secession, slavery was undeniably their primary motivation for leaving the union.
-
But you agree that Lincoln’s "invasion" of South Carolina is the event that kicked off state secession, yes?
-
No.
-
Well then you’re scrotebrained and trying to push some sort of agenda
-
Am I missing something here? South Carolina seceded before Lincoln’s "invasion" of South Carolina, didn’t they? So what the hell are you talking about?
-
How many states seceded again? 11? Can you even count that high? And the first state to secede after South Carolina lists the invasion of South Carolina by Lincoln as the event that caused secession, and seceded the DAY that it happened. That all must be coincidence in your mind, hmm? How stupid can you be, do you get paid to be stupid on the internet?
-
South Carolina had already seceded you freaking moron. Explain that. That’s when secession started.
-
So that makes 10 states motivated by Northern attacks on the South to secede. Lets count that out
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10!
Good job! -
You said that the attack on Fort Sumter was the start of the secession process. And that’s just obviously freaking insane for anyone familiar with the basic concept of cause and effect because, again – a state had already freaking seceded. You absolute moron.
And again – the states that seceded after South Carolina also cared about slavery.
-
Sure they cared about slavery, but 10/11 states secede after the north invaded the south and states so in their reasons for secession. Meaning secession was moral
-
No
-
Cope
-
You’re trying to say it was the primary reason. The document doesn’t support that at all. It’s one bullet point on a list of like 20, most explicitly about slavery, and one of the last ones. It isn’t in the opening or closing arguments and declaration; instead, slavery is. Even though it must have been at the top of everyone’s minds at the moment, it still almost comes off as an afterthought here that a state has been "invaded."
-
TIL Catholicism is a fringe theory.
-
A perk of believing in an objective moral system (catholicism) is the assurance that what’s wrong today was wrong yesterday.
Moral relativism is for cowards who can’t commit to truth.
-
Well, the key is that the North didn’t start the war, the south did, over an election.
-
No the south seceded over an election, something perfectly legal. This has been established, please read the thread
-
>No the south seceded over an election, something perfectly legal.
We’ve gone over this. Unilateral secession isn’t constitutional. -
It is, almost all of the founders thought so. If the federal government is just going to ignore all its own laws then what are you supposed to do? Secede, that is the tool that the founders left the states
-
>If the federal government is just going to ignore all its own laws then what are you supposed to do? Secede
The federal government didn’t do that, and you know this. Secondly, it still isn’t constitutional. See: Texas v. White. -
Even accepting for the sake of argument that the South had a legal right to secede in the face of Northern abolitionism, they still wouldn’t have a moral right to do so
-
>If secession is legally the only route the South had then it was morally justifiable.
-
Just because something is legal, that doesn’t mean it’s moral.
-
If it’s legal then society has deemed it moral.
-
No
-
Not an argument
-
Because it’s really obvious that things that are legal are not necessarily immoral
If I lie to my friend, break a promise to him, seduce his wife, and end his marriage, I’ve done something morally wrong even though I haven’t broken any law.
-
If you’re so inclined, are you going to start a civil war over not wanting people to have affairs? Or are you going to make a law that says affairs are illegal? In a safe and civil society
-
In which world was American slavery civil?
The owners were straight up selling children and breaking up marriages for profit.
-
You’re right. This proves that the role of society isn’t to dictate morals but to observe them.
The only source any society should do this from is from God, through the Catholic church.
-
Literally none of that is true.
-
First of all, the North did not do anything that would have ended slavery in slave states before secession. Lincoln did not intend to do anything that would have ended slavery in slave states. So this is a total counterfactual red herring with no relation to the actual historical causes of the Civil War.
Second, even if the North had intended to end slavery (which they didn’t) and even if this had given the South a legal right to secede (which is debatable at best) the South would still not have been *morally* justified to use that right to secede to keep slavery.
The only thing the South would have been *morally* justified in doing at any point would have been immediately ending slavery. No course which resulted in the South maintaining slavery could ever be said to be morally justified.
-
>they didn’t end slavery
>fund a guerrilla war to raid slave owners in new territories so they can’t create new slave states
??? -
I said "the North did not do anything that would have ended slavery in slave states." Nothing in the territories would have ended slavery in slaves states. So it’s irrelevant.
Second, both sides were raiding and doing bonked-up shit in the territories. That state of affairs was the inevitable outcome of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which was designed by Democrats and largely supported by the South to attempt to open more territory to slavery. So you cannot blame that on the North or the Republicans.
Third, none of that would morally justify seceding to maintain slavery anyway.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Saving pregnant gnomish girls from the Nazis is alway a morally righteous cause
-
The D*xoid mongrel makes his vile, wretched disregard for the rights of his fellow countrymen plain for all to see. When he speaks of the rights and freedoms of man, he is, of course, referring to his own right to do as he pleases, and nothing more.
Slavery had become a race-woke af welfare apparatus so that Cletus could LARP as ‘le chivalrous citizen-soldier". Slavery was unprofitable everywhere else in the western world except the south, where the government kept it alive as a zombie institution with special privileges so that the practice could be weaponized to drive out all the free soilers and replace Americans as a nation of freedom-loving men with a nation of disenfranchised worker drones. Everything about this movement was a rancid assault on the concept of America as a freedom-loving land all so that Cletus could continue feeding his vile, depraved urges to rape 11-year-old girls without consequence, even if all he was doing was consigning his own offspring to a brutally pitiless system that would rip him from his mother’s breast and place him where it made the most economic sense for his overlords.
The pig-faced d*xoid is actually incapable of thinking that far ahead, his only thoughts are ever on indulging his immediate urges. The rest of the country was right to rip these malcontented swine from their perch of political privilege -
A Baptist red leg Slaveocrat was teaching a class on Nathan Bedford Forrest, known ruffian.
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Baron Jomini and accept that Bobby Lee was the finest leader of men in all the War of Northern Aggression, even greater than Ulysses!”
At this moment a stout Harvard-educated Yankee lieutenant and syphilis-survivor from Boston with an immaculately-waxed mustache who killed 70 rebels at Devil’s Den and understood that Southerners deserved all the curses and maledictions a people could pour out stood up and held aloft a picture of an African slave.
"To whom does he belong, rebel?”
The yellow dog scoundrel smirked quite slave power’ly and smugly replied “Me, of course.”
”You don’t recollect, then, the legal president of all the Southern states declaring ‘all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State’ are ‘forever free?’”
The rebel was visibly shaken, and dropped his bourbon and copy of Summary of the Art of War. He stormed out of the room crying those expensive Copperhead tears. The same tears the South cried for “state’s rights” as gallant Uncle Cump burned the land’s disgusting wrap-around porches and put its benighted, double-chinned sons to the sword. There is no doubt that at this point our fat planter wished he had been a Unionist and shunned the seduction of slave despotism. He wished so much that he had a ticket for Brazil where he could contract malaria and die, but he himself had pawned it off to pay for a new pair of silk stockings!
The students applauded and all enlisted in the Union Army that day and accepted Abraham Lincoln as their president. A bald eagle named “13th Amendment” flew into the room and perched atop the regimental colors and shed a tear on the chalk board. ”Battle Hymn of the Republic” was sung several times, and Ralph Waldo Emerson himself showed up and converted everyone to Transcendentalism.-
woke af
-
-
>All this glorious Southern goatse porn
It takes a rarefied type of righteous ass whoopin to make the losers still cry about it near on 150 years later.
>Enslaves an entire race of human being to sustain an aristocracy
>Gets pissed for generations about a couple burned cities>Fires first
>Claims the war was started by the people they were shelling>Practically every article of secession directly cites slavery in the "reason for leaving like a bitch" box
>"Naw you damn yankees, this war is about freedom">Best generals either die to friendly fire or suffer crushing defeats that force surrender
>"No you don’t get it, despite their abject failure they were secretly better than the dudes who assbonked them"Southerners confirmed for shit tier rebel scum. I’d love to see the South rise again just to hear that pussified accent begging forgiveness after they take the yankee pen15 again.
-
Please don’t associate southerners with scrotebrained neo-confederates. I live in the south, and there are fine people here that don’t delude themselves or seethe over a conflict that has no effect on them.
-
you are a freaking cuck, feel very free to leave and go live in some yankee shithole of your choosing
-
No. I’m going to stay here, and I’m going to enjoy myself, and there is nothing you can do about it.
-
-
-
>the entire black race was enslaved
no, but blacks were enslaved and totally unable to do anything about it until Whites freed them, and they are incapable even years later after being freed.
was slavery all that bad considering it protected them from (((modernity)))?
>fires first
Yes, and do you believe native American raids had the intention of going all the way to Europe?
Defense against imperialism is still defense against imperialism.
Dont place guns and soldiers on the land of indigenous Southerners.
>its about slavery
so blacks owe the US Government reparations for freeing then? gotcha
>brutalize Union troops
>Union uses its superior numbers and industry to lean on the South
>Union also targets civilians
Do you also think the Apache and Lakota lost because their bushcraft wasnt good enough?Hope America collapses and leftists and non-whites get scalped by indigenous Americans like the Southerners.
>wtf they arent native
their ethnogenesis and their political origins are 1000000% wholly American.
>theyre from europe
and Apache are from Siberia, both groups are still ingidenous.-
>no, but blacks were enslaved and totally unable to do anything about it
Yeah, that’s how slavery works. You’re such a freaking scrotebrain.
-
-
-
neither the confederation nor the united states made a case about morality
it was an argument solely woke af on the way how the economy should be organizedwe must ask ourselves the question why the Roman Empire did not achieve what the USA could
it must have been the case that Capitalism is a more flexible form of economic interchange
it is simply not enough to formulate that a peoples should be free and equal as the stoics did and others -
The moral case for self government is wanting to get rid of your current overlord and being capable of ousting it.
So I’d say they had half a case. -
The Constitution didn’t say that States were permanently tied together and couldn’t secede.
Beyond the legality of secession, I believe that all peoples should be allowed to freely associate and freely refuse to associate with others. -
the morality is not easy to justify because leading up to the secession the biggest southern political gripes were 1) slavery must be expanded – it is not enough that we have it, new states must permit it too (and thus buy slaves from us) and 2) the passing of fugitive slave acts, and thus protect their property even in states without slavery – undercutting their claims of states rights being a reason for secession, as they were all too happy to violate states rights for their own gain
-
The question is, why did scrotes take over 150 years to finally become offended by the confederate flag and the statues.
-
Slavery was going to be abolished legally under the constitution using constitutional procedures. Chuds in their southern shitholes knew this and thus tried to secede when they didn’t get what they wanted like children who can’t follow the rules.
It’s the equivalent of flipping over a monopoly board when you’re losing but the other player catches it midair and then forces the seething poorscrote to be butt raped-
Funny you say that, despite that fact that the south still had numerous, obviously high IQ individuals supporting the south. Probably a lot brighter than you.
-
What an absolutely pathetic retort. Genuinely sad for you
-
Says the dumb lil black boi who compares secession to flipping a game board.
-
You’re embarrassing yourself
-
Explain why I should be embarrassed, or are Ad Hominems all you’re good at. You dumb stinky scrote.
-
-
-
-
-
-
No, the literal cause of the civil war was over slavery, no matter how much mental gymnastics confederate apologists will throw at you. I would at least respect them if they were honest about it.
-
legally the South was allowed to succeed
but the Union still did the correct thing by preventing potential rival from breaking away and forming into a truly independent nation
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.