Why support the Confederates? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why support the Confederates? (Page 2 of 9)

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:43:51 PM EDT

[#1]

The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:44:25 PM EDT

[#2]

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:45:08 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when the Confederacy haters get owned like this, it is very entertaining.

+eleventybillion
Whats even better is the bitter, presistant denial of facts and spewing of their left wing babble to "prove" their points that have been beat down time and time again. Hell Mississippi's population is mostly black and they just voted to keep the confederate flag in their states flag. Southern black people know it's not racist, why can't liberal white people figure it out?

Because they want a short and easy way to be a hero, and calling the confederate flag racist is easy because of the constant brainwashing.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:45:36 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If my parents beat it into me as children, then at least my parents took an interest in my future unlike libs parents. To be honest, my dad worked and traveled for work 100+ hours a week and my mom is pretty lib. I am proud of my southern heritage and became this way out of independant research, not brainwashing by left wingers. The south left union because they were trampling our rights. That's a fact that cannot be disputed, it is a widely documented historical FACT. The North attacked us to bring us back to the union because they needed our textiles and lumber and extra taxes they were getting from us. They had slaves to. Your wrong, get over it.

The south left union because they were trampling our rights.
Yea the right to own slaves, or at least they soon would be with all the new western states.

That's a fact that cannot be disputed, it is a widely documented historical FACT.
Yea the FACT that the south wanted the individual state's right to own slaves

The North attacked us to bring us back to the union because they needed our textiles and lumber and extra taxes they were getting from us.
Oh so the NORTH started the war. HA

Ever heard of small fort located in SC that the south FIRED on first because, like any good commander, the union officer refused to surrender to a MOB of civilians!

Talk about brainwashed

You are consistantly glossing over major events like slavery, fort sumpter and trying to say the minor differences were the only reason for the war!
I speak of facts, and you deny them, call me what you will, at least I'm educated about it.

And the south would have left the Union solely over tariffs? Yea right. No one is saying that didn't happen or that it was a point of contention.

But you can't sit there and say if the south did not believe that the North's ultimate goal at some point in the future was the freeing of the slaves, that they would still have left the union. Without slavery all the other causes would have NOT led to seccession. Period.

There for the driving cause for the ACW was slavery. It was the biggest reason, not the ONLY reason!

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:46:08 PM EDT

[#5]

Kalifornia education

still shows it is worthless

. If the South had been teaching Islam was ok, it would have been accceptable to Kalifornians

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:46:11 PM EDT

[#6]

Lonepathfinder, roll your eyes all you want, but all your doing is pointing out a left-wing liberal agenda spawned from public education, and your pushing it here.

The beauty of the internet and alternative media is that it has allowed freedom of thought and re-examination of the legality/illegality of Lincolns actions. He's not the messiah the left protrayed him as. He exiled members of his own party to Canada!

History has proven 100 years of northern condemnation wrong.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:46:19 PM EDT

[#7]

I think Lincoln was great man and a great president.

At the same time he could have done the North and the South a huge favor and actually bought all of the southern slaves with federal money and then manumitted them. This would have cost much less than the war expenditure and would have the additional benefit of not wiping out 600,000 brave Americans whose lives could not be replaced.

Then again I am sure neither side imagined that it would ever be so costly in blood or treasure.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:46:31 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Billybob2002...how's that nanny state working out for you? Here in the south, we don't legislate that our boss must pay for healthcare, we pay for it ourselves. It seems to be working seeing that Texas will gain 2 more house seats from the blue states next census.

The battles that caused the Civil War are still being fought today. Individual freedom and personal responsibility vs. a nanny state.

Sorry, I don't like slavery and don't believe it is a individual freedom. Texas saw the institution of slavery as a right and left the Union for it!

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm - Confederate States of America
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union...talks about slavery....

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm - Confederate States of America
Georgia Secession...talks about slavery...

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm - A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union....talks about slavery...

Slavery is a major cause for the CW....

Edit: You also notice some states were afraid that blacks would get equal rights....

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:46:36 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when the Confederacy haters get owned like this, it is very entertaining.

+eleventybillion
Whats even better is the bitter, presistant denial of facts and spewing of their left wing babble to "prove" their points that have been beat down time and time again. Hell Mississippi's population is mostly black and they just voted to keep the confederate flag in their states flag. Southern black people know it's not racist, why can't liberal white people figure it out?

No one is arguing over the Confederate Battle Flag.

I and others have pointed out the real reasons for the war, and none of you have responded in detail.

Dude, just be quiet, he brought up a great point and you cant take it, just shut up.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:46:58 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:47:39 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Billybob2002...how's that nanny state working out for you? Here in the south, we don't legislate that our boss must pay for healthcare, we pay for it ourselves. It seems to be working seeing that Texas will gain 2 more house seats from the blue states next census.he

Sorry, I don't like slavery and don't believe it is a individual freedom. Texas saw the institution of slavery as a right and left the Union for it!

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm - Confederate States of America
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union...talks about slavery....hock.gif

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm - Confederate States of America
Georgia Secession...talks about slavery...hock.gif

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm - A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union....talks about slavery... hock.gif

Slavery is a major cause for the CW....h.gif

Yep, none of them listed any other power that the federal government tried to take away (besides slav ery).

Once again, the South gets owned.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:47:50 PM EDT

[#12]

to all the people that are obsessed with the south:

listen dude its 2006 grow the fuck up the south aint gonna rise again the only thing rising is your fuckin blood pressure because you guys worry so much about the NEGRO SCUM which is a total crock of shit. Why dont you worry about losing weight like the rest of your hillbilly friends should and grow up.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:47:59 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If my parents beat it into me as children, then at least my parents took an interest in my future unlike libs parents. To be honest, my dad worked and traveled for work 100+ hours a week and my mom is pretty lib. I am proud of my southern heritage and became this way out of independant research, not brainwashing by left wingers. The south left union because they were trampling our rights. That's a fact that cannot be disputed, it is a widely documented historical FACT. The North attacked us to bring us back to the union because they needed our textiles and lumber and extra taxes they were getting from us. They had slaves to. Your wrong, get over it.

The south left union because they were trampling our rights.
Yea the right to own slaves, or at least they soon would be with all the new western states.

That's a fact that cannot be disputed, it is a widely documented historical FACT.
Yea the FACT that the south wanted the individual state's right to own slaves

The North attacked us to bring us back to the union because they needed our textiles and lumber and extra taxes they were getting from us.
Oh so the NORTH started the war. HA

Ever heard of small fort located in SC that the south FIRED on first because, like any good commander, the union officer refused to surrender to a MOB of civilians!

Talk about brainwashed

You are consistantly glossing over major events like slavery, fort sumpter and trying to say the minor differences were the only reason for the war!
So lemme ask you something.
If the economy of the South was dependant upon slavery, would you agree that abolition represented the total economic destruction of the South?

Over night it would have affected slave owners. The poor white south, 90% of the population, would not have been destroyed economically, depression yes, destruction no.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:48:30 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate. Fighting to end slavery is a noble cause. One I would of supported then.

There was no power the federal government tried to take away, other then slavery.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:48:37 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
why then were slave owners in kentucky and west virginia allowed to keep their slaves after siding with the union

slaves in these states were not freed until the signing of the 13th amendment at the wars end. the emancipation proclimation did exactly dick, as it freed only confederate slaves. similar to if bush declared that all cubans in cuba must wear red on tuesdays.

BINGO! We have a winner. This is the single most important nail in the coffin of the lie that the war was over slavery. It was over economics and states rights.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:48:55 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

Do you pay income taxes?

Thought so.

Every citizen has responsibilities to the federal government.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:49:42 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when the Confederacy haters get owned like this, it is very entertaining.

+eleventybillion
Whats even better is the bitter, presistant denial of facts and spewing of their left wing babble to "prove" their points that have been beat down time and time again. Hell Mississippi's population is mostly black and they just voted to keep the confederate flag in their states flag. Southern black people know it's not racist, why can't liberal white people figure it out?

Because they want a short and easy way to be a hero, and calling the confederate flag racist is easy because of the constant brainwashing.

Name one person in this thread that called the Confederate Battle Flag racist. We are not arguing about the flag.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:50:07 PM EDT

[#18]

Those who speak of the War being "about slavery" really need to read John Calhoun. Until they do so, the argument will remain circular. No intelligent discussion of the matter is possible without a clear comprehension of the Principal of Nullification on all sides.

A "Cliff's Notes" version was expounded around a capfire by George Pickett's character in the film "Gettysburg. (I have friends who were in that movie, both for the North and South, and in some cases both.)

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:50:37 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
to all the people that are obsessed with the south:

listen dude its 2006 grow the fuck up the south aint gonna rise again the only thing rising is your fuckin blood pressure because you guys worry so much about the NEGRO SCUM which is a total crock of shit. Why dont you worry about losing weight like the rest of your hillbilly friends should and grow up.

Go do your homework and get ready for bedtime, I think you're a little cranky tonight.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:51:46 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate.

The South's economy is agrarian, and the slaves did the manual labor. Remove that, and the economy collapses.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:52:11 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

Do you pay income taxes?

Thought so.

Every citizen has responsibilities to the federal government.

Did you ever read the Constitution?

Even the original constitution says that the federal government has the power to collect taxes. As long as it is uniform to the census. As in everyone pays the same taxes.

Whats the beef with income tax?

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:52:21 PM EDT

[#22]

Damn Dusty, you are hard-core man!

Anyone who thinks the war between the states was fought over slavery should call Thomas Sowell, one of America's greatest historians, this Friday. He usually comes on the second hour when Walter Williams sits in for Rush.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:52:34 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Lonepathfinder, roll your eyes all you want, but all your doing is pointing out a left-wing liberal agenda spawned from public education(wrong), and your pushing it here.

The beauty of the internet and alternative media is that it has allowed freedom of thought and re-examination of the legality/illegality of Lincolns actions. He's not the messiah the left protrayed him as. He exiled members of his own party to Canada!

History has proven 100 years of northern condemnation wrong.

I never went to public school.

I've got a 2 year degree in history as well.

I've read hundreds of books on the time period.

When the hell did lincoln specifically come into the arguement? You can question the legality or illegality of enforcing seccession or whether the act of seccession is legal all you want. I'm not arguing that.

The root cause of the ACW is slavery. That is the arguement.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:52:38 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when the Confederacy haters get owned like this, it is very entertaining.

+eleventybillion
Whats even better is the bitter, presistant denial of facts and spewing of their left wing babble to "prove" their points that have been beat down time and time again. Hell Mississippi's population is mostly black and they just voted to keep the confederate flag in their states flag. Southern black people know it's not racist, why can't liberal white people figure it out?

Because they want a short and easy way to be a hero, and calling the confederate flag racist is easy because of the constant brainwashing.

Name one person in this thread that called the Confederate Battle Flag racist. We are not arguing about the flag.

I did not say that a person in this thread called it racist, I was implying that liberals love to jump on the "racist confederate flag" bandwagon.
example

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:52:43 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

The tarrifs they imposed to prevent the sale of textile materials to England. The north needed the raw materials to feed their factories. The south wanted to sell to the best buyers. England could afford to pay more than northern factory owners. So the north slapped all sorts of taxes on the cotton and other textile materials..... IIRC this is how the revolutionary war started too. Unfair taxation.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:54:12 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate.
The South's economy is agrarian, and the slaves did the manual labor. Remove that, and the economy collapses.

The United States is ALL agrarian. There is not a State in the country that isnt littered with farms.

Are you saying farms are impossible without slaves?

I wonder how we grow food now since slaves are outlawed.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:54:21 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
why then were slave owners in kentucky and west virginia allowed to keep their slaves after siding with the union

slaves in these states were not freed until the signing of the 13th amendment at the wars end. the emancipation proclimation did exactly dick, as it freed only confederate slaves. similar to if bush declared that all cubans in cuba must wear red on tuesdays.

BINGO! We have a winner. This is the single most important nail in the coffin of the lie that the war was over slavery. It was over economics and states rights.

We've been over this. Wartime necessity to keep those states on the Union's side. Same way we allied with communist russia in WWII. Necessary evil to win the war.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:55:05 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
to all the people that are obsessed with the south:

listen dude its 2006 grow the fuck up the south aint gonna rise again the only thing rising is your fuckin blood pressure because you guys worry so much about the NEGRO SCUM which is a total crock of shit. Why dont you worry about losing weight like the rest of your hillbilly friends should and grow up.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:56:28 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

The tarrifs they imposed to prevent the sale of textile materials to England. The north needed the raw materials to feed their factories. The south wanted to sell to the best buyers. England could afford to pay more than northern factory owners. So the north slapped all sorts of taxes on the cotton and other textile materials..... IIRC this is how the revolutionary war started too. Unfair taxation.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE TRADING.

Your argument is weak. This is what your State Representatives and Senators are for, to lobby for and vote on tax's that your State approves of.

So the North outvoted the South. BooHoo.

Your State shouldnt of been so reliant on interstate trade.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:56:41 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Lonepathfinder, roll your eyes all you want, but all your doing is pointing out a left-wing liberal agenda spawned from public education(wrong), and your pushing it here.

The beauty of the internet and alternative media is that it has allowed freedom of thought and re-examination of the legality/illegality of Lincolns actions. He's not the messiah the left protrayed him as. He exiled members of his own party to Canada!

History has proven 100 years of northern condemnation wrong.

I never went to public school.

I've got a 2 year degree in history as well.

I've read hundreds of books on the time period.

When the hell did lincoln specifically come into the arguement? You can question the legality or illegality of enforcing seccession or whether the act of seccession is legal all you want. I'm not arguing that.

The root cause of the ACW is slavery. That is the arguement.

"Root cause" is an oversimplification. What would have happened if the North had assisted the South in changing the basis for their economy?
I might daresay that the war may never have happened.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:56:55 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
The civil war was not ONLY about slavery, but it was almost exclusively about slavery. The civil war was an excuse to get alot of anger out over alot of issues, but you cannot deny that the major reason was slavery.

You folks can't admit that, and you call those of us who know the war was about slavery brainwashed liberal zombies.

I find that sickeningly hipocritical. This thread is dooomed to die after 10 pages of FAR, FAR right-wing flag wavers spouting the nonsense their parents beat into them as children. You believe the war wasn't about slavery the same as you believe in creationism. The facts just don't matter to you in either case.

Yeah I'm sure all the young poor farmers who never owned slaves were fighting for something they never had. Get bent.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:57:00 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

The tarrifs they imposed to prevent the sale of textile materials to England. The north needed the raw materials to feed their factories. The south wanted to sell to the best buyers. England could afford to pay more than northern factory owners. So the north slapped all sorts of taxes on the cotton and other textile materials..... IIRC this is how the revolutionary war started too. Unfair taxation.

Perfect example of how the south was screwing over their fellow countrymen! How many of you people bitch about job outsourcing to other countries? If you are in favor of going against a purely free economic system to "protect" america jobs (industries) then why was it wrong back then to do exactly that?

That issue, by itself, would not have caused a rebellion.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:57:06 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate.
The South's economy is agrarian, and the slaves did the manual labor. Remove that, and the economy collapses.

The United States is ALL agrarian. There is not a State in the country that isnt littered with farms.

Are you saying farms are impossible without slaves?

I wonder how we grow food now since slaves are outlawed.

tractors

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:58:30 PM EDT

[#34]

I've nothing against the flag. To me, it's about history but to other people, it represents different things. It all depends on what it represents to the person who flies and views the flag and no two parties will agree.

Dr. John Coski's, "Confederate Battle Flag: The Most Embattled Emblem," is worth while reading as it discusses the numerous aspects of the Confederate Cross of St. Andrews flag. It examines the flag from a symbol used by the Confederacy, the Post-Reconstruction use of the flag by ex-Confederates, the abuse of the flag by the KKK and Neo-Nazis in response to the Civil Rights Movement, and the use of the flags by reenactors.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:58:34 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when the Confederacy haters get owned like this, it is very entertaining.

+eleventybillion
Whats even better is the bitter, presistant denial of facts and spewing of their left wing babble to "prove" their points that have been beat down time and time again. Hell Mississippi's population is mostly black and they just voted to keep the confederate flag in their states flag. Southern black people know it's not racist, why can't liberal white people figure it out?

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:58:41 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate.
The South's economy is agrarian, and the slaves did the manual labor. Remove that, and the economy collapses.

The United States is ALL agrarian. There is not a State in the country that isnt littered with farms.

Are you saying farms are impossible without slaves?

I wonder how we grow food now since slaves are outlawed.

No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the labor in the South was comprised of slave labor. It takes time to replace that, either with other people or machinery. The Southern states realized that.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:59:15 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lonepathfinder, roll your eyes all you want, but all your doing is pointing out a left-wing liberal agenda spawned from public education(wrong), and your pushing it here.

The beauty of the internet and alternative media is that it has allowed freedom of thought and re-examination of the legality/illegality of Lincolns actions. He's not the messiah the left protrayed him as. He exiled members of his own party to Canada!

History has proven 100 years of northern condemnation wrong.

I never went to public school.

I've got a 2 year degree in history as well.

I've read hundreds of books on the time period.

When the hell did lincoln specifically come into the arguement? You can question the legality or illegality of enforcing seccession or whether the act of seccession is legal all you want. I'm not arguing that.

The root cause of the ACW is slavery. That is the arguement.
"Root cause" is an oversimplification. What would have happened if the North had assisted the South in changing the basis for their economy?
I might daresay that the war may never have happened.

Slavery is the root cause.

A major portion of the south's economy was based on? You guessed it slavery Hindsight is 20/20, we can all probably figure out a better way that war, but that doesn't change the simple fact that the driving force behind the war was slavery and all the economic and political issues that derive from slavery.

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:59:16 PM EDT

[#38]

Hey Billybob...from the sites you referenced:

Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Even the liberal pablum you spew points out that it was about economy and individual rights

Posted: 1/16/2006 4:59:38 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate.
The South's economy is agrarian, and the slaves did the manual labor. Remove that, and the economy collapses.

The United States is ALL agrarian. There is not a State in the country that isnt littered with farms.

Are you saying farms are impossible without slaves?

I wonder how we grow food now since slaves are outlawed.

tractorshr

The North was doing just fine with their own farms. How come it was just the southern farms that were unmanageable without slaves?

The north didnt have tractors.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:01:45 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate.
The South's economy is agrarian, and the slaves did the manual labor. Remove that, and the economy collapses.

The United States is ALL agrarian. There is not a State in the country that isnt littered with farms.

Are you saying farms are impossible without slaves?

I wonder how we grow food now since slaves are outlawed.
No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the labor in the South was comprised of slave labor. It takes time to replace that, either with other people or machinery. The Southern states realized that.

And did what about it? Fought a war to keep their slaves as long as possible, to watch out for their own hides.

You guys are right, it was indeed about economy. An economy dependant on slavery, and people so unwilling to give up slavery that a war already being fought between the two conflicting interests lasted far longer.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:02:58 PM EDT

[#41]

ibtl..... Flag means Heritage to me, got some war trophies taken from some northern folks here to.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:03:19 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

The tarrifs they imposed to prevent the sale of textile materials to England. The north needed the raw materials to feed their factories. The south wanted to sell to the best buyers. England could afford to pay more than northern factory owners. So the north slapped all sorts of taxes on the cotton and other textile materials..... IIRC this is how the revolutionary war started too. Unfair taxation.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE TRADING.

Your argument is weak. This is what your State Representatives and Senators are for, to lobby for and vote on tax's that your State approves of.

So the North outvoted the South. BooHoo.

Your State shouldnt of been so reliant on interstate trade.

Yes, 600,000 dead americans Boo Hoo. Thanks for recognizing the cause of the war.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:03:28 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate.
The South's economy is agrarian, and the slaves did the manual labor. Remove that, and the economy collapses.

The United States is ALL agrarian. There is not a State in the country that isnt littered with farms.

Are you saying farms are impossible without slaves?

I wonder how we grow food now since slaves are outlawed.

tractors

The North was doing just fine with their own farms. How come it was just the southern farms that were unmanageable without slaves?

The north didnt have tractors.

they didn't have slaves either, keep telling yourself that.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:04:54 PM EDT

[#44]

Another wasted effort.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:05:12 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
You cannot be serious, Dusty.

The Civil war was almost exclusively over slavery! Your denial of absolute facts is akin to people denying evolution, and I imagine the people that cling most tightly the one cling just as tightly to the other!

CIVIL WAR = BATTLE OVER SLAVERY

You prove the stupidity of the public school system right there.

For your information, Lincoln didn't think that blacks were equal to whites. His wife came from the largest slace owning family in Tenn.

He used slavery as a final plea to the north, because the north had been getting trounced by the South, and the northerners were getting upset over the length of the war, and the fact that many northerners agreed with the South o nthe States' Rights issue was hindering Lincoln. Take a look at the Emancipation Proclamation. IT didn't free any slaves in the north, only the South.

The slaves were an expediant tool for Lincoln to use to save the war.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:05:22 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Hey Billybob...from the sites you referenced:

Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Even the liberal pablum you spew points out that it was about economy and individual rights

What does "$3,000,000,000 of our property" means?

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:05:29 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.

The tarrifs they imposed to prevent the sale of textile materials to England. The north needed the raw materials to feed their factories. The south wanted to sell to the best buyers. England could afford to pay more than northern factory owners. So the north slapped all sorts of taxes on the cotton and other textile materials..... IIRC this is how the revolutionary war started too. Unfair taxation.

Perfect example of how the south was screwing over their fellow countrymen! How many of you people bitch about job outsourcing to other countries? If you are in favor of going against a purely free economic system to "protect" america jobs (industries) then why was it wrong back then to do exactly that?

That issue, by itself, would not have caused a rebellion.

No, it was rich northern factory owners not wanting to pay the going rate. And using their influence to pay less.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:06:41 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Lonepathfinder, roll your eyes all you want, but all your doing is pointing out a left-wing liberal agenda spawned from public education(wrong), and your pushing it here.

The beauty of the internet and alternative media is that it has allowed freedom of thought and re-examination of the legality/illegality of Lincolns actions. He's not the messiah the left protrayed him as. He exiled members of his own party to Canada!

History has proven 100 years of northern condemnation wrong.

I never went to public school.

I've got a 2 year degree in history as well.

I've read hundreds of books on the time period.

When the hell did lincoln specifically come into the arguement? You can question the legality or illegality of enforcing seccession or whether the act of seccession is legal all you want. I'm not arguing that.

The root cause of the ACW is slavery. That is the arguement.

Did all that college education and those hundreds of books teach you that the North didn't have slaves either...really, at this point you're just embarassing yourself.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:06:50 PM EDT

[#49]

i suppose that share cropping and endentured servitude was the better choice for freedmen.

Posted: 1/16/2006 5:06:50 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The confederates can win the argument if they point out ONE thing.

WHAT RIGHT DID THE UNION TRY TO TAKE FROM THEIR STATE?

If you can answer anything other then slavery, you will have englightened me, and I will honor the confederate flag.
The basis for the Southern economy. How's that?

That makes no sense. Please elaborate.
The South's economy is agrarian, and the slaves did the manual labor. Remove that, and the economy collapses.

The United States is ALL agrarian. There is not a State in the country that isnt littered with farms.

Are you saying farms are impossible without slaves?

I wonder how we grow food now since slaves are outlawed.

tractors

The North was doing just fine with their own farms. How come it was just the southern farms that were unmanageable without slaves?

The north didnt have tractors.

The north couldn't grow cotton and didn't have any machines to pick it at the time.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why support the Confederates? (Page 2 of 9)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us