The Confederacy was About Slavery

It also shows that Email doesnt read his hoistory too deeply. He presented the "Ordinance of Seccession" which wasnt presented until May 1861. SOuth Carolina actually secceded 5 months earlier. , and it would perhaps been more accurate for Email to see whether the South Carolinians didnt say something to the world on the occassion of their seccession date (Dec 20 1860). I presented the PROCLAMATION OF SECCESSION which was delivered on Dec 20. (Hint: that one was alll about slavery)

Well, he obviously can't logically address the topic, either. His feeble attempt to argue from a time-line refers to northern intentions. The thread is not about why anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line might have or might not have fought in that war. The thread is about why the Confederate States were founded. A sad peformance overall.

Not to belabor it (well maybe a little belaboring), but Email doesnt seem to get the nuanced points herein. His little speech about 1861 preceding 1863 reminded me of a headline we had recently in the LAncaster Papers

"FLOODING LINKED TO RECENT HEAVY RAINFALLS".
I think everyone on Lancaster's huge Bible belt understood the relationship withot being told in 20 point type.

Here is some excellent commentary about the movie The Conspirator. The comments are from an editorial by Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune:

Echoes of present-day politics and constitutional debates echo throughout "The Conspirator," a riveting new film written and produced by Robert Redford. It focuses on the remarkable mystery of Mary Surratt, the only woman to be tried and executed in the plot to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln.

Much has been made about whether Surratt was really guilty. There's no doubt that a military tribunal denied Surratt her constitutional right as a citizen to a civilian jury trial. But there's also no doubt that she was a Confederate sympathizer, whose boardinghouse was a meeting place for John Wilkes Booth and other conspirators, including her son.

If she had been given a jury trial in Washington, a city under military law and heavily populated with Southern sympathizers, she might well have been set free.

A particularly memorable moment comes when she is asked by her skeptical attorney, played by James McAvoy, why she was such a staunch supporter of the Confederacy. She asks him if he's ever fought for something "larger than yourself." Of course he has. He's a battle-wounded Union Army veteran. "Then we are the same," she says.

Not quite. They fought for different sides. She sided with those who fought against the Union to keep up their rights, most prominently the right to hold humans in bondage.

Since those humans included some of my ancestors, I cannot sympathize with Mary Surratt or her fellow conspirators, one of whom objects to being overseen by "a Negro guard." But moments like that helped me to understand what the North was up against, despite the Union's advantage in numbers and weapons.

It also helped me to understand why so many shattered, embittered Southerners after the war latched onto "the Lost Cause," a romanticized interpretation of the conflict that emphasizes Confederate heroism and downplays the importance of slavery.

It also helps to explain some of the energy behind Civil War re-enactors. It's more than just grown men playing war, I was told years ago when I interviewed some participants. "It is to show," as one Confederate officer told me, "that our ancestors did not make the final sacrifice in vain."

Indeed, no one wants to be told that their great sacrifices counted for nothing. Besides, if anyone should understand lost causes — how it feels to be a minority that is patronized, stigmatized and ridiculed by a condescending majority — it is black Americans. Yet, the best lessons from our past show us how well we can work toward a better future — together.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0420-page-20110420,0,7230730.column

I generally like Page's take on things, but what impresses me most about this was the note of positivity he ended it with. It seems to me like a very grown up attitude about a subject that is always a potential bummer.

Those who live in that "Lost Cause" past have been left behind in the "New South," where investors and entrepreneurs have reinvigorated the economy precisely because neither race nor regionalism matter to them.

i don't know about yur ancesators
i know the last shots in the civil war wer fired by a confederate ship in the arctic
it spent ltime in australia gtoo


this is the flag of the css shenandoah

The North would not remove troops stationed on foreign soil . THAT is an act of war . They wouldnt remove their troops because it would mean the South had the legal right to secede and therefore the North had no just cause for war . So they left their troops there which was an act of war in itself .

The war was started to protect the union . The South seceded and the North couldnt tolerate that . The South seceded for several reasons, all of which involve power and money . Why did the South need slavery ? Not for an end in itself but to make money . A means to an end so dont stop at slavery, follow the logic .

So you admit the real cause was money .

Would you say as simple minded as someone who presents documents with the word slavery in them and thinks that is all the proof required ?

Time line :
November, 1860 - The election of Abraham Lincoln .
December 20, 1860 - South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union .
February, 1861 - By the time of the convening of a constitutional convention to establish the Confederacy six other states had joined South Carolina .
April 11, 1861 - On the afternoon, waving a white flag, two members of General Beauregard's staff were rowed across Charleston's harbor to Fort Sumter carrying a written demand for surrender.

So why is that time line wrong ? What did you say about it ? Too simple ? Well flesh it out, old boy .

Is it possible there were other reasons ? Like carpet baggers ?

So-called "state troops" (armed mobs, more like) of Florida and Alabama seized Federal property and attempted seize Fort Barrancas before the state had passed a secession ordinance. So-called "state troops" of Virginia seized the Federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry and the Navy Yard at Gosport before the state had passed a secession ordinance.

More insidious than that, though, John Floyd, Buchanan's Secretary of War, illegally shipped more than 100,000 muskets and rifled-muskets from the St. Louis arsenal to southern states in 1860, not only before his home state of Virginia had passed a secession ordinance, but most of them before Mr. Lincoln had even been elected.

You don't know a goddamned thing about American history. You have some kind of goofball belief that being able to cobble together what you consider (in your historical hebetude) a plausible argument will substitute for an actual knowledge of American history. It won't. Every time you spew your gobshite pronouncements about American history at this site, you prove your ignorance of the subject. But you're so goddamned stupid, you don't even realize just how idiotic your pronouncements are.

Ahhh...**** for brains ? If the declaration of secession had been passed then it could not possibly be an act of war . It was a criminal action . In fact, if the secession was illegal (a separate debate in itself) then the whole thing was a Police action, not a war . Do you follow any of this or are you too ******* stupid ?

Careful ! You'll have FM telling you that you are here to abuse posters and not for debate . I am sure he would as he is not a two faced lying dickhead .

You're sure aren't very swift. Federal facilities were paid for with the revenue of the entire United States, so seizing them was a criminal act, an act of theft. I don't care what label you put on it, the South started it, and they've been whining ever since because they got their ass--predictably--kicked to hell and gone. Once again, what you, in your ignorance, consider a plausible argument is no substitute for actually knowing the history involved. You don't know it.

Something Bill Maher said recently struck me as very true, from my experience living in the south...
He said that he had several upcoming live performance dates coming up in North Carolina. He said there was a misperception about the south - that they were all assbackwards hicks; but that there are a lot of very bright, modern people there; they are just surrounded by redneck assholes(paraphrasing).

In certain areas of the South, when I meet people that I find very manifestly openminded and progressive thinking, it always sadly seems very exceptional to me. And I know how bad that sounds, but that has been my experience. And that has been the case here in Louisiana - a lot.

A gay friend and I were talking politics (actually, he's the only gay person I can honestly claim as a friend - just so I don't sound like I'm trying to be pretentiously pc), and he said that he thinks racists are in the majority in the South, and definitely here in this small LA town. I'm still wide-eyed enough, in my oldish age, that it struck me as sort of suprising to hear him say it (he's white, just in case that matters).

So when Germany illegally invaded Poland, that means that WW2 wasn't a war?

Only if the taxes collected by the Federal Government were returned to the State. Anyway, there is provision for a secession to have all the land and its entitlements including buildings etc . You dont think they scede and just own air, do you ?

You spend half of your post telling me what you think of me...I get it already....why don't you just stick to the facts, **** for brains....and stop telling me how much you know history and actually demonstrate it ....just for a change .

Bit of a belligerent bias showing there, dont you think ? Being an unbiased super-historian and all....or were you being just pixie dipshit again ?

Funny...

You do know Germany was a recognised State in itself dont you ? No ? Well it was . You do know that other nations had stated that if Germany invaded they would regard it as an act of war ? You do know that other nations declared war on Germany ?

Yeah, white is the new black...them southern boys is just niggers...nothing more....

Bullshit, you don't know the constitution, either. There is no provision for secession, nor any provision handing over Federal property. You must make this **** up as you go along. It's really hilarious to see you tell someone to stick to the facts (your posts, by contrast, are completely fact-free), and even more hysterically funny to see you complain about how someone talks about you. Try going one post without calling your interlocutor a foul name.

I have demonstrated time and again that i know the history. You're the one retailing fairy tales--and not even very convincing fairy tales.

I was raised in both the North and the South, and have lived both North and South. My bias is against murderous hotheads for whom violence is the only solution they can conceive to not having their way politically. It's a shame that so many other southerners had to suffer for that, but a bigger shame is the bullshit "Lost Cause" dog and pony show they're still running.

Not only do you know nothing about American history, you know nothing about the United States and its people, either.

If the Confederacy wasn't about slavery, why didn't any free states secede?

Do you realise how stupid you sound when you think you are a victim of name calling ? You, an emotional rat bag who as soon as he thinks someone is down has a rush of blood and starts to spit out bile.....you are an unbelievable fool . What went wrong in your life to make you such a fuckwit ?

Declaration of Independence


So you are saying the colonies had no right to secede from Britain...will you be phoning the President to tell him ?

Or will you be picking and choosing ? You make up this **** as you go along dont you...furiously googling to return a self proclaimed expert.....what a **** for brains loser you are .