The Confederacy was About Slavery

The very first sentence of that document says,

This preamble is supposed to be ignored?

i am rarely to be found promoting ignoring reality, and I do not do so here.

When you "defy" anyone to refute what you post, then post a government document that specifically states its about slavery, then your ability at the comprehension of English needs to be relearned.

All we're going to get here is "la-la-la-la, i can't hear you from a pack of contrarians. This has been laid out in detail in the thread. This thread has become like the Hitler threads, the Rommel and the Australians thread--any number of threads in which people show up months or years after the last post, and seem to expect that all the arguments should be laid out anew for them, all of the evidence posted with links yet another time for them. Why bother? That idiot Whackeye has been in the thread almost from the beginning, and he's showing up to do his witless song and dance again.

I don't care what stupidity Rick or Whackeye peddle. I'm not going to waste any more time on them.

Several of us hd already done such posting of Articles of Seccession from various states in the Confederacy. I posted South Carolinas(and it was all about the "institution " of slavery down there). Set had also posted one as Ci just did and SNood also I believe.
Youre just flat wrong Hawkee

With this thread we see why it is going to be so difficult for America to avoid going over the Fiscal Cliff.

Excepting folks who are bound to argue their particular point until their last breath leaves them, this issue could have been largely settled some time ago if those who argue the Confederacy was only about slavery would acknowledge that there were concerns other than slavery that motivated the South to rebel, and if, at the same time, those who argue the Confederacy was about more than Slavery acknowledged that slavery was the primary root of Southern concern.

Of course there would still be those who insisted that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, and others who would insist with equal vehemence that the South's desire to be independent was based soley on the desire of each individual Southerner to own and abuse black slaves.

It's easy to argue for compromise when "compromise" means the other side giving in.

it gets even more complicated because the reason for succession is not the same as the reason for fighting over the succession.

It's pretty easy to argue a case if one translates it into extremes, and ignores the middle ground, the actual presentation, which is precisely what Finn is doing here. The title of the thread is "The Confederacy was About Slavery." The title of the thread is NOT "The Confederacy was About Slavery, and Nothing But Slavery."

Straw men are much easier to deal with than intelligent individuals presenting complex information and concepts.

Whackeye, the word is "secession," not succession. Look up succession, then look up secession, and maybe the nickel will drop for you.

Says someone wed to the extreme position.

I'm not wed to any extreme position, although given the feeble rhetorical skills which you commonly deploy, i understand why you erect yet another straw man to that effect.

The tariff was the subject of hot debate in Congress, and it once lead North Carolina to threaten to secede--yet it never lead to secession and war. The nullification brouhaha asserted the right of states to unilaterally declare any Federal law unconstitutional and ignore it, and in 1832, it even lead South Carolina to threaten to secede--yet it never lead to secession and war. In point of fact, the three fifths compromise assured that an amendment to propose the abolition of slavery could not even get out of the Congress. To this day, had slavery not already been abolished, there would be sufficient slave states to prevent the ratification of any such amendment. We have 50 states, which means that 38 states are required to ratify any amendment to the constitution. There were 11 states in the Confederacy, and Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were all also slave states. To this day, that collection of states could prevent the ratification of any amendment to abolish slavery.

In effect, secession, confederacy and making war on the United States constituted political and military suicide by the southern states. The tariff didn't move them to that stupidity, nullification didn't move them to that stupidity, the wrangles over admitting free and slaves states did not lead them to that stupidity. However, when a political party--the Republicans--who were thought to be abolitionist, elected a large congressional delegation, and when a candidate thought to be abolitionist--Lincoln--was elected, the South seceded and made war on the United States. Stupid, stupid, stupid--they had their military ass handed to them, and they've been whining about it and attempting to rewrite history ever since.

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck . . .

it took them 14 years to loose, and for awhile it looked like they would win...maybe not so stupid.

and look how the south ended up as part of the USA

Fourteen years? Jesus Christ, you have an unlimited capacity for making yourself look like a jackass. You really beggar any argument you attempt to make with such glaring stupidity.

OK, lets see, 1865, subtract 1861, that leaves how many years?

HS PROBABLY been watching those "History" Channel programs that have asserted that the Civil War actually began with the Christiana Riot and Lawrence Kansas. Sometimes TV doesnt know the difference between entertainment nd information,(or else they dont give a ****)

Those people who question slavery should go see the movie "Lincoln." It's an excellent movie that shows the challenges Lincoln had between extending the war vs his Constitutional Amendment to end slavery.

It's a ten!

So the Confederacy was all about slavery and nothing else.

Who said that? Only you?



Such imagination! Such idiocy! Such contempt!

Must be something wrong with my laptop. Doesn't show the word "only" anywhere in the thread title.

And as we all know, the title of a thread rigidly dictates what members post.

I seem to recall several posts where the poster has gone to great pains to emphasize that slavery was not the only factor in the founding of the Confederacy but that, in the long run, it was the deciding factor.

And I seem to recall writing:

"...if those who argue the Confederacy was only about slavery would acknowledge that there were concerns other than slavery that motivated the South to rebel, and if, at the same time, those who argue the Confederacy was about more than Slavery acknowledged that slavery was the primary root of Southern concern."

Please note that I did not suggest everyone was arguing that the Confederacy was only about slavery and so your observation about the poster you cited is immaterial as far as what I've written.

Try responding to what I have written and not what you would like to assume.

The gist of my comment was that this seemingly endless debate might finally come to an end if those with extreme positions acknowledged that there was some legitimacy in the arguments of their opponents.

One would think you would applaud such a stance, but I see that you've allowed personal animosity to override your reading comprehension.

It really makes you look small Andrew.