The Confederacy was About Slavery

No, it is not the end of the story with Floyd. You have not explained why he found it necessary to ship 115,000 stand of arms to southern armories without the prior knowledge and consent of either President or the Congress. That he was accused of corruption and fraud, and that that indictment was quashed does not at all answer the question of why he shipped those arms. You have said that it was not to prepare for war. OK, then what was it for?

The organized violence was perpetrated against facilities of the United States government. I consider that an act of war, when it is perpetrated by so-called state troops, and the states of Florida and Alabama called them state troops. As i've pointed out, that's a clear violation of Article One, Section Ten, second paragraph, of the constitution:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

You have never addressed that, except with your feeble fantasy of vast criminal gangs of thousands of men, armed with military weapons, roaming the South in 1861. What happed in Libya more than 150 years later his hardly germane, as it was not a case of a United States military facility being attacked by armed citizens of the United States--apples/oranges. The alleged "principle" is not even close to logically the same. And, as i've already pointed out, so-called state troops of Alabama and Florida attacked Federal installations before Florida had seceded from the Union--keeping in mind that there was not then and there is not now an established constitutional principle that states may secede.

How inconvenient for you that Lincoln was not the president in January, 1861 when those first attacks took place. He was not inaugurated until March 4th. With several states in the grip of armed insurrection, he had a right to ask Congress to call forth the militia, which they are empowered by the constitution to do in such a circumstance.

The case i present is the case supported by the historical evidence, and not by diversion and straw men about what Floyd was indicted for, not hysterically funny allegations about armed gangs committing criminal acts, but not acts of war.

You have not answered my questions. What is the point of you coming here to quibble about Floyd's innocence of criminal activity, and the alleged criminality of bands of thousands of men, although armed by state governments? Are you alleging that the Confederacy was not about slavery because Floyd was not convicted of any criminal act? Are you alleging that the Confederacy was not about slavery because (as you quixotically claim) the attacks on Federal installations were acts of criminality but not acts of war? What is the point of all of your self-serving, rhetorical posturing?

Then i ask you once again, what is the point of what you have posted here? You sound just like any other typical southern apologist. Do you think you're making some profound point here?

I really get tied of going over the same old material, but let's look at some cold hard facts. There were 34 states in 1861. In order to amend the constitution, it would have been necessary for 26 states to ratify an amendment. That meant that only nine states could block any proposed amendment. There were fifteen slave states in 1861. So long as no slave states (or at least not more than six) left the Congress, no amendment to abolish slavery could have been ratified. In fact, as long as all fifteen slave states remained in the Congress, so proposal to amend the constitution could be passed over their objections.

If the purpose, and the only purpose, of the southern states had been to protect slavery, secession was an act of gross political stupidity. I have no reason to assume that the politicians of the South couldn't do the math themselves. To this day, those fifteen states would be sufficient to block any amendment to the constitution. There are presently fifty states, so it only takes thirteen states to block an amendment.

Floyd, without the prior knowledge or consent of either the President or Congress, shipped 115,000 stand of arms in 1860 to southern armories. In direct and glaringly obvious violation of the Article One, Section Ten, southern states raised and armed what they were pleased to call state troops. To claim either that Mr. Lincoln started the war (he was not even inaugurated until March 4, 1861), or that the southern states were not bent on war is an insult to the intelligence of anyone sufficiently competent to read the historical record. Those hot-headed clowns in the South wanted war. They were the victims of a self-inflicted intellectual wound--hubris. They were certain they could go to war and defeat those "pasty-faced mechanics" from the North. "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

Quite right, but they are idiots if they disagree with the overwhelming weight of evidence. But maybe you don't. You haven't expressed your own opinion here, and I really have no interest in debating someone who is merely acting in the role of a devil's advocate, so let me ask: do you think that those who fired on the Star of the West and Fort Sumter were acting on orders from state and national (CSA) authorities?

THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT! check out that book for a WELL needed rebalancing of the WINNERS OF WAR WRITE HISTORY effect...

I defend the STARS AND BARS because i believe in free speech and because i don't believe a small minority should dictate historically the meaning of the CSA flag, in other words, it shouldn't be thrust into this white guilt anti-redneck interpretation... The flag is WAY beyond a snub to blacks or the north, its simply an old symbol of an attempt to free ourselves from northern aggression... keep the flag as the evil white slave flag in your heart if u want, but to many its symbolic of an old sweet dixie we have largely lost...

No, Abe Lincoln is the shame, A WAR CRIMINAL, 600,000+ dead!

As I've said earlier on this thread, and ignored. White northern males that enlisted, joined the Union Army often to fight for a "white west." That meant that when the territories became states they would become free states, and white males could find work, since the plantation paradigm was autonomous with slave labor, and did not have to hire white workers.

Plus, I've read that when poorer whites in the South dreamt dreams of achieving the proverbial American dream it often started out with having enough money to buy a few slaves to become a "property owner."

So, without any anger going either way, north or south, the two economic systems just were incompatible, and in my own opinion 1860 was just too close to 1789, when the Revolutionary War ended, to have allowed the nation to split in two. This might have included opinions of the European powers, which may be lost to history, in the mist of time, but could have been a problem more than anyone today might want to admit.

I think a Southern state just voted to put the Stars and Bars on the state license plate. I do not think the Stars and Bars is going away, since there are people that value Southern history and their ancestors that lived it. To eliminate the Stars and Bars from the public's consciousness might be tantamount to sugarcoating a history that is unique to the U.S.A., and makes us what we are today. Just my opinion.

Northern aggression--fools like you crack me up. Southerners started the war, they got their asses kicked, and they've been whining about it ever since.

Well, that northern aggression paradigm was not coined by an A2K poster. It has been the standard model of the Civil War in the south since the days of Reconstruction. So, if you have no problem with antagonizing U.S. citizens that live in another region of the U.S., in my opinion, it is in poor taste to say the least. And, this nearly new southern poster might not realize that your opinion about the U.S., and its regional differences, has a context of enjoying your expatriatism farther north than the U.S. northern border. He should at least be aware that you took your dog out of the hunt, so to speak. Your one vote, like mine doesn't count for much. And, since I am not estranged from my family, I do want to see the U.S. in all its regions continue to live peaceably with each other. It's not all about me and my intellect!

The semi-fictional 'Roots' TV series was re-run on Brit TV again recently and I heard something in it that might explain the southern mindset of the time-

An American slaver said "We're doing the Africans a favour by rescuing them from their savage heathen homeland and bringing them to a great christian country like America!"

Not just a "mindset of the time". Mindset still. There is a southern Republican politician who said something pretty much like that last year.

Perhaps you might quote and identify him or her.

Then don't.

I promise you that the world will keep spinning if you don't.

Finn says:
Why, certainly. You have but to ask.
Jon Hubbard, ex-Arkansas state legislator. He's doubled down. Written an entire book. Among his ludicrous views:

And he is an ex-legislator. So how are his opinions relevant?

Finn asks:


Because he's still alive and spouting off. Because he's active in AK politics. Because he was supported by the Rpublican party when he ran for office in 2010. Because he was in the state legislature from 2010 to 2012, when he lost in a redistricting election. This is not exactly ancient history, Finn. He's still out there and at it.

Well to a zealot such as yourself I can imagine why you might want to crush a ex-legislator, or for that matter, anyone with whom you disagree.

You might look at your own zealotry before you accuse others of it, Finn. So you're defending the "benefits" of slavery now?

Stirring the turd, Finn's one occupation here.

Oh please, don't be so utterly ridiculous.