• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

If you ever suggested that slavery wasn't the number one reason for secession, I would love to see it.

Now you are going to pretend he said "number one", which I might add is different from "only".
 
Ok, tell us what the other reasons were. Go ahead, feel free. Thanks in advance.

I've told you before. Tariffs. You're welcome.

And before you claim I omitted state's rights, that pretty goes hand in hand with slavery, which is cited in the Articles of Seccession.
 
I've told you before. Tariffs. You're welcome.

And before you claim I omitted state's rights, that pretty goes hand in hand with slavery, which is cited in the Articles of Seccession.

So, you disagree with the OP?
 
It wasn't even the, "number one", issue.

I can see how it appears that way as they mention slavery more than any other issue in the Articles of Secession.
 
No, they mention slavery more than they do the tariffs. ;)

You agree with the OP, that the reason for secession was for no other than to preserve slavery, because they wanted it vice needed it?

That rings of, "the war was fought over slavery".

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
 
You agree with the OP, that the reason for secession was for no other than to preserve slavery, because they wanted it vice needed it?

That rings of, "the war was fought over slavery".

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

The war was fought to preserve the Union. They could have cited any reason to secede and the result would have been the same.

I know this has been explained to you before.
 
The war was fought to preserve the Union. They could have cited any reason to secede and the result would have been the same.

:rofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice dodge, bro!

Aw man! I **** my pants, I laughed so hard at that response.

"Why Federal soldiers fought the war", is a totally different debate, may man. :rofl

There were fewer Federal soldiers fighting to end slavery than there were Confederate soldiers fighting to preserve slavery.
 
Last edited:
:rofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice dodge, bro!

Aw man! I **** my pants, I laughed so hard at that response.

"Why Federal soldiers fought the war", is a totally different debate, may man. :rofl

There were fewer Federal soldiers fighting to end slavery than there were Confederate soldiers fighting to preserve slavery.

Are you drunk?

The North was not going to allow the South to secede no matter what. It doesn't matter what the Northern soldiers thought personally as they were fulfilling their duty to their country.
 
Are you drunk?

The North was not going to allow the South to secede no matter what. It doesn't matter what the Northern soldiers thought personally as they were fulfilling their duty to their country.

I can sober up. Can't say so much for ignorance, nor a coherence to revisionist history.

Obviously you missed the part where Lincoln said, "In your hands, my dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you, unless you assail it. You can have no conflict, without yourselves being the agressors."
 
I'll pass. 'Specially since my ggg-grandfather was freed. A good thing...IMO, of course, since I don't have any documentation to support such.

Who freed him?
 
Back
Top Bottom