• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's right, folks. South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, is having a ball to commemorate that event. What are they celebrating? Slavery? An act that led to the deaths of over half a million people? They say no:

Do we celebrate that? Heavens no,” he said. “War and death is never something to celebrate. But we do celebrate the courage and the integrity of 170 men who signed their signatures to the Article of Secession – the courage of men to do what they think is right.

and what did they have the courage and integrity to do that was right? Let's take a look at the South Carolina Declaration of Secession.


And there you have it, folks. The courage and integrity to do what was right, according to South Carolina, was to fight for the institution of slavery. Don't take my word for it. This is in the words of the very people who penned South Carolina's Articles of Secession.

In my own honest opinion, this is one of the dumbest and most immoral events that you could possibly celebrate. What do we celebrate next? Lynchings of blacks who demanded their Constitutional right to vote?

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
That's right, folks. South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, is having a ball to commemorate that event. What are they celebrating? Slavery? An act that led to the deaths of over half a million people? They say no:



and what did they have the courage and integrity to do that was right? Let's take a look at the South Carolina Declaration of Secession.



And there you have it, folks. The courage and integrity to do what was right, according to South Carolina, was to fight for the institution of slavery. Don't take my word for it. This is in the words of the very people who penned South Carolina's Articles of Secession.

In my own honest opinion, this is one of the dumbest and most immoral events that you could possibly celebrate. What do we celebrate next? Lynchings of blacks who demanded their Constitutional right to vote?

Article is here.

I am not endorsing slavery, but hear me out.

The old Confederacy, and South Carolina in particular, had a point: While they did indeed secede in part due to the Northern will to eliminate slavery, that isn't as racist or horrible as it sounds. The South needed, more than it wanted, slavery. They did not need or want it out of racial prejudice, nor out of any ultra-conservative desire to preserve "the Old Way", or anything like that. The South needed to preserve slavery because, without it, without the plantations and the mills and the cotton and the tobacco etc., the South was economically nothing. Slavery was the LIFEBLOOD of the South's economy, and attempting to remove it from the South would be like attempting to remove every industrial factory from England at the time -- it would have been absolutely crushed economically.

And the South knew this. So, where the North may or may not have thought that the Southerners were all racist, traitorous bastards, from the 20/20 hindsight view of history, I think we can probably say it was about the economy, as thing almost always are.
 
I am not endorsing slavery, but hear me out.

The old Confederacy, and South Carolina in particular, had a point: While they did indeed secede in part due to the Northern will to eliminate slavery, that isn't as racist or horrible as it sounds. The South needed, more than it wanted, slavery. They did not need or want it out of racial prejudice, nor out of any ultra-conservative desire to preserve "the Old Way", or anything like that. The South needed to preserve slavery because, without it, without the plantations and the mills and the cotton and the tobacco etc., the South was economically nothing. Slavery was the LIFEBLOOD of the South's economy, and attempting to remove it from the South would be like attempting to remove every industrial factory from England at the time -- it would have been absolutely crushed economically.

And the South knew this. So, where the North may or may not have thought that the Southerners were all racist, traitorous bastards, from the 20/20 hindsight view of history, I think we can probably say it was about the economy, as thing almost always are.

I disagree. The cotton gin had already been invented. The South no longer needed slavery, but they still wanted it. And even if they still needed it, that does not excuse their moral reprehensibility, nor should secession be something to celebrate.
 
Last edited:
Oh hells to the yeah. If I am home when this happens I am totally going to try and go.
 
That's right, folks. South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, is having a ball to commemorate that event. What are they celebrating? Slavery? An act that led to the deaths of over half a million people? They say no:



and what did they have the courage and integrity to do that was right? Let's take a look at the South Carolina Declaration of Secession.



And there you have it, folks. The courage and integrity to do what was right, according to South Carolina, was to fight for the institution of slavery. Don't take my word for it. This is in the words of the very people who penned South Carolina's Articles of Secession.

In my own honest opinion, this is one of the dumbest and most immoral events that you could possibly celebrate. What do we celebrate next? Lynchings of blacks who demanded their Constitutional right to vote?

Article is here.

Yes, and there are those who will argue, red-faced, that secession wasn't about slavery, but some other noble purpose. Yet almost every article of secession cited slavery specifically.
 
I disagree. The cotton gin had already been invented. The South no longer needed slavery, but they still wanted it. And even if they still needed it, that does not excuse their moral reprehensibility, nor should secession be something to celebrate.

I hate to break this to you because I respect and admire you. But it was the cotton gin that made slavery cost effective again.
 
Yes, and there are those who will argue, red-faced, that secession wasn't about slavery, but some other noble purpose. Yet almost every article of secession cited slavery specifically.

My 9th grade teacher was one of them. I put slavery down and it was marked wrong :(.
 
I am not endorsing slavery, but hear me out.

The old Confederacy, and South Carolina in particular, had a point: While they did indeed secede in part due to the Northern will to eliminate slavery, that isn't as racist or horrible as it sounds. The South needed, more than it wanted, slavery. They did not need or want it out of racial prejudice, nor out of any ultra-conservative desire to preserve "the Old Way", or anything like that. The South needed to preserve slavery because, without it, without the plantations and the mills and the cotton and the tobacco etc., the South was economically nothing. Slavery was the LIFEBLOOD of the South's economy, and attempting to remove it from the South would be like attempting to remove every industrial factory from England at the time -- it would have been absolutely crushed economically.

And the South knew this. So, where the North may or may not have thought that the Southerners were all racist, traitorous bastards, from the 20/20 hindsight view of history, I think we can probably say it was about the economy, as thing almost always are.


To my utter astonishment, I find myself in agreement with Le Marteau again. This is twice in one day. I'm utterly certain that one of us must be unwell. :shock: :mrgreen:
 
To my utter astonishment, I find myself in agreement with Le Marteau again. This is twice in one day. I'm utterly certain that one of us must be unwell. :shock: :mrgreen:

I'm in Philadelphia at the moment. Perhaps I've caught the stupid from breathing the air here. :D
 
Yes, and there are those who will argue, red-faced, that secession wasn't about slavery, but some other noble purpose. Yet almost every article of secession cited slavery specifically.

Do you believe American soldiers serving in the Middle east are fighting for oil?
 
Did anyone ever declare that's why we're there? Or even one of the purposes among many?

Not in this thread, and thank you for getting the thread back on track.
 
I'm in Philadelphia at the moment. Perhaps I've caught the stupid from breathing the air here. :D


Ah, now that is the Monsieur Marteau I am familiar with. What a relief; I had begun to fear for your health.
 
Do you believe American soldiers serving in the Middle east are fighting for oil?

Transparent attempt at a derail. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The south cited slavery repeatedly in their declarations of secession.

As the saying goes:
Those who know little about the Civil War know it was about slavery.
Those who know some about the Civil War know it was about states' rights.
Those who know a lot about the Civil War know it was about slavery.
 
Why celebrate something you lost?
 
Last edited:
DAN said:
I disagree. The cotton gin had already been invented. The South no longer needed slavery, but they still wanted it. And even if they still needed it, that does not excuse their moral reprehensibility, nor should secession be something to celebrate.

Cotton Gin doesn't pick cotton. It doesn't till the soil, eat the weeds, or plant seeds. You could have the greatest cotton gin in the world, and you would still need a plow.
 
Ah, now that is the Monsieur Marteau I am familiar with. What a relief; I had begun to fear for your health.

A joke, mon ami.

In reality, though, I find that many Americans often assume that European liberalism is the same as American liberalism, and they see the "liberal" brand on most European posters, and assume they're like the Democrats in the States -- but that's not the case. European liberalism is progressivist, as opposed to democratic, as it is in the States -- and so you'll find me agreeing with the Republican stances on subjects like foreign policy, economic measures, immigration issues, and most of all, defense topics.

On the other hand, progressive liberals, as are the European norm, will probably be much more extreme on social policy (healthcare, welfare, education, infrastructure) as well as governmental agencies, political constructs, and international relations (different from foreign policy).

So, there you have it -- I imagine we probably agree on much more than you think. XD
 
Did anyone ever declare that's why we're there? Or even one of the purposes among many?

Did we fight Desert Storm for much other reason than to prevent Saddam Hussin from possibly getting his hands on half the world's oil reserves?
 
Transparent attempt at a derail. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The south cited slavery repeatedly in their declarations of secession.

As the saying goes:
Those who know little about the Civil War know it was about slavery.
Those who know some about the Civil War know it was about states' rights.
Those who know a lot about the Civil War know it was about slavery.

Actually, those who know little about the Civil War, think that the war was all about slavery.

Care to show us any primary source docs that point to slavery being the reason that southern soldiers fought in the Confederate Army? I'm betting, no.
 
Back
Top Bottom