• 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

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.

Actually, I already posted a link to the South Carolina Articles of Secession. In another thread, I posted links to the Georga, Mississippi, and Texas Articles of Secession. Yes, slavery was the reason for secession, and Southern soldiers fought for the Confederate States, which strongly supported slavery so much that they gave it as their main reason for seceeding. So yes, if soldiers fought for the Confederacy, they were fighting for slavery. That's a no-brainer.
 
Actually, I already posted a link to the South Carolina Articles of Secession. In another thread, I posted links to the Georga, Mississippi, and Texas Articles of Secession. Yes, slavery was the reason for secession, and Southern soldiers fought for the Confederate States, which strongly supported slavery so much that they gave it as their main reason for seceeding. So yes, if soldiers fought for the Confederacy, they were fighting for slavery. That's a no-brainer.

In the mind of a narrow-minded person, that's good enough.

To say that the average Confederate soldier went to war to preserve slavery is as dumbassed-a-logic that American soldiers went to war in the middle east for oil. The folks who think that the Civil War was fought strictly over slavery are in the same group that think that Obama isn't an American citizen and think that Bush was behind 9/11. They're no different than the trufers and the birfers; taking half-assed information and turning it into unquestionable fact.
 
Last edited:
In the mind of a narrow-minded person, that's good enough.

To say that the average Confederate soldier went to war to preserve slavery is as dumbassed-a-logic that American soldiers went to war in the middle east for oil. The folks who think that the Civil War was fought strictly over slavery are in the same group that think that Obama isn't an American citizen and think that Bush was behind 9/11. They're no different than the trufers and the birfers; taking half-assed information and turning it into unquestionable fact.

The Articles of Secession are not half-assed information. They were written by the very people who seceded. So, yes, they are unquestionable fact. You can't change history, because the history is already there, in black and white, written in their own hand, for everybody to see. They condemned themselves in the eyes of history by what they themselves wrote.

Also, this is not at all like the birfers you are talking about. The birfers demand to see a document that has already been produced. On the other hand, what the secessionists wrote is also on public display, so there can be no controversy..... Well, maybe there can be. Are you going to demand that the long form of the Articles of Secession be produced? Orly Taitz might take up your case for you. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
The Articles of Secession are not half-assed information. They were written by the very people who seceded. So, yes, they are unquestionable fact. You can't change history, because the history is already there, in black and white, written in their own hand, for everybody to see. They condemned themselves in the eyes of history by what they themselves wrote.

The articles of seccesion don't speak for, even a fraction, of the people who took up arms for the Confederacy. Just like most U.S. soldiers didn't believe we were fighting for oil in Desert Storm and even fewer U.S. soldiers didn't believe that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

You're nothing but another version of a trufer, taking part of the picture and turning it into the big picture; nevermind that the Longstreet, in 1863, contemplated that the slaves should have been freed, then Fort Sumter fired upon, or that in 1864 Pat Cleburne--a division commander in the Army of Tennessee--and 13 of his officers signed a letter to Jeff Davis, pushing for slaves to be offered freedom, in exchange for military service, or that the Confederate Army was the first American army to segregate--100 years before the United States army did so.

Believe what you want, brother; but it just ain't so.

BTW, didn't you already post this thread?????? Why are we reliving this??
 
Last edited:
The articles of seccesion don't speak for, even a fraction, of the people who took up arms for the Confederacy. Just like most U.S. soldiers didn't believe we were fighting for oil in Desert Storm and even fewer U.S. soldiers didn't believe that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

You're nothing but another version of a trufer, taking part of the picture and turning it into the big picture; nevermind that the Longstreet, in 1863, contemplated that the slaves should have been freed, then Fort Sumter fired upon, or that in 1864 Pat Cleburne--a division commander in the Army of Tennessee--and 13 of his officers signed a letter to Jeff Davis, pushing for slaves to be offered freedom, in exchange for military service, or that the Confederate Army was the first American army to segregate--100 years before the United States army did so.

Believe what you want, brother; but it just ain't so.

BTW, didn't you already post this thread?????? Why are we reliving this??

Nope, it was a different topic. And how can I be a truther when the documents are there for all to see, in black and white, written by the very people who seceeded? It was about slavery, no matter what other alternate explantion you want to shovel at the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Nope, it was a different topic. And how can I be a truther when the documents are there for all to see, in black and white, written by the very people who seceeded? It was about slavery, no matter what other alternate explantion you want to shovel at the rest of us.

Yeah, there's docs to see that Obama isn't an American citizen and Bush orchestrated 9/11. I bet you believe that Bush had explosive paint applied to the walls of the WTC prior to the attacks, too, huh? You prolly have Obama's real birth certificate at your crib and it has, "Kenya", cearly stamped on it.
 
The articles of seccesion don't speak for, even a fraction, of the people who took up arms for the Confederacy. Just like most U.S. soldiers didn't believe we were fighting for oil in Desert Storm and even fewer U.S. soldiers didn't believe that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

You're nothing but another version of a trufer, taking part of the picture and turning it into the big picture; nevermind that the Longstreet, in 1863, contemplated that the slaves should have been freed, then Fort Sumter fired upon, or that in 1864 Pat Cleburne--a division commander in the Army of Tennessee--and 13 of his officers signed a letter to Jeff Davis, pushing for slaves to be offered freedom, in exchange for military service, or that the Confederate Army was the first American army to segregate--100 years before the United States army did so.

Believe what you want, brother; but it just ain't so.

BTW, didn't you already post this thread?????? Why are we reliving this??

You're conflating different issues.

I said most of the articles secession cited slavery, and indeed, they did; it was forefront issue FOR secession.

I don't give a rat's ass what was in the mind of an ordinary soldier; he didn't make the decisions which put him in the fight.

I also didn't say a thing about what the Civil War was fought over; that was about preservation of the Union. That's an entirely different topic from why the southern states seceded.

And they seceded to preserve slavery. They said so themselves.
 
You're conflating different issues.

I said most of the articles secession cited slavery, and indeed, they did; it was forefront issue FOR secession.

I don't give a rat's ass what was in the mind of an ordinary soldier; he didn't make the decisions which put him in the fight.

I also didn't say a thing about what the Civil War was fought over; that was about preservation of the Union. That's an entirely different topic from why the southern states seceded.

And they seceded to preserve slavery. They said so themselves.

Your argument supports every single bull**** argument, as to why American soldiers have gone to war for the past 235 years. If you believe this argument, then you believe all of those.

You and Dan are victims of political correctness vice historical fact. What's next? You're going to argue that American troops supported the drug trade in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War?

You're not looking at the big picture, brother.
 
Yeah, there's docs to see that Obama isn't an American citizen and Bush orchestrated 9/11. I bet you believe that Bush had explosive paint applied to the walls of the WTC prior to the attacks, too, huh? You prolly have Obama's real birth certificate at your crib and it has, "Kenya", cearly stamped on it.

Nice try.

1) I have seen Obama's birth certificate on the internet, and I agree that it is real. Obama was born in Hawaii, and is legally eligible to be president.

2) No, I don't believe that Bush orchestrated 911. There is absolutely no credible evidence.

3) However, slavery as the reason for the civil war is a public record that can be seen by anyone who cares to look. Not a single historian or archivist denies the authenticity of those documents. Slavery is exactly what the South fought for. And slavery is the reason in actually many public records from many documents. You can see for yourself by looking at the Misissippi Articles of Secession, the Georgia Articles of Secession, the South Carolina Articles of Seccession, the Texas Articles of Secession, and the Articles of Secession for the Conferate States of America, in which all heads of state for the states that immediately joined the Confederacy signed. It is there, in black and white, and they all give slavery as the primary reason.

Right now, I almost feel like King Arthur in Monty Python's Holy Grail Movie, who has cut off both arms and legs of the Black Knight, but the Black Knight is still claiming to be the victor. LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&feature=player_embedded
 
Your argument supports every single bull**** argument, as to why American soldiers have gone to war for the past 235 years. If you believe this argument, then you believe all of those.

You and Dan are victims of political correctness vice historical fact. What's next? You're going to argue that American troops supported the drug trade in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War?

You're not looking at the big picture, brother.

This is vapid.

The governments under which these soldiers served said they were separating themselves from the Union to preserve slavery. They, the governments, said so.

The US government said nothing about oil in Iraq, nothing about the drug trade in Vietnam, nothing, zip, nada. It wasn't their mission. Never was.

But preserving slavery was cited as a reason for separating from the Union. Officially, unquestionably, in writing. To DENY it is bull****.
 
What's more, what does citing what the southern states seceded for have to do with "bull****" reasons American soldiers were said to have done things? You imply I'm being disrespectful to American soldiers by saying so.

Funny, but my loyalty and allegiance is in fact to the UNITED States of America, not the rebellious and rightly-defeated CONFEDERATE States of America. What I say about the reasons for secession has no reflection whatsoever on what I believe or "would" believe about the missions of American troops. I owe no loyalty or respect to the seceding states, AT ALL.
 
This is vapid.

The governments under which these soldiers served said they were separating themselves from the Union to preserve slavery. They, the governments, said so.

The US government said nothing about oil in Iraq, nothing about the drug trade in Vietnam, nothing, zip, nada. It wasn't their mission. Never was.

But preserving slavery was cited as a reason for separating from the Union. Officially, unquestionably, in writing. To DENY it is bull****.

Harshaw->
greenchainsaw.gif
<-apdst

:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
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.



Declaration of Causes of Secession

These are official statements of why the states seceded. They were issued by the legitimate representatives of the people of those states. They are the best primary sources you or anyone could find.

The individual motivations of individual soldiers in each unique situation is impossible for you or me or anyone to determine 150 years later and would vary greatly from person to person. As such, it is irrelevant to the question of why the South went to war or seceded.
 
Last edited:
The secession declarations don't remotely tell the whole story. There were decades of conflicts over trade issues leading up to the Civil War. The Congress was dominated by the New England states, and wanted to force the Southern states to adhere to trade laws that would have decimated the Southern economy, for the benefit of Northern factory and shipping fat-cats. This lead to the Nullification crisis, and the dispute over whether the Fedgov or the States would be supreme in matters of law.

Was slavery a factor? Yes. Was it the only factor? No, not nearly. Was it the main issue? Highly debateable.
 
Slavery was the focal point for the civil war. As a Southern, I don't understand why people try to subvert the obvious. The Union does not hold morally superior ground when it comes to the treatment of African-Americans, as they were treated terribly in the industrial north. The institution of slavery was barbaric, backwards, and unholy.

But I do not think that is why every enlisted soldier fought. I do not think every enlisted Northern soldier fought against slavery. I think the behind the scene puppet masters (e.g. the landed aristocracy in the South and the Industry owners in the North) were fighting over slavery. Because slavery was the mode of production. It is all about controlling the South's industry.
 
While, true, slavery was a key component of the Civil War, it was hardly the only one.

Name one great nation in world history that wasn't built on the backs of slavery. And I use "great" as meaning successful and powerful, not morally superior. A nation could not begin without it because there was no economy to build from. Free labor is the only dependable currency a young country could build itself upon.

Now, the ugly part of this truth is how American whites had convinced themselves that African "savages" were inferior, both intellectually and morally, thereby making the practice "acceptable" in many of their minds. This has repeated itself throughout history. The Romans did it. The Germans saw the Jews this way. Virtually every nation in world history had a targetted race or ethnicity. Even today, many Muslims see infidels in this same manner without apology. Look at Darfur.

It is a mistake to take today's views and try and supplant them into 1850, just a few decades after America was born and much was uncertain. Much of the South thought itself destined to break away from that union in the very early goings. (Iraq is in that condition right now; it takes considerable time.)

There was a vast economic disconnect from the North during those times that had nothing to do with slavery. It was similar to what you might see today between New York City and Omaha. Two completely different worlds. Totally different lifestyles. Different markets and economies entirely. A different set of values and priorities. Except in the years leading up to the Civil War, there wasn't a framework of a nation solidly in place as today.

That divide is still there. America is a conglomerate of very different people and values, and as natural migration to like-minded people continues to occur, there is a tangible divide that is deepening by the day. Though our nation is much more firmly established, talk of secession is constant and somewhat real. That will continue to deepen.

Of course, Americans are so fat, lazy, and stupid, they think such a thing could never happen again. They don't understand that this is still a very young nation, and every world power before us has eventually divided and crumbled, and we will one day, too, sooner or later.
 
Last edited:
true, the civil war was more about the south getting the shaft, providing the great crop of prosperity, cotton, and not reaping the benefits of construction that the North was seeing. railroads, factories, etc.
And then suddenly being told you werent going to get any more money for your crop, less even, but now you may have to pay your labor force, being the straw that broke the camels back.

I would hope that slavery would have ended on its own due to the inhumanity of it alone. Which was already taking place, many plantation owners were treating their slaves very well, and it was looked upon as employment. I mean what were most slaves going to do otherwise. they were brought here uneducated, had families to feed, needed housing.
there were thousands of stories of slaves being part of the family...
And abuse was no more rampant on a plantation than it was on many work crews throughout the new industrialization of America elsewhere.
The civil war was more a protest to states not having a fair seat at the table.
 
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.

It would be a 66% tax hike for starters, wouldn't it?
 
true, the civil war was more about the south getting the shaft, providing the great crop of prosperity, cotton, and not reaping the benefits of construction that the North was seeing. railroads, factories, etc.
And then suddenly being told you werent going to get any more money for your crop, less even, but now you may have to pay your labor force, being the straw that broke the camels back.

I would hope that slavery would have ended on its own due to the inhumanity of it alone. Which was already taking place, many plantation owners were treating their slaves very well, and it was looked upon as employment. I mean what were most slaves going to do otherwise. they were brought here uneducated, had families to feed, needed housing.
there were thousands of stories of slaves being part of the family...And abuse was no more rampant on a plantation than it was on many work crews throughout the new industrialization of America elsewhere.
The civil war was more a protest to states not having a fair seat at the table.

That is a story that should be told. Despite being amidst a horrible human rights violation, there still managed to be very human relationships that formed between whites and blacks. Many whites trusted their children implicitly with their slaves. The black and white kids played together on the plantations.

You wonder what young black and white children talked about when they turned 11 or 12 years old. They had to see the disparity. It had to haunt them.
 
While, true, slavery was a key component of the Civil War, it was hardly the only one.

Name one great nation in world history that wasn't built on the backs of slavery. And I use "great" as meaning successful and powerful, not morally superior. A nation could not begin without it because there was no economy to build from. Free labor is the only dependable currency a young country could build itself upon.

Now, the ugly part of this truth is how American whites had convinced themselves that African "savages" were inferior, both intellectually and morally, thereby making the practice "acceptable" in many of their minds. This has repeated itself throughout history. The Romans did it. The Germans saw the Jews this way. Virtually every nation in world history had a targetted race or ethnicity. Even today, many Muslims see infidels in this same manner without apology. Look at Darfur.

It is a mistake to take today's views and try and supplant them into 1850, just a few decades after America was born and much was uncertain. Much of the South thought itself destined to break away from that union in the very early goings. (Iraq is in that condition right now; it takes considerable time.)

There was a vast economic disconnect from the North during those times that had nothing to do with slavery. It was similar to what you might see today between New York City and Omaha. Two completely different worlds. Totally different lifestyles. Different markets and economies entirely. A different set of values and priorities. Except in the years leading up to the Civil War, there wasn't a framework of a nation solidly in place as today.

That divide is still there. America is a conglomerate of very different people and values, and as natural migration to like-minded people continues to occur, there is a tangible divide that is deepening by the day. Though our nation is much more firmly established, talk of secession is constant and somewhat real. That will continue to deepen.

Of course, Americans are so fat, lazy, and stupid, they think such a thing could never happen again. They don't understand that this is still a very young nation, and every world power before us has eventually divided and crumbled, and we will one day, too, sooner or later.

What are you talking about -- Great Britain has never committed any atrocities on the world stage, and we were (are) the greatest nation of them all!

XD
 
What are you talking about -- Great Britain has never committed any atrocities on the world stage, and we were (are) the greatest nation of them all!

XD

LOL, other than killing millions while trying to take over the planet.

And what's with those centuries of serfdom, and the Abolition of Slavery Act you passed AFTER you were the most powerful country in Europe?
 
Picking up on subtlety is not your forté, mon ami.

No, I got it. Just pointed out the ironies for those that might not.

Hey, despite all England's sins, I love our fair brethren across the pond. You did a lot more good than bad. Don't know where the planet would be today without you.
 
I think the 4 in 10 Americans that believe in strict creationism must live in S.C.
 
No, I got it. Just pointed out the ironies for those that might not.

Hey, despite all England's sins, I love our fair brethren across the pond. You did a lot more good than bad. Don't know where the planet would be today without you.

I think it would be arrogant to say "I'm surprised to hear you say that", so I'll opt instead for something closer to the truth, like, "I'm proud to hear you say that."

At the risk of this turning into a Trans-Atlantic fellating session, I'll admit that, though I often take a hard stance on the States in recent times, they've generally been on the better side of history.
 
Back
Top Bottom