FACT: The Civil War WAS @ Slavery and the Confederacy Was EVIL

luckyshot · May 3, 2017

Captain Davis said:
What you don't seem to understand is that there was a lot of history and events that led up to the war. South Carolina threatened secession in the 1830's over those flimsy tariff's.

You are downplaying just how much the south was being forced into buying from the north.

The debates over these tariffs were going on throughout the entire early to mid 1800's.

Again, show me one document or quote that relates the Civil War to freeing the slaves due to humanitarian purposes.

Quipling · May 3, 2017

Captain Davis said:
But the infuriating thing is that non southerners get on their moral high horse, not knowing that northerners didn't care one bit about the slaves as humans.

They didn't want them there either. The northern economy just didn't need them like the south did.

Just read about the New York riots of 1863 and about how the northern people were not happy after 1863, because their men were supposedly dying over slaves.

This is largely nonsense. Yes, there were northerners who didn't care, and, yes, it wasn't Lincoln's priority. But the heart of the southern concern was that abolitionists were accumulating power, and were believed likely to use that power via the federal government to attempt to end slavery over the desires of the slaving states.

To argue otherwise is to ignore the existence of abolitionists, which was central to the issue of whether new territory could be slaveholding. And the root of abolition was humanitarian.

Deleted member 196663 · May 3, 2017

luckyshot said:
There has been an ongoing effort since the Civil War to paint the causes of the conflict as complex.

To listen to some historians, you'd think the Civil War was about everything BUT slavery.

This is willful denialism in an effort to present the Confederacy, and the Southern people who almost totally supported it, in a more positive light than reality allows.

The Confederacy was evil. It's main objective was to preserve slavery. Almost all southerners supported it, and by extension were on the side of evil.

In this great 6 minute video a West Point History professor completely destroyed and debunks all misguided efforts in Southern apology.

Let's end the moral relativism once and for all.

PLAYBOY: Wasn't the Civil War fought to decide whether this nation could, in the words of Lincoln, "endure permanently half slave and half free"?

MALCOLM X: Sir, many, many people are completely misinformed about Lincoln and the Negro. That war involved two thieves, the North and the South, fighting over the spoils. The further we get away from the actual incident, the more they are trying to make it sound as though the battle was over the black man. Lincoln said that if he could save the Union without freeing the slaves, he would. But after two years of killing and carnage he found out he would have to free the slaves. He wasn't interested in the slaves but in the Union.

http://www.malcolm-x.org/docs/int_playb.htm
----

P.S. The most obvious sign of a terrible argument is when words like "evil" are thrown around. Appealing to emotions has no place in a discussion on historical record.

HomerThompson · May 3, 2017

As an aside, fuck Missouri.

KONG-D'SNT-TAP · May 3, 2017

Personally I think some southern states in the deep south still haven't gotten over the 60s civil rights legislation that was passed.

Captain Davis · May 3, 2017

Quipling said:
This is largely nonsense. Yes, there were northerners who didn't care, and, yes, it wasn't Lincoln's priority. But the heart of the southern concern was that abolitionists were accumulating power, and were believed likely to use that power via the federal government to attempt to end slavery over the desires of the slaving states.

To argue otherwise is to ignore the existence of abolitionists, which was central to the issue of whether new territory could be slaveholding.

But there were very few true abolitionists.

Most were only abolitionists because it favored them moving westward.

Most of the Republican politicians weren't career politicians, but businessmen who wanted to expand their business west. Mainly through the railroads and the business that surrounded it.

If those westward states became slave states, it got in the way of their business opportunities.

They didn't give two shits about the slaves as people.

ALE · May 3, 2017

you think that people killed each other for other people slavery? do you believe in unicorns?

Captain Davis · May 3, 2017

luckyshot said:
I have, may it please the court, a few words to say. In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted -- the design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter when I went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case)--had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends--either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class--and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me, further, to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done--as I have always freely admitted I have done--in behalf of His despised poor was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments--I submit; so let it be done!

Let me say one word further.

I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances it has been more generous than I expected. But I feel no consciousness of guilt. I have stated that from the first what was my intention and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of that kind.

Let me say also a word in regard to the statements made by some of those connected with me. I her it has been stated by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part of them at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with till the day they came to me; and that was for the purpose I have stated.

Now I have done.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/JohnBrown'sSpeech.html

Lol

John Brown was a loser and a criminal.

glennrod · May 3, 2017

FACT: The only people who bring this up in todays age are race hustling cunts who are probably glad it happened because it serves their own selfish needs and makes them feel important.

Pwent · May 3, 2017

I just don't see how this is even being discussed when southern states already threatened to secede over the right to nullification before the north bugged them about slavery. They wanted the right to nullification as a response to a supposedly "unfair" tax on South Carolina

Slavery was the biggest "right" the south fought for, but could also be the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back" like how the tea tax sparked the American revolution

The civil war was about whether the southern states had the power of nullification, and if conceding on only slavery would've ended it, Lincoln would've, by his own admission, but the south wanted the power to nullify future federal laws as wel but Lincoln wouldn't have that

Pwent · May 3, 2017

I just don't see how this is even being discussed when southern states already threatened to secede over the right to nullification before the north bugged them about slavery. They wanted the right to nullification as a response to a supposedly "unfair" tax on South Carolina

Slavery was the biggest "right" the south fought for, but could also be the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back" like how the tea tax sparked the American revolution

The civil war was about whether the southern states had the power of nullification, and if conceding on only slavery would've ended it, Lincoln would've, by his own admission, but the south wanted the power to nullify future federal laws as wel but Lincoln wouldn't have that

Deleted member 196663 · May 3, 2017

Breakitdown said:
I know far more than you. Thanks.

But you don't know enough to avoid making useless, ego driven claims.

tramendous · May 3, 2017

Oedad said:
That's ridiculous there was plenty good and redeemable about the confederacy, and just as much evil and noxious about the Union.

The confederacy never led a march through the heart of the union slaughtering civilians and burning cities to the ground.

Millions of confederate soldiers who never owned nor could ever hope to own a slave took up arms in defense of their homes. And just because the war started 500 miles away from their home over an issue that we today consider "evil" and "noxious" doesn't reduce the valor and bravery these men showed.

There was nothing good about the Mexican-American war, the genocide of the natives, the Spanish-American war, The Vietnam war, or any of our boondoggles in the middle east.

The United States has fought 3 conflicts for self-defense in its history yet they have been at war for 222 out of 239 years of its existence.

Edit: And with that, I think I've shown enough cognitive dissonance in this thread. The Confederacy is evil because the Union won. The US is good because even thou we fight almost yearly wars for nothing but the maintenance of empire, nobody has come along with a big enough stick to make us pay for it yet. Be careful how you view history guys because the US could one day be remembered just as bitterly as the confederacy.

What do you mean in defence of their homes. They were separatists. If they joined the north, there would be no civil war. At some point the cause has to come in question. Especially in a civil war

Rod1 · May 3, 2017

Pwent said:
I just don't see how this is even being discussed when southern states already threatened to secede over the right to nullification before the north bugged them about slavery. They wanted the right to nullification as a response to a supposedly "unfair" tax on South Carolina

Slavery was the biggest "right" the south fought for, but could also be the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back" like how the tea tax sparked the American revolution

The civil war was about whether the southern states had the power of nullification, and if conceding on only slavery would've ended it, Lincoln would've, by his own admission, but the south wanted the power to nullify future federal laws as wel but Lincoln wouldn't have that

Nullification was only about one single state, and was something that was resolved through legislative means.

Also

We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010503021334/http://www.openthought.org/summa/confederate.html

Pwent · May 3, 2017

Rod1 said:
Nullification was only about one single state, and was something that was resolved through legislative means.

Also

We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010503021334/http://www.openthought.org/summa/confederate.html

"Chiefly" not only, slavery was the biggest point of contention but not the only one, as your quote states

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union"-Abraham Lincoln

Both congress and the senate passed acompromise on slavery with the Corwin agreement but the southern states didn't agree to it and already considered themselves seceded

Rod1 · May 3, 2017

HunterSdVa29 said:
I think people forget it was the 1700/1800s....

like when they bring up shit against Andrew Jackson, well ya. Life was much different back then, particularly when it comes to 'social justice' and equal rights. The context of the times has to be taken into account when analyzing these situations, not using modern rose tinted lens

Slavery had been outlawed pretty much everywhere in europe and its colonies before the civil war, i think only Brazil remained with slaves.

Texas annexation even expanded the institution of slavery and former free people were enslaved there.

Rod1 · May 3, 2017

Pwent said:
"Chiefly" not only, slavery was the biggest point of contention but not the only one, as your quote states

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union"-Abraham Lincoln

Both congress and the senate passed acompromise on slavery with the Corwin agreement but the southern states didn't agree to it and already considered themselves seceded

Lincoln wasnt going to destroy America over slavery that was being choked to death by republican dominance of politics.

That doesnt proves that Lincoln was pro-slavery.

PainIsLIfe · May 3, 2017

luckyshot said:
There has been an ongoing effort since the Civil War to paint the causes of the conflict as complex.

To listen to some historians, you'd think the Civil War was about everything BUT slavery.

This is willful denialism in an effort to present the Confederacy, and the Southern people who almost totally supported it, in a more positive light than reality allows.

The Confederacy was evil. It's main objective was to preserve slavery. Almost all southerners supported it, and by extension were on the side of evil.

In this great 6 minute video a West Point History professor completely destroyed and debunks all misguided efforts in Southern apology.

Let's end the moral relativism once and for all.

WADR, that history professor is either misinformed or a liar.

VA originally voted against secession by 2/3 majority. It only voted to succeed after Ft. Sumter and that vote was 88-55.

http://secession.richmond.edu/visualizations/vote-maps.html

Even then they had a referendum for the citizens to vote and mysteriously lost all the votes from the pro-unionist counties.

political cartoon from the time:

Jimmy Jazz · May 3, 2017

JadeOwl said:
No there wasn’t.

Not for lack of trying. Their entire strategy was predicated on invading the North.

My country, right or wrong is not a valid excuse for fighting for an evil cause. They fought for an evil cause in a war that they started. I piss on their "valor" and I shit on their "bravery". Fuck every last one of them who wore the grey and may they burn in hell where they belong.

So what? I already mentioned that the United States has done plenty of horrible shit. But they’ve also done a lot of good.

Unlike the Confederacy.

Nobody is saying that. The Confederacy was evil because, and I quote its vice-president… “[Their] government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”

Then as now, this was a monstrous evil and a repulsive belief system, and any government founded upon it deserves nothing but the contempt and hatred off all generations to come.

did the confederacy ever commit genocide? I kind of have to wonder if people just have a preference for black people that makes them hate the south so much but ignore the genocide the us committed before after and during the civil war against native americans. The US government was founded on the belief that natives were subhuman and needed to be either killed or bred out in order to steal their land.

Rational Poster · May 3, 2017

Jimmy H said:
did the confederacy ever commit genocide? I kind of have to wonder if people just have a preference for black people that makes them hate the south so much.

They mistreated POWs pretty fiercely.

FACT: The Civil War WAS @ Slavery and the Confederacy Was EVIL

Nazi Punks Fuck Off

classical conservative

Deleted member 196663

Guest

Banned

Banned

Senior Flatulator

Purple Belt

Senior Flatulator

Just like mountain, ya paying your dues

Pwent

Guest

Pwent

Guest

Deleted member 196663

Guest

Gold Belt

Plutonium Belt

Pwent

Guest

Plutonium Belt

Plutonium Belt

Steel Belt

Red Belt

Actually the Best Poster

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page