Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights*!

dncdnc Member Posts: 56,800
*Northern aggression, money, etc

Sincerely, the Mississippi Declaration of Secession
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Texas Declaration of Secession

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. "
Georgia Declaration of Secession

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time."
Etc, etc etc

I get that people are pissed about the rebel flag coming down, and think the flag means something to different to them today, that's fine. But quit telling me the Civil War wasn't about slavery you dumb redneck fucks.

SoFuckingIrritating.jpg

Comments

  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,800
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,508 Founders Club
    Fuck off Yank!
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    The South will rise again!
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,508 Founders Club
    Slavery was a states right issue at the time, though.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,800
    PurpleJ said:

    Slavery was the states right issue at the time, though.

    They were synonomous
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,713 Standard Supporter
    edited July 2015
    The Mississippi Declaration of Secession is your source?!?
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,508 Founders Club
    dnc said:

    PurpleJ said:

    Slavery was the states right issue at the time, though.

    They were synonomous
    So it wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights to decide on things like slavery. Mental gymnastics rules!!!!1!
  • RaccoonHarryRaccoonHarry Member Posts: 2,161
    Take away the slavery issue and does the Civil War take place? Uh, no.
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 24,374 Founders Club
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,800
    Blackie said:

    semantics, but the war wasn't about slavery - it was about preventing secession; the northern aggressors self-servingly (e.g. Mississippi River accessibility) thwarted the southern states' constitutionally-granted efforts to secede (regardless of the south's motivations). The winners get to write the history books though, and thus were able to spin things to be all about saving the blacks.

    I'm with you on this, the northern side wasn't about slavery. The southern side was though.

  • CuntWaffleCuntWaffle Member Posts: 22,499
    Blackie said:

    semantics, but the war wasn't about slavery - it was about preventing secession; the northern aggressors self-servingly (e.g. Mississippi River accessibility) thwarted the southern states' constitutionally-granted efforts to secede (regardless of the south's motivations). The winners get to write the history books though, and thus were able to spin things to be all about saving the blacks.

    Always about the blacks?
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    Blackie said:

    semantics, but the war wasn't about slavery - it was about preventing secession; the northern aggressors self-servingly (e.g. Mississippi River accessibility) thwarted the southern states' constitutionally-granted efforts to secede (regardless of the south's motivations). The winners get to write the history books though, and thus were able to spin things to be all about saving the blacks.

    I'm with you on this, the northern side wasn't about slavery. The southern side was though.

    If you told the average Union soldier he was fighting to free slaves, he'd have smashed your face in.
    The Union was made up of TUFF liberals?
    From logging camps
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,800

    Blackie said:

    semantics, but the war wasn't about slavery - it was about preventing secession; the northern aggressors self-servingly (e.g. Mississippi River accessibility) thwarted the southern states' constitutionally-granted efforts to secede (regardless of the south's motivations). The winners get to write the history books though, and thus were able to spin things to be all about saving the blacks.

    Always about the blackies?
  • puppylove_sugarsteelpuppylove_sugarsteel Member Posts: 9,133

    The science was settled on white superiority

    As well as it should.
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,317 Founders Club

    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    Blackie said:

    semantics, but the war wasn't about slavery - it was about preventing secession; the northern aggressors self-servingly (e.g. Mississippi River accessibility) thwarted the southern states' constitutionally-granted efforts to secede (regardless of the south's motivations). The winners get to write the history books though, and thus were able to spin things to be all about saving the blacks.

    I'm with you on this, the northern side wasn't about slavery. The southern side was though.

    If you told the average Union soldier he was fighting to free slaves, he'd have smashed your face in.
    The Union was made up of TUFF liberals?
    From logging camps Ireland
Sign In or Register to comment.