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

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
Georgia 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. "
Etc, etc etc
"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."
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
-
MOVE!
-
Fuck off Yank!
-
The South will rise again!
-
Slavery was a states right issue at the time, though.
-
The science was settled on white superiority
-
They were synonomousPurpleJ said:Slavery was the states right issue at the time, though.
-
The Mississippi Declaration of Secession is your source?!?
-
So it wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights to decide on things like slavery. Mental gymnastics rules!!!!1!dnc said:
-
Take away the slavery issue and does the Civil War take place? Uh, no.
-
TL, DR
-
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.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.
-
If you told the average Union soldier he was fighting to free slaves, he'd have smashed your face in.dnc said:
I'm with you on this, the northern side wasn't about slavery. The southern side was though.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.
-
The Union was made up of TUFF liberals?ThomasFremont said:
If you told the average Union soldier he was fighting to free slaves, he'd have smashed your face in.dnc said:
I'm with you on this, the northern side wasn't about slavery. The southern side was though.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?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.
-
From logging campsdnc said:
The Union was made up of TUFF liberals?ThomasFremont said:
If you told the average Union soldier he was fighting to free slaves, he'd have smashed your face in.dnc said:
I'm with you on this, the northern side wasn't about slavery. The southern side was though.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.
-
CuntWaffle said:
Always about the blackies?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.
-
Can you show caucasian?RaceBannon said:The science was settled on white superiority
-
As well as it should.RaceBannon said:The science was settled on white superiority
-
ThomasFremont said:
Fromdnc said:
The Union was made up of TUFF liberals?ThomasFremont said:
If you told the average Union soldier he was fighting to free slaves, he'd have smashed your face in.dnc said:
I'm with you on this, the northern side wasn't about slavery. The southern side was though.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.
logging campsIreland