are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
SultanOfSurreal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am
Gender: Male

are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by SultanOfSurreal »

i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.

holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant

discuss
User avatar
Frigidus
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by Frigidus »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.

holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant

discuss


Quite. The act of rebellion taken completely out of context is quite attractive to American culture, but one has to be completely unaware of the situation to see that the secession movement was completely backward even when it occurred. I don't necessarily blame all Confederate sympathizers, as even in Illinois some of my high school teachers suggested that the civil war was not motivated by slavery. I can only imagine what they say in the deep South.
User avatar
The Neon Peon
Posts: 2342
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:49 pm
Gender: Male

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by The Neon Peon »

I live in Texas. As far as I can tell, Texas is too stupid to figure out that they are not the best in everything. We have some of highest crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, low overall education, most capital punishment, the dumbest board of education ever (they just voted down a bill proposing that certain parts of biology education have to be medically accurate)... but the the retards here still think that Texas is best.

sigh...

With that said, take your guess as to if they think it is their fault in the civil war.
User avatar
SultanOfSurreal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am
Gender: Male

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by SultanOfSurreal »

The Neon Peon wrote:I live in Texas. As far as I can tell, Texas is too stupid to figure out that they are not the best in everything. We have some of highest crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, low overall education, most capital punishment, the dumbest board of education ever (they just voted down a bill proposing that certain parts of biology education have to be medically accurate)... but the the retards here still think that Texas is best.

sigh...

With that said, take your guess as to if they think it is their fault in the civil war.


you should move to nevada. same awful desert, but plus gambling and minus the southern fuckupery
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by PLAYER57832 »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.

holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant

discuss


Slavery is among the greatest of ills of humanity ever (below child sacrifice).

However, to say that the civil war was fought over slavery is to say that thousands of white northerners went to war to free black slaves.

The south was fighting to preserve its way of life. Slavery, yes, was a part of that. However, the war was about cotton versus industry, a basically aristocratic system versus the somewhat more egalitarien north. It was about whether a group of states that has decided it does not like the way the government is going should have the right to simply up and leave.

Of all those issues, the right to leave is the only one about which the north really fought. It is a fact that Lincoln did not free all slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation. He freed only the slaves in the southern states.. and that in the hopes they would take up arms against their former masters. If the war were really about slavery, then why did he not free ALL the slaves? The rest comes from history written after the fact. It was a case of a profound change that was not fully understood at the time, was not fully realized for another 100 years or so.

The north put blacks in charge during Reconstruction because they saw no better way to thoroughly punish the south. For a time, blacks enjoyed far greater freedoms in the south than in the north. However, the idea that blacks and whites truly were equal was still a long time in coming for all but a few.
User avatar
Martin Ronne
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:04 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Behind you.

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by Martin Ronne »

The Emancipation Proclamation is not the same thing as the 13th Amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation made it legal for a slave owner to free his slaves of his own free will. Up until then you either had to sell them, or go through a long process to attain papers that stated the their freedom. However those were no guarantee that they wouldn't be re-enslaved by the next slave owner that they came across. The 13th Amendment is what finally abolished slavery.

There are few things that get my blood boiling, but one of them is when people try and diminish Lincoln and other men of like him. Effectively saying that their accomplishments while great, were nothing more than unintended bonuses.
User avatar
Frigidus
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by Frigidus »

PLAYER57832 wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.

holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant

discuss


Slavery is among the greatest of ills of humanity ever (below child sacrifice).

However, to say that the civil war was fought over slavery is to say that thousands of white northerners went to war to free black slaves.

The south was fighting to preserve its way of life. Slavery, yes, was a part of that. However, the war was about cotton versus industry, a basically aristocratic system versus the somewhat more egalitarien north. It was about whether a group of states that has decided it does not like the way the government is going should have the right to simply up and leave.


The North's intentions were to preserve the union, yes, but slavery was the issue that drove the North and South apart in the first place. Yes, it was about cotton, but only because cotton plantations weren't anywhere near as profitable minus slavery. At the very least, the roots of the war were in slavery. That neither side's goals involved freeing slaves is in a large way irrelevant.
strike wolf
Posts: 8345
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:03 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sandy Springs, GA (just north of Atlanta)

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by strike wolf »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.

holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant

discuss


I find the bolded words quite interesting coming from you.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
User avatar
luns101
Posts: 2196
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:51 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Oceanic Flight 815
Contact:

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by luns101 »

Well, it's not like you can just blow off the points made by "confederate apologists" (to use the words in the title). Both sides have a strong argument to make and that's why the debate still rages on.

Those who don't think the American Civil War was about slavery could quote:

A House bill passed in 1861 included the language -

“…this war is not waged upon our part…for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union…”

Charles Sumner said -

"You will observe that I propose no crusade for abolition. [Emancipation] is to be presented strictly as a measure of military necessity...rather than on the grounds of philanthropy...Abolition is not to be the object of the war, but simply one of its agencies"

Abraham Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address -

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service….I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Then people who do believe it was all about slavery could quote:

South Carolina Declaration of Secession -

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy -

"Our new government is founded 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"

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy -

"Ours is not a revolution. We are not engaged in a Quixotic fight for the rights of man; our struggle is for the inherited rights. [We left the Union] to save ourselves from a revolution that threatened to make property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless."

Alabama newspaper in 1861 wrote -

"[Lincoln's election] shows that the North intends to free the negroes and force amalgamation between them and the children of the poor men of the South. [Slaveholders] will never consent to submit to abolition rule."
************************************************************************************************

Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?". But I do try to respect the other side of the argument because it's easy to find documentation to back up their side.

I'm reading a book right now, Father Abraham, which documents sources of Lincoln's record of trying to end slavery from the time he was in the Illinois legislature. It's a pretty good read.
strike wolf
Posts: 8345
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:03 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sandy Springs, GA (just north of Atlanta)

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by strike wolf »

I do not support or try to defend the South as a whole for the war, I stated quite clearly that I felt that the North was undeniably in the right. What I argued was Robert E. Lee's reasoning for entering the war which you said was just so he could keep his slaves. I don't think he was the greatest person ever. I simply believe he was a better general and mostly tried to correct you on the reasons that he joined the war for the South.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
User avatar
SultanOfSurreal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am
Gender: Male

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by SultanOfSurreal »

strike wolf wrote:I do not support or try to defend the South as a whole for the war, I stated quite clearly that I felt that the North was undeniably in the right. What I argued was Robert E. Lee's reasoning for entering the war which you said was just so he could keep his slaves. I don't think he was the greatest person ever. I simply believe he was a better general and mostly tried to correct you on the reasons that he joined the war for the South.


i am not talking just about you or just about the generals thread, i have seen plenty of other apologists in plenty of other threads

however your lame excuse for lee's treason is wholly unconvincing and merely turns him from a slave-monger to a weak willed jingoist
User avatar
InkL0sed
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Gender: Male
Location: underwater
Contact:

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by InkL0sed »

I wonder how many people in this thread actually know what "apologist" means...
User avatar
b.k. barunt
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by b.k. barunt »

luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"


According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.

The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.


Honibaz
User avatar
demonfork
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:52 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Your mom's house

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by demonfork »

InkL0sed wrote:I wonder how many people in this thread actually know what "apologist" means...


I agree... what a bunch if ignoramus'

Furthermore, why would anyone have a problem with someone wanting to apologize for what the confederates did?
Image
strike wolf
Posts: 8345
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:03 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sandy Springs, GA (just north of Atlanta)

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by strike wolf »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:
strike wolf wrote:I do not support or try to defend the South as a whole for the war, I stated quite clearly that I felt that the North was undeniably in the right. What I argued was Robert E. Lee's reasoning for entering the war which you said was just so he could keep his slaves. I don't think he was the greatest person ever. I simply believe he was a better general and mostly tried to correct you on the reasons that he joined the war for the South.


i am not talking just about you or just about the generals thread, i have seen plenty of other apologists in plenty of other threads

however your lame excuse for lee's treason is wholly unconvincing and merely turns him from a slave-monger to a weak willed jingoist


I don't know would you fight and kill people who you had been friends and family with for most of your life? It's not universal and I wish he would have joined the north (with Lee on their side I think the war would have been quicker and hopefully less blood spilt). I can't say if I was in that position I would have joined the South but I don't think it makes him a weak willed jingoist.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by GabonX »

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
- Robert E. Lee
User avatar
Simon Viavant
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by Simon Viavant »

b.k. barunt wrote:
luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"


According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.

The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.


Honibaz

Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.
ImageImageImage
Remember Them
User avatar
Simon Viavant
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by Simon Viavant »

GabonX wrote:"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
- Robert E. Lee

So, weak-willed jingoist then?
ImageImageImage
Remember Them
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by GabonX »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:lee's treason

It was a common belief of the time that a person's state was more important than the collective United States. Had Lee sided against his state he would have been abandoning his primary obligations as a citizen of Virginia which trumped his obligation to the federal government. At the time this was the standard of treason.

It's quite clear that you do not understand the intricacies of history. In addition, it seems that you have been jaded by modern politically correct ideology to the point where you can not empathize with a person who holds a differing perspective..
Last edited by GabonX on Sat May 23, 2009 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
b.k. barunt
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by b.k. barunt »

Simon Viavant wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:
luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"


According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.

The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.


Honibaz

Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.


Um, if you're going to quote someone, try reading what you quoted before replying to it, um, so maybe you won't look stoopid - here - i'll repeat it for you:
The movement for secession was well under way long before Lincoln took office. Now lets apply some deductive reasoning here - if the southern states wanted to secede before Lincoln took office, and Lincoln was the one who abolished slavery, um, still too hard for you to follow?


Honibaz
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by GabonX »

Simon Viavant wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:
luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"


According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.

The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.


Honibaz

Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.

The Civil War was about slavery, but it is a mistake to think that it was JUST about slavery.

Worth mentioning is that Lincoln, as well as most of the North, didn't give a damn about slavery. Their cause was to maintain the Union, which I believe was valid.

The South was fighting because of the perception of a violation of states rights. One right, perhaps the most significant right at stake, was that they wanted to maintain the freedom to practice slavery. More importanly though was the idea that a state had the right to govern itself by it's own accord, that the state government had greater authority within it's borders than the federal government.
User avatar
SultanOfSurreal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am
Gender: Male

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by SultanOfSurreal »

GabonX wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:lee's treason

It was a common belief of the time that a person's state was more important than the whole of the United States.against his state. At the time this was the standard of treason.

It's quite clear that you do not understand the intricacies of history. In addition, it seems that you have been jaded by modern politically correct ideology to the point where you can not empathize with a person who holds a differing perspective..


you're right, i cannot empathize with people who murdered fellow citizens so they could keep other citizens in bondage

just as i cannot empathize with classical spartans who practiced infanticide; just as i cannot empathize with medieval europeans who crusaded against, tortured, and murdered jews and muslims over religious differences. so why, i ask you, must i empathize with the clearly backwards and incorrect beliefs of bygone years?
User avatar
Simon Viavant
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by Simon Viavant »

b.k. barunt wrote:
Simon Viavant wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:
luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"


According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.

The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.


Honibaz

Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.


Um, if you're going to quote someone, try reading what you quoted before replying to it, um, so maybe you won't look stoopid - here - i'll repeat it for you:
The movement for secession was well under way long before Lincoln took office. Now lets apply some deductive reasoning here - if the southern states wanted to secede before Lincoln took office, and Lincoln was the one who abolished slavery, um, still too hard for you to follow?


Honibaz

Yes, because Lincoln was totally the first on who tried to control slavery :roll:

I'll admit it wasn't all about slavery, it was about the federal government trying to control them in general, including slavery.

And I'll admit I had no clue on Lincoln motives in abolishing slavery, it could've been just to shit on the south, or to get himself votes from black people or the goodness of his heart of whatever.
ImageImageImage
Remember Them
User avatar
SultanOfSurreal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am
Gender: Male

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by SultanOfSurreal »

b.k. barunt wrote:
Simon Viavant wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:
luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"


According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.

The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.


Honibaz

Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.


Um, if you're going to quote someone, try reading what you quoted before replying to it, um, so maybe you won't look stoopid - here - i'll repeat it for you:
The movement for secession was well under way long before Lincoln took office. Now lets apply some deductive reasoning here - if the southern states wanted to secede before Lincoln took office, and Lincoln was the one who abolished slavery, um, still too hard for you to follow?


Honibaz


the movement to secede is precisely as old as the movement to abolish slavery and started when franklin, adams, and other anti-slavery framers agreed to a compromise at the constiutional convention which would preserve slavery but end the import of slaves from africa by 1820, so the southern states would join. not to mention the agitation and unsatisfying compromises bridging these events and the outbreak of war.

in fact there was not a single "states rights" issue at stake in the war other than slavery. so the entire concept of "states rights," already illusory and incorrect, is just a canard -- a red herring that is used as a distraction from the hard fact of the matter, which is that the south just really liked owning niggers
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

Post by GabonX »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:
GabonX wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:lee's treason

It was a common belief of the time that a person's state was more important than the whole of the United States.against his state. At the time this was the standard of treason.

It's quite clear that you do not understand the intricacies of history. In addition, it seems that you have been jaded by modern politically correct ideology to the point where you can not empathize with a person who holds a differing perspective..


you're right, i cannot empathize with people who murdered fellow citizens so they could keep other citizens in bondage
This was not the position of motivation of Robert E. Lee. The man was much more complex than you give him credit for.

just as i cannot empathize with classical spartans who practiced infanticideBut I bet you can empathize with people who have abortions :lol: ; just as i cannot empathize with medieval europeans who crusaded against, tortured, and murdered jews and muslims over religious differencesWhat about the muslims who did these things back then? What about the muslims who do these things today?I have the sneaking suspicion that you empathize with people not based on action but rather a misguided understanding of the world.. so why, i ask you, must i empathize with the clearly backwards and incorrect beliefs of bygone years?It's essential if you want to truly understand history, but that's kind of a moot point...
Last edited by GabonX on Sat May 23, 2009 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”