RayR
3 years ago

The winner gets to write the history. The Civil War was about slavery and freeing the slaves. That’s why the slaves were freed so well!

HockeyDad wrote:



The Yankees told a bunch of lies, War criminal Union General William Tecumseh Sherman issued Special Field Orders No. 15, proclaiming that freed people would get Forty acres and a mule. He was just kiddin', the Union would never go along with black people owning property, but they did go along with making those freed people slaves for the Union army.


drglnc
3 years ago
Oh… well if the broker-in-charge of Charleston Saltwater Realty and e book author says it is irrefutable then I guess it must be irrefutable
RayR
3 years ago

Oh… well if the broker-in-charge of Charleston Saltwater Realty and e book author says it is irrefutable then I guess it must be irrefutable

drglnc wrote:



I see...you can't refute anything he wrote because he knows more true history than you ever got from your indoctrination, so all you're left with is some lame personal attacks, that he's a real estate broker and an e-book author? Actually he started 2 publishing companies since the 80's, has published books also in print, hardcover and softcover including his current 360 pages title by himself, "Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument" and Michael R. Bradley's "The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States" and a 2 DVD Sett, "Mixed Up With All the Rebel Horde, Why Black Southerners Fought for the South in the War Between the States" featuring nationally renowned authority on black Confederates, Professor Edward C. Smith.

https://www.charlestonathenaeumpress.com/ 
Brewha
3 years ago

The winner gets to write the history. The Civil War was about slavery and freeing the slaves. That’s why the slaves were freed so well!

HockeyDad wrote:


I believe “the War” was fought over money and control of assets.
As are all wars.

“States Rights” is just a talking point.
RayR
3 years ago

I believe “the War” was fought over money and control of assets.
As are all wars.

“States Rights” is just a talking point.

Brewha wrote:



Well...Well...What do we have here? Brewha now believes that the military invasion of the Confederacy was not a moral crusade to free the slaves, but an invasion to secure money and power by denying the Confederacy their sovereignty. Lincoln said they couldn't be free to go because he needed them to pay their "fair share" to his regime. He had plans for that money.
Brew, you may be in danger of losing your LEFTY Membership ID card for believing such heresies, but congratulations!

But “States Rights” is not just a talking point, it's a fundamental liberty of the states enshrined in the Constitution, which means powers that have not been specifically prohibited to the states as was agreed by the states themselves in ratifying the Constitution and prohibited to the states because of the enumerated powers that were given to the general government exclusively meant the states and their people reserved the power to legislate on anything else except what their state constitutions prohibited their government(s) and people from doing.

See the 10th Amendment which is the foundation of States Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


The Constitution as originally ratified was neutral on the subject of chattel slavery, the Constitution gave no enumerated power to the general government to do anything about the institution one way or another. That meant the power to regulate slavery or abolish it altogether was reserved by each sovereign state. Even Dicktator Lincoln recognized that.
frankj1
3 years ago

I believe “the War” was fought over money and control of assets.
As are all wars.

“States Rights” is just a talking point.

Brewha wrote:


and slaves were assets.

This is all really Buchanan's fault
DrMaddVibe
3 years ago

The Constitution as originally ratified was neutral on the subject of chattel slavery, the Constitution gave no enumerated power to the general government to do anything about the institution one way or another. That meant the power to regulate slavery or abolish it altogether was reserved by each sovereign state. Even Dicktator Lincoln recognized that.

RayR wrote:




You know damned well that the Founders wanted to abolish slavery but knew they'd never get everyone onboard. They needed something to ratify quickly hence the open document. They knew it was an evil, and yes many used slaves. How many nations have made it illegal to have slaves? It's still going on.
RayR
3 years ago

You know damned well that the Founders wanted to abolish slavery but knew they'd never get everyone onboard. They needed something to ratify quickly hence the open document. They knew it was an evil, and yes many used slaves. How many nations have made it illegal to have slaves? It's still going on.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



Not everybody wanted to abolish slavery and even those that did knew it wouldn't fly if the institution was denounced in the Constitution. Slavery was debated in the ratifying conventions, but because of the resistance to anything having to do with slavery even being hinted as an enumerated power of the general government, it was a no go. Therefore the Constitution was left neutral on the subject, but because of the 10th Amendment, the sovereign states could deal with it if they chose.

Even before all that, this original passage written by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence had to be deleted because of pushback by delegates from South Carolina, Georgia and the delegates from the North who represented merchants involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."


DrMaddVibe
3 years ago
I KNEW you knew...felt like you were dancing around that.
drglnc
3 years ago
Yep... Slavery wasn't the issue... even when they said it out loud, early and often...


Alexander Stephens Vice President of the Confederacy on Slavery and the Confederate Constitution, 1861


The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man…. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another in glory.”

The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief stone of the corner” in our new edifice.



“Speech of A. H. Stephens,” Frank Moore, ed., Rebellion Record: A Diary of American Events, with Documents, Narratives, Illustrative Incidents, Poetry, etc. Volume I, (New York: 1861), 45-46.
HockeyDad
3 years ago
^ Joe Biden wrote that.
RayR
3 years ago
What Alexander Stephens said could have been just as well said by a typical Northerner, Republican, or Democrat at the time. Even the Sainted Lincoln agreed that the white man was superior to the black man.

During his debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln famously said:

From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.

"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."




The New York Times reprinted Lincoln's real quote from his speech in an article on December 28, 1860, debunking a totally fake Lincoln speech that was printed first a few day prior in the Albany Atlas and Argus in then copied and reprinted in The New York Tribune. Yes, even while he was alive people were making up fake Lincoln quotes.

The Article started out with the phony Lincoln speech as was printed in the Republican newspapers before the genuine statement at the debate with Douglas...

The Tribune, of Wednesday morning, copied conspicuously from the Albany Atlas and Argus an article intended to prove that Mr. LINCOLN holds firmly and unflinchingly to the principles of the Republican Party, -- and that among them, is the principle of Negro Equality. With what special object the Tribune thus gave prominence and a quasi endorsement to this statement of Mr. LINCOLN's position, from an open and unsparing political opponent, it is no part of our purpose to inquire. Probably nothing has done more to embitter the minds of the Southern people towards the President elect than the imputation of such sentiments on this subject. We propose, therefore, to examine the basis on which the allegation rests.

The Atlas and Argus quotes from a speech said to have been made by Mr. LINCOLN "in September, 1858," the following:

"That central idea in our political system at the beginning was, and until recently continued to be, the equality of men. And although it was always submitted patiently to, whatever inequality there seemed to be, as a matter of actual necessity, its constant working has been a steady progress toward the practical equality of all men. In what I have done I cannot claim to have acted from any peculiar consideration of the colored people as a separate and distinct class in the community, but from the simple conviction that all the individuals of that class are members of the community, and in virtue of their manhood entitled to every original right enjoyed by any other member. We feel, therefore, that all legal distinction between individuals of the same community, founded in any such circumstances as color, origin and the like, are hostile to the genius of our institutions, and incompatible with the true history of American liberty. Slavery and oppression must cease, or American liberty must perish.
In Massachusetts, and in most, if not all, the New-England States, the colored man and the white are absolutely equal before the law.
In New-York the colored man is restricted as to the right of suffrage by a property qualification. In other respects the same equality prevails.
I embrace with pleasure this opportunity of declaring my disapprobation of that clause of the Constitution (of Illinois,) which, denies to a portion of the colored people the right of suffrage.
True Democracy makes no inquiry about the color of the skin or place of nativity, or any other similar circumstance of condition. I regard, therefore, the exclusion of the colored people as a body from the elective franchise as incompatible with the true Democratic principle."



Talk about FAKE LINCOLN NEWS! 😂





RayR
3 years ago

^ Joe Biden wrote that.

HockeyDad wrote:



Well...Joe Biden did consider himself superior to Cornpop...right? 🤨
drglnc
3 years ago

What Alexander Stephens said could have been just as well said by a typical Northerner, Republican, or Democrat at the time. Even the Sainted Lincoln agreed that the white man was superior to the black man.

During his debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln famously said:




The New York Times reprinted Lincoln's real quote from his speech in an article on December 28, 1860, debunking a totally fake Lincoln speech that was printed first a few day prior in the Albany Atlas and Argus in then copied and reprinted in The New York Tribune. Yes, even while he was alive people were making up fake Lincoln quotes.

The Article started out with the phony Lincoln speech as was printed in the Republican newspapers before the genuine statement at the debate with Douglas...



Talk about FAKE LINCOLN NEWS! 😂





RayR wrote:



Sure... Except only one of them admits irrefutably that "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" known to all as the creation of the Confederacy and the primary cause of the Civil War...
Brewha
3 years ago

I KNEW you knew...felt like you were dancing around that.

DrMaddVibe wrote:


Next thing you know, you’ll be finishing each other’s sentences…..

😍
RayR
3 years ago

Sure... Except only one of them admits irrefutably that "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" known to all as the creation of the Confederacy and the primary cause of the Civil War...

drglnc wrote:



So you base your entire argument on one man's statement? No one is denying that slavery was ONE issue that caused contention but answer this...

"The nine Union slave states on April 12, 1861 when the war started were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina."
If slavery was the immediate cause of the war, why didn't Lincoln's army first free the slaves in those states still friendly to the Union at that time?

Also, later in the war why didn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free any slaves in Union controlled territory?

Why was it that "three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war"?

Well, I guess freeing slaves wasn't a priority after all.

I know LEFTY in particular likes to distill history down to single talking points, but dude...HISTORY IS MESSY!


You need to go back and read:

Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-declarations-do-not-prove-the-war-was-over-slavery/ 




DrMaddVibe
3 years ago

So you base your entire argument on one man's statement? No one is denying that slavery was ONE issue that caused contention but answer this...

"The nine Union slave states on April 12, 1861 when the war started were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina."
If slavery was the immediate cause of the war, why didn't Lincoln's army first free the slaves in those states still friendly to the Union at that time?

Also, later in the war why didn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free any slaves in Union controlled territory?

Why was it that "three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war"?

Well, I guess freeing slaves wasn't a priority after all.

I know LEFTY in particular likes to distill history down to single talking points, but dude...HISTORY IS MESSY!


You need to go back and read:

Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-declarations-do-not-prove-the-war-was-over-slavery/ 




RayR wrote:




Anyone remember why Juneteenth was even a thing? I mean even before it was declared a national holiday we were taught about that.
RayR
3 years ago

Anyone remember why Juneteenth was even a thing? I mean even before it was declared a national holiday we were taught about that.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



You must be in Texas, I was never taught anything about Juneteenth.
I heard the fake national holiday called Juneteenth is a celebration of nothing

Juneteenth: A Celebration of Nothing

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/juneteenth-a-celebration-of-nothing/ 


HISTORY IS MESSY!
drglnc
3 years ago

So you base your entire argument on one man's statement? No one is denying that slavery was ONE issue that caused contention but answer this...

"The nine Union slave states on April 12, 1861 when the war started were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina."
If slavery was the immediate cause of the war, why didn't Lincoln's army first free the slaves in those states still friendly to the Union at that time?

Also, later in the war why didn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free any slaves in Union controlled territory?

Why was it that "three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war"?

Well, I guess freeing slaves wasn't a priority after all.

I know LEFTY in particular likes to distill history down to single talking points, but dude...HISTORY IS MESSY!


You need to go back and read:

Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-declarations-do-not-prove-the-war-was-over-slavery/ 




RayR wrote:




Not ONE Man's Statement... The Vice President of the Confederacy.... and MULTIPE STATES... and not ONE issue... the PRIMARY issue as he states in his own words... you can keep posting the same opinion based article, by the same guy that lives 150+ years removed all you want... i base my comments and opinions on the actual facts and the actual word of the people that did it... especially when they specifically say WHY they did it...
HockeyDad
3 years ago

You must be in Texas, I was never taught anything about Juneteenth.
I heard the fake national holiday called Juneteenth is a celebration of nothing

Juneteenth: A Celebration of Nothing

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/juneteenth-a-celebration-of-nothing/ 


HISTORY IS MESSY!

RayR wrote:



I get Juneteenth as a paid holiday. It ain’t fake to me!
Users browsing this topic