Unite the Right

[The Conservative]

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary- ... ing-states

The word slave appears 83 times.
The word tax - once.

This whole revisionist "It was about taxes, or self determination, or blah, blah, blah, derp" shit gets tiresome.
The motherfuckers wrote down why the fuck they were seceding in black and white.
There is no damn debate, there are only people who have read the sources and ignoramuses.

It wasn't about slavery, it was about overall power. The North held the power in more than political, they held infrastructure, as well as political. The South fought to keep slavery active since that was their bread and butter since they were able to produce nothing else by themselves alone (heaven forbid they produced anything not using slaves except hot air)

The North had a larger population, and also more electoral votes, because of this they were more likely going to vote for a new president, and get more power overall, which meant that the president was going to have the ability to abolish slavery. Since California asked to be part of the Union as a Free State, the South was going to be out manned, and out voted. So no, this was not about slavery overall, it was about political power to keep slavery intact.

The north got into the fight to keep the Union intact initially, it later became about slavery because it was a rally that they could fight for, or against.

Only idiots think it's only about slavery, it was, as it always will be, about political power... nothing more, nothing less.

[Fife]

I'm wondering; did the New York legislature, or its federal delegation really give a shit about whether slavery persisted within the borders of Alabama or South Carolina in 1860?

Seems to me there were more moving parts than just MUH SLAVES, although slavery, as a system of property rights within the borders of Alabama, South Carolina, et al, *was* truly the sine qua non for the succession declarations.

That's why I posted the Articles of Secession . . . so you could actually read them instead of retreating into mental gymnastics and hyperbole.

Legalistically speaking, you are technically on all fours as a lawyer. Historically speaking, you are being kind of meh as an historian.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'm wondering; did the New York legislature, or its federal delegation really give a shit about whether slavery persisted within the borders of Alabama or South Carolina in 1860?

Seems to me there were more moving parts than just MUH SLAVES, although slavery, as a system of property rights within the borders of Alabama, South Carolina, et al, *was* truly the sine qua non for the succession declarations.

That's why I posted the Articles of Secession . . . so you could actually read them instead of retreating into mental gymnastics and hyperbole.

Legalistically speaking, you are technically on all fours as a lawyer. Historically speaking, you are being kind of meh as an historian.

So, the stated reason for secession doesn't count as the reason for secession, because... ?

[Fife]

Historically speaking, you are a green golf ball lost in deep grass as an historian.

[DBTrek]

• Texas: That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
  
  South Carolina: 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* [emphasis in the original] 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.
  
  Mississippi: 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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
  
  Georgia: The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.
  
  Vriginia: The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

. . . but it wasn't about slavery, derp-derp. It was about libertarianism and shit.

Keep telling yourself that.
The Articles of Secession are waaaaaay ambigious as to why the states are seceding and all, right?
Clowns.

[C-Mag]

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary- ... ing-states

The word slave appears 83 times.
The word tax - once.

This whole revisionist "It was about taxes, or self determination, or blah, blah, blah, derp" shit gets tiresome.
The motherfuckers wrote down why the fuck they were seceding in black and white.
There is no damn debate, there are only people who have read the sources and ignoramuses.

+1

For the South it was all about Slavery. Slavery was a key component to their Culture. For the North, not so much about Freeing the Slaves to improve humanity.

There's a serious economic component as well. But to argue the South did it for Taxes is silly.

[Fife]

• Texas: That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
  
  South Carolina: 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* [emphasis in the original] 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.
  
  Mississippi: 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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
  
  Georgia: The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.
  
  Vriginia: The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

. . . but it wasn't about slavery, derp-derp. It was about libertarianism and shit.

Keep telling yourself that.
The Articles of Secession are waaaaaay ambigious as to why the states are seceding and all, right?
Clowns.

Nothing ambiguous about any of it. It's crystal-clear. Like I told you 10 minutes ago, the peculiar institution was the sine quo non of succession.

[DBTrek]

You need to work on your agreement outreach, then. Because as someone agreeing with someone else you're a peanut in an elephant turd.

[Fife]

You need to work on your agreement outreach, then. Because as someone agreeing with someone else you're a peanut in an elephant turd.

Don't be a tard. There's absolutely zero in the question that I asked, and which you have ignored, that would imply anything other than utter agreement with your IT'S LEGALLLLL premise.

[DBTrek]

You need to work on your agreement outreach, then. Because as someone agreeing with someone else you're a peanut in an elephant turd.

Don't be a tard. There's absolutely zero in the question that I asked, and which you have ignored, that would imply anything other than utter agreement with your IT'S LEGALLLLL premise.

Nope.
You still suck at agreeing.
Maybe try smiling when you talk, or using words that convey empathy and relatability, you turd peanut.