Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2011, 04:59   #221
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,230
"Slavery wasn't evil until the north used it as an excuse to attack the south". If you think owning another human being is not evil, than I don't see how we can have an educated discussion on anything. The Civil war was not fought by the North over slavery, but to preserve the union. The south seceded solely to preserve the institution of slavery. they did not have to secede to preserve slavery, they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery to insure the poreservation of the rich plantation owner's lifestyle. John Breckinridge was in put in the presidential race solely to act as a spoiler to insure Lincoln's victory and to give the southern fireeaters the excuse to secede when Limcoln won.

As you seem to think slavery was ok, I will admit that you and I are unable to intelligently discuss any subject, and will end my debate with you now.
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 08:19   #222
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 35,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by clancy View Post
"Slavery wasn't evil until the north used it as an excuse to attack the south". If you think owning another human being is not evil, than I don't see how we can have an educated discussion on anything. The Civil war was not fought by the North over slavery, but to preserve the union. The south seceded solely to preserve the institution of slavery. they did not have to secede to preserve slavery, they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery to insure the poreservation of the rich plantation owner's lifestyle. John Breckinridge was in put in the presidential race solely to act as a spoiler to insure Lincoln's victory and to give the southern fireeaters the excuse to secede when Limcoln won.

As you seem to think slavery was ok, I will admit that you and I are unable to intelligently discuss any subject, and will end my debate with you now.
That's your "intelligent response?" "If you don't agreee with me, you are stupid and tyour opinion has no merit?" Obviously, there was a time when slavery was not considered evil, and any intelligent, educated person is aware of that. The fact that the opinion doesn't agree with fairly recent modern morality, even though it was fine for about 99.XXX% of human history, does not translate into, "you are too stupid to make an argument." If anything, I'd say one can't have an intelligent discussion with a person who has no more historical perspective, in a historical discussion, than you have demonstrated.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.

Last edited by Bren; 06-14-2011 at 08:20..
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 11:40   #223
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
Point being that the U.S. Constitution is "enshrined" as much slavery as the CSA, if not a little more.
Not true, at most the US constitution "ignored" slavery, the Founding Fathers knew that slavery was incompatibly with the constitution so they pretended it did not exist as far as the constitution goes. The rebel leaders were also aware of this fact that is why they wrote their own constitution "correcting" the problems with the U.S. Constitution.

The vice president of the Confederate states, Alexander Stephens made this perfectly clear in his "Cornerstone" speech. In it he enumerated the differences between the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate one.

Quote:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution"
Quote:
Even today, we don't require a law to make things legal - we never have and law doesn't work that way. Anything that is not illegal is legal.
Is that so? so even though there were no laws legitimizing slavery it was ok because in YOUR opinion, someone can be deprived of their liberty WITHOUT due process under the US constitution.

I reject your position, and so did many of the confederate leaders .

Quote:
Senator James M. Mason (D., Va.) had publicly admitted in 1850, that there were no states that had legally established slavery. All states had slavery bans written into their constitutions via Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights style clauses.

Quote:
At the time, half or more of America would have said that slavery was up to the states and that the constitution required each state to recognize property rights established in another. In fact, nearly everyone would agree today, if the issue was not slavery. That's how your car is still your car if somebody steals it and takes it to New Jersey.
And here was the BIG problem for slave owners, Article 4, section2 clause three states,

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

lacking any laws legitimizing slavery they could not establish that the "fugitive slave" was "held to service" under the laws of their state. Northern states blocked them by requiring jury trials to establish the legitimacy of the southern slave owners claims to their "Property". They lost because the southern slave owners could not establish that the fugitive "slave" was held to service under the laws of their state.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 12:55   #224
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
A lot of southern apologist promote the myth that the South wanted to secede peacefully. the Historical record shows otherwise.

Lincoln was not elected on a platform of abolishing slavery where it already existed. He made it clear he would not interfere with Slavery where it was already established. He vowed however that he would fight to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories and new States.

This was what the South would not tolerate and why they seceded even before he took office. The Confederate states were not interested in the protection of slavery where it already existed they demanded that it be allowed to expand into new territories and new states.

Quote:
"a congressional slave code [for territories, to] provide ironclad protection for our [slave] property in whatever new slave territory we annex—Cuba, Mexico, or Central America. If the North rejects our demand [to expand slavery], I would regard it as grounds for disunion."—Allan Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, vol. 1, p 416.
When the rebel States began seceding the sitting president Buchanan. told them that Federal Forts would remain Federal forts. The rebel states seized them anyway. ( with the exception of a few like Fort Sumter.) Buchanan took no action, and neither did Lincoln once he was inaugurated. Lincoln sought to resupply Fort Sumter and even notified the Governor of the state that he was sending unarmed union supply ships to resupply the Fort. Confederate fired on the unarmed supply ships and drove them off.

The seizure of Union Forts and firing on Fort Sumter are nothing less than acts of war.

The Confederate states understood there was going to be no peaceful co existence with the US, they clearly stated their intent to take territories and establish new confederate states. War was inevitable.

Lincoln Proposed a constitutional amendment protecting slavery where it already existed, The south was not interested, they demanded they be allowed to expand slavery.

In 1862 Lincoln put forth 3 proposed constitutional amendments.


Quote:
1. Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900.
2. Frees slaves who "enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of war" before "the end of the rebellion."
3. Congress authorized to provide for colonization outside of the United States of free blacks by their own consent.
Again the South was not interested.


The South was happy to be part of the Union as long as the 3/5ths compromise allowed them to dominate the Govt. When the South dominated they were the best friends of centralized Federal power, ramming legislation through infringing on the rights of other states. And blocking Northern legislation they did not like.

Once massive immigration into the North began and new states were formed and the south saw it's dominance slipping away they became dissatisfied and talk of secession began. And that is why they were not at all receptive to any of Lincolns overtures to peacefully rejoin the Union.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 16:05   #225
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
That's your "intelligent response?" "If you don't agreee with me, you are stupid and tyour opinion has no merit?" Obviously, there was a time when slavery was not considered evil, and any intelligent, educated person is aware of that. The fact that the opinion doesn't agree with fairly recent modern morality, even though it was fine for about 99.XXX% of human history, does not translate into, "you are too stupid to make an argument." If anything, I'd say one can't have an intelligent discussion with a person who has no more historical perspective, in a historical discussion, than you have demonstrated.
I never said his argument was stupid and had no merit, but if he, or anyone else, is so morally bankrupt that they believe slavery is not inherently evil than I don't see how I can intelligently idscuss the issue with him. As far as a time when slavery was not considered evil, I think you will find many our Founding Fathers uncomfortable, at best, and downright hostile, at worst, to the institution. Of course, I, as one who has no historical perspective, obviously cannot make that statement, despite having read extensively on the subject. If you, Gray Rider, or anyone else is so mired in the myth of the movie Gone With The Wind, revel in it. The events leading to the war were set in motion by a few rich Southern plantation owners, and the rest of the population was duped into going along with them. Had the South not seceded, the institution of slavery would have been untouched, but it would not have been allowed to expand. And there lay the problem. Without the expansion of the Slave States, and with it the guarantee of remaining in power of the planataion owners, their way of life was at risk, and they did not care what they did to tear apart this country, even if it meant the death of hundreds of thousands and the ruination of their way of life. But then again, as one with no historical perspective, I guess it is a foregone conclusion that I cannot make that statement, either.

Let me ask you this, as I have asked Gray Rider. As the mantra of Southern Revisionists is that the Civil War was fought over State's Rights, can you give me one example of a right that a resident of Mississippi had that a resident of Maine did not? Can you give me a right that a resident of Connecticut had that a resident of Alabama did not have? Gray Rider seems only able to skirt around the subject and give plattitudes to the Old South and condemn the evil Federal government.
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 16:53   #226
chuck pullen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: huntsville alabama
Posts: 381
Having lived in Alabama all my life, I both understand and subscribe to my region's deep respect and pride in people like Lee, Cleburne, Longstreet, et al. It is not them, or their bravery in the Civil War, that reflects badly on the Confederate battle flag. They and the soldiers that served gallantly under them 150 years ago gave that banner all the glory it still has.

Instead, it is the dumba**, hate-spewing peckerwoods largely from areas outside the South, but also in it, who have stolen that banner to try to make it a symbol of hate. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the media and a large section of the public, they have succeeded in that. It is them I blame, not the symbol brave Southerners fought under or those brave men themselves.
chuck pullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 17:26   #227
chuck pullen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: huntsville alabama
Posts: 381
[QUOTE=glock_19guy1983;15261852]Murderers, Rapists, thieves, and arsonists. I hope every man that fought in Lincoln's army is roasting in Hell tonight.[/QUOTE

Really ? Think of Lawrence Chamberlain and John Gibbon for instance. Please tell me you aren't serious.
chuck pullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 18:47   #228
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
Instead, it is the dumba**, hate-spewing peckerwoods largely from areas outside the South, but also in it, who have stolen that banner to try to make it a symbol of hate.
You mean peckerwoods that spew stuff like,



Quote:
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.
Alexander Stephens, Vice president of the confederacy, "Cornerstone" speech 1861

Quote:
the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color - a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.
Quote:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
Texas Articles of secession.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2011, 09:05   #229
RichardB
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
RichardB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,424
"....Instead, it is the dumba**, hate-spewing peckerwoods largely from areas outside the South, but also in it,...."

Puller don't need to worry about the yankees and other outsiders you need to work to clean up the act a bit closer to home.

2007 Athens Alabama:

http://athens-al.purzuit.com/video/EfXD-a-QrX8.html

You will have a difficult time changing the photographed history of our south for the 1950's, 60's, and 70's and afterwards.
__________________
Richard

“Food for thought is no substitute for the real thing”

Last edited by RichardB; 06-15-2011 at 09:06..
RichardB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2011, 13:41   #230
chuck pullen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: huntsville alabama
Posts: 381
I never said that racism isn't or wasn't a problem in the South. I acknowledged that it was. Instead, the point I was trying to make is that the reason the Confederate flag is NOW so controversial is that for the last 50 or more years it's been taken over by white supremacist groups like the klan and has become, in the public's mind, forever linked with those groups. Those are the peckerwoods I was talking about and they include any klan groups around here. Before those groups co-opted it, it was more of a historical symbol of the Confederacy.
chuck pullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2011, 20:46   #231
redneck1861
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 340
I am not going to read the 10 pages of posts.

The Confederate Flag today has nothing to do with racism. Some people or groups that are racist may have adopted it, but it is just a flag. I am very proud of the Confederate flag, I actually have 3 Confederate Flag tattoo's, and 1 that is flying in my yard right now. I am very proud of my herritage, and my family that fought and died under that flag.
redneck1861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 00:33   #232
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
You mean peckerwoods that spew stuff like,
"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 -- that 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 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 the 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."

.....Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858. Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, in the race for Illinois Senator.
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 05:04   #233
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck1861 View Post
I am not going to read the 10 pages of posts.

The Confederate Flag today has nothing to do with racism. Some people or groups that are racist may have adopted it, but it is just a flag. I am very proud of the Confederate flag, I actually have 3 Confederate Flag tattoo's, and 1 that is flying in my yard right now. I am very proud of my herritage, and my family that fought and died under that flag.
Do you have any family members who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America? If so, do you feel the same pride for those that fought for the freedom of all Americans as you feel for those who fought for the right to deny the freedom of some people and to hold them as property?

Do you ever fly the flag of the Untied States of America, or have a tattoo of such?
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 08:25   #234
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by clancy View Post
Do you have any family members who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America? If so, do you feel the same pride for those that fought for the freedom of all Americans as you feel for those who fought for the right to deny the freedom of some people and to hold them as property?

Do you ever fly the flag of the Untied States of America, or have a tattoo of such?
The Northern and Union states certainly had slavery. So they denied the freedom of some people and held them as property. Some Union states still had slavery after the Civil War was over. Funny how the Northern slanted view of history never seems to mention this.

The Northern/Union states also fought to deny the freedom and independence of the South.
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 10:02   #235
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
"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 -- that 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 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 the 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."

.....Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858. Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, in the race for Illinois Senator.
Lincoln like the Founding Fathers certainly did not consider the black man the equal of the White man. Also like many of the Founding Fathers Lincoln considered slavery and evil.

Herein lies the fundamental differences between Lincoln and the "Peckerwoods" I quoted. Lincoln did not agree that the Black mans inequality with Whites made him subject to slavery, being owned and considered Chattel property.

Here are some more Lincoln quotes.

Quote:
July 1, 1854:



If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.
Quote:
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 10:12   #236
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck1861 View Post
I am not going to read the 10 pages of posts.

Quote:
The Confederate Flag today has nothing to do with racism
. Some people or groups that are racist may have adopted it, but it is just a flag. I am very proud of the Confederate flag, I actually have 3 Confederate Flag tattoo's, and 1 that is flying in my yard right now. I am very proud of my herritage, and my family that fought and died under that flag.
How could that be? is not the confederate flag the symbol of the Confederacy?

What did the Confederacy stand for? Despite the revisionist history put forth by the Neo Confederates today who have swallowed the myth of the "Lost cause" started by the losing confederates right after the war The evidence of what the Confederacy stood for is plainly stated in the confederates own words before and during the war.

Quote:
On March 21, 1861 (less than two weeks after the Confederacy had formed its constitution), Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens delivered a policy speech setting forth the purpose of the new government. That speech was entitled “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy.”

How much more racist can you get than to believe that by virtue of your own race you have the right to enslave someone of another race?
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 10:41   #237
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
How much more racist can you get than to believe that by virtue of your own race you have the right to enslave someone of another race?
Are you asking this same question about the United States, which had slavery for 90 years including after all the Confederate slaves were free?
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:34   #238
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
Are you asking this same question about the United States, which had slavery for 90 years including after all the Confederate slaves were free?
I am talking about how the US constitution did not promote or defend slavery, nor make it the cornerstone of the US Govt.

The Confederate Constitution did all of the above.

Keep ducking and dodging like the good little neo confederate you are.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:42   #239
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
I am talking about how the US constitution did not promote or defend slavery, nor make it the cornerstone of the US Govt.

The Confederate Constitution did all of the above.

Keep ducking and dodging like the good little neo confederate you are.
The US Supreme Court sure did defend the right to own slaves with the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

And the US Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act that stated runaway slaves had to be returned to their masters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850.

Of course this was before there ever was a Confederacy.

Stating facts should not be confused with ducking and dodging.

Last edited by Natty; 06-16-2011 at 11:48..
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 12:22   #240
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Dredd Scot still stands as one of the worst rulings ever made by the SCOTUS, And still today stands as a prime example of an activist court overreaching itself to further it's own agenda.

The Dissenting judges issued scathing and accurate dissent concerning the majority opinion. Detailing how the ruling flew in the face of established case law from state supreme courts and the Constitution itself. And last but not least how once the court declared Scott had not standing to bring the suit and it therefore had no jurisdiction, the court was obligated to simply dismiss the case and it was improper of the court to issue ANY rulings on the merits of the case after that.


The "fugitive slave act"

in which the word slave does not even appear. and whose wording was such that any state requiring the "slave" owner to prove that the "slave" was indeed his property "under the laws thereof" of their state prevented slave owners from taking escaped slaves back to their own states.

For the simple reason that no slave owner could establish that they owned the slave "Under the law thereof" of their states. since no state had legalized slavery and pro slavery leaders admitted public ally that not only did no slave holding states have laws legalizing slavery but such laws could not be passed under the US constitution or the constitutions of the states that all had Declaration of independence, and BOR style clauses written into their constitutions.

Quote:
Senator James M. Mason (D., Va.) had publicly admitted in 1850, that there were no states that had legally established slavery. All states had slavery bans written into their constitutions via Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights style clauses.
Even the abolitionists pointed out the illegality of slavery.

Quote:
A number of abolitionists said, "When we say that slavery is illegal, we mean not merely that it is morally wrong, wicked, or sinful, in the sight of God, but that it is likewise unlawful, by the established principles of human jurisprudence, just as murder, arson, robbery, theft, and assault and battery, are unlawful, and that there is no more valid law for [favoring] the one than there is for the other. We mean that slaveholding is illegal, as other criminal practices are illegal. We affirm that there is no legislation in any of the States that makes it legal. . . . Slavery can not possibly be legalized. In its very nature it is incapable of legalization. The standard writers on common law affirm the impossibility of legalizing slavery, even by positive municipal law. They declare the right to liberty to be inalienable, and that statutes against fundamental morality are void. . . . The nature of civil government and of civil law, as defined by all standard writers on those subjects, proves it impossible to legalize slavery. 'To secure' man’s inalienable rights, 'governments are instituted among men.' And consequently they can have no lawful authority to violate the rights which they exist only to protect."
That was the driving force behind secession, the south's realization that their "peculiar institution" had no legal standing, even within their own states. This was why they were determined to secede and create their own constitution that legalized and protected slavery at the national level and forbid any of their member states to do away with it even in their own state.

It is also why the Confederates detested the Declaration of Independence.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply


Tags
slavery caused civil war
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 729
215 Members
514 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31