One more reason to hate UNC
- Thread starter Swimcat76
- Start date
GW and TJ were slaveholders, but their memorialized part in US history wasn't to continue the institution of slavery.
The overarching reason the southern states seceded was to maintain slavery. The majority of southern states seceded prior to Lincoln's inauguration because the Republican platform in the 1860 elections centered around anti-slavery ideals.
Cornerstone Speech by Vice President of the Confederate States Alexander H. Stephens:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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 normal condition. 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 has been 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."
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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 normal condition. 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 has been 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."
The Source that the first poster used was the actual Declarations of Secession as voted on by the states' representatives.
The link you provided is by David John Marotta and Megan Russell.
Yep, these two sources should have equal footing in this debate.
Mime-Is-Money, post: 7093920, member: 932"]But tariffs![/QUOTE]
Which did he mention first in the speech, tariffs or slavery?
Which did he mention first in the speech, tariffs or slavery?
So how can we celebrate anybody who fought for America at that time? People like you are, literally, referring to Americans who think like those Americans as “nazis”.
“If [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” -New York Tribune, December 17, 1860
Other than both situations involved a country being formed, you know those two situations are not similar whatsoever.
They are identical, and if the colonies would’ve lost they would’ve been held in contempt by many the same way the Connfederates are.
The difference is the US won.
Exactly. The United States won not The Southern States. Are there any statues of the founding fathers in England?
That's even dumber than the confederate statutes. I kind of understand the confederate statutes, at least they were trying to honor the people on their side. Why the hell would you erect a statue for the people that kicked your ***?
Probably because they thought it would help heal the wounds of War.
You do realize the American Revolution was mainly an Anglo-Saxon War? Washington was far more English than King George (mainly German).
This thread is definitely going to change a lot of people's minds from both sides...keep it up!
O/U - 3 more pages?
O/U - 3 more pages?
Well, I for one am glad that took it down. I heard that guy once failed to stand at attention when the National Anthem was played.
None you ******** were around then, so wtf do you know? /debate
The revisionist history on here is astounding. Looking through the filter of today's view on slavery and using it to cast judgement on those rank and file Confederate soldiers is BS. Fact is, everybody on here would have fought for the South had they lived in Alabama during the time of the Civil War.
620,000 soldiers were killed in the civil war. Countless lives and families were destroyed. Yet, the country came together after all this. The Confederates are our history, just as the Union is. Tearing memorials down - especially memorials to fallen Confederate soldiers (as opposed to the leaders) - is not helping sow unity in this country.
620,000 soldiers were killed in the civil war. Countless lives and families were destroyed. Yet, the country came together after all this. The Confederates are our history, just as the Union is. Tearing memorials down - especially memorials to fallen Confederate soldiers (as opposed to the leaders) - is not helping sow unity in this country.
Sure, but you’ll face charges similar to those that toppled fallen Silent Sam. Unauthorized destruction of public property ain’t legal.
Not sure why this replying to me. No one is arguing the lawful legitimacy of secession. Rather, that the South seceded for contemptible reasons.
True, but the excerpt I posted is word for word what the state of Mississippi wrote. Someone has to be going out of their way to ignore it to not admit slavery was a major factor.
Common and verifiable LIES / myths about slavery in the North:
1. Slavery was never a common practice in northern states.
2. Slavery was never legal in northern states.
3. Northern states' "official end" to slavery is consistent with each of their "actual ends" to slavery.
4. No northern states' official vs. actual end to slavery is greater than 60 years.
5. No northern state retained slaves according to either or both census or property tax records after 1850.
6. No northern state had slaves during the American Civil War.
7. The reason many northern states first began to officially abolish slavery during the generation after the American Revolution had NOTHING to do with northern citizens being afraid of the slaves, fearful of growing black population. They only did it because it was moral.
8. No northern state, between 1800 and 1860, saw a minimum 50% decrease in black population or, much more commonly, a 300-500% decrease in black population as a result of abolition. They did everything in their hearts to prevent them from leaving.
They didn't want them to go. They were so nice to them.
9. Early cycle emancipation in the northern states NEVER ensured ANY form of financial compensation for the northern slave owners. That morality was free. Natural.
10. (my personal favorite) early period emancipation in northern states included NO PROCESS to ensure state constitutions would offer NOTHING to encourage the relocation of fugitive slaves from elsewhere.
1. Slavery was never a common practice in northern states.
2. Slavery was never legal in northern states.
3. Northern states' "official end" to slavery is consistent with each of their "actual ends" to slavery.
4. No northern states' official vs. actual end to slavery is greater than 60 years.
5. No northern state retained slaves according to either or both census or property tax records after 1850.
6. No northern state had slaves during the American Civil War.
7. The reason many northern states first began to officially abolish slavery during the generation after the American Revolution had NOTHING to do with northern citizens being afraid of the slaves, fearful of growing black population. They only did it because it was moral.
8. No northern state, between 1800 and 1860, saw a minimum 50% decrease in black population or, much more commonly, a 300-500% decrease in black population as a result of abolition. They did everything in their hearts to prevent them from leaving.
They didn't want them to go. They were so nice to them.
9. Early cycle emancipation in the northern states NEVER ensured ANY form of financial compensation for the northern slave owners. That morality was free. Natural.
10. (my personal favorite) early period emancipation in northern states included NO PROCESS to ensure state constitutions would offer NOTHING to encourage the relocation of fugitive slaves from elsewhere.
Good stuff. Slavery and race relations (read: inferiority of African Americans) are the crux of at least 9 paragraphs. Tariffs has one line. The speech spends more time on the structure of the CSA treasury department than it does tariffs.
Without the tariffs, and the North ignoring Federal law the South never would’ve left.
The States are sovereign entities, still are, that have joined together to form a Union. They are not bound to stay in that Union if it no longer serves their citizens best interest.
The remaining states formed an Army to force them back, that isn’t freedom, and if the founding fathers would’ve thought that was a possibility the Declaration or Constitution never gets signed.
The civil war only strengthened the Federal Govt, to the point that today agencies are stronger than elected officials, yay for liberty!
The motives of the North had nothing to do with slavery, or if it did, it was to eliminate the expansion/existence of it. The South seceded and fought to preserve slavery, to defend the twisted notion that Africans Americans were inferior and thus should be enslaved.
To answer your question, the North was less contemptible by an order of 10^8x.
That's hilariously false. The tariffs in question existed for decades prior to the civil war and the Southern slave states were A-OK. Tariffs were the highest source of revenue for our nation since inception through at least Reconstruction.
I assume you are mean 'The Fugitive Slave Acts' when referencing the North ignoring Federal Laws, that further cements the detestable intentions of the South. We should all be applauding the North for "ignoring" these laws. A handful of Northern states had adopted jury nullifications to circumvent these horrendous laws, declaring them unconstitutional.
The South complained about tariffs, but took up arms and killed fellow Americans to uphold slavery.
Last edited:
The South wanted to leave peacefully, the North chose the route of killing fellow Americans. In that very speech above it was mentioned that as to the point it was a peaceful revolution.
Again, you’re looking at it from 150 years out. The fugitive slave act was the law of the land, slavery was a legal practice.
You don’t get to decide which laws you want to enforce, that’s the point of laws.
The tariffs were levied between states, that defeats the purpose of a Union based on free trade between members.
You know the South had a right to leave, you know the North didn’t form an Army in order to end slavery, it was to force the secession states back in the Union. To justify those actions you and most people have made it about ending slavery, when it clearly wasn’t, it was to preserve the Union.
Yep, then they fought to keep slavery when the North wanted to maintain the Union. They had the chance to rejoin peacefully, but slavery took precedence.
No, you can decide which laws you deem unconstitutional. That's the point of state legislation and federal amendments.
Of course slavery was 'the law of the land', doesn't mean it was right. And that's why lawyers and legislators challenge laws
And these tariffs existed for decades. The compromises enacted prior to the Civil War to satisfy concerns of the Southern states were ALL about slavery, nothing about tariffs.
Last edited:
Yep, no one was arguing that. And I agree, the North fought to preserve the Union, with our without slavery. I have always said, at least in this thread, that overarching reason the South seceded, then later fought, was to maintain slavery, which I think is rather sh*tty motive for both responses by the South, and why I have zero qualms of removing statues that celebrate that motive and cause.
I was arguing that, because the statue at the root of this thread is of a soldier. Not a leader, simply an honor to the anonymous soldiers that sacrificed.
Everyone of those students knew it was there before DECIDING to go to school there.
There are better ways to remove a statue besides pulling it down. That’s mob mentality.
They did exist for decades, the South grieved them over and over with result. That’s why secession was their final recourse, it wasn’t their first choice.
It was not ALL about slavery, that simply helps you justify the US actions. It’s what simple minded people accept actions they know are wrong, the ends justify the means.
The North would’ve took up arms if slavery wasn’t involved.
You've now changed what you're arguing about. You were trying to prove that the South secesion was enacted legally. I don't give a rat phuque if the southern slave states seceded legitimately. I only care why.
The school in question is about much more than a statue honoring the confederacy, and as we all have witnessed, will go one without the statue. And once again, no one on here (at least myself) is saying that this should be removed unlawfully. Another strawman.
One signifcant reason that students and others wanted to remove the statue was its original intention, as interpreted from the dedication speech by Julian Carr for the unveiling, where he applauded the actions of the former CSA soldiers turned Klansmen in the post civil war South, and included the below anecdote:
"One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds because she had maligned and insulted a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison"