| 155. Have you considered taking reputable courses from a good university? |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-28-10 03:11 PM by TexasObserver
|
| -"the central cause of the (Civil) war was our national disagreement about race and slavery" |
Still a Democrat |
Dec-27-10 07:41 AM |
#0 |
 -
k&r nt |
mix |
Dec-27-10 07:48 AM |
#1 |
| -
That was the only "States Rights" issue that they cared about. |
hobbit709 |
Dec-27-10 08:08 AM |
#2 |
| -
Your hypothesis is inaccurate. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 08:16 AM |
#3 |
 -
Without slavery... |
Cassandra |
Dec-27-10 08:20 AM |
#4 |
 -
That is true; however, slavery was not the issue. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 08:33 AM |
#10 |
| -
His wife's family owned slaves. Lincoln did not. |
hlthe2b |
Dec-27-10 08:41 AM |
#12 |
| -
Lincoln didn't own slaves. |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 08:44 AM |
#17 |
| -
read some history and educate yourself. |
cali |
Dec-27-10 09:08 AM |
#27 |
| -
For your educational benefit: From the 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 09:37 AM |
#33 |
| -
He was addressing a crowd as a politician. |
Marr |
Dec-27-10 07:09 PM |
#78 |
| -
You are correct, "he was addressing a crowd as a politician." |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 08:59 AM |
#107 |
| -
And yet nowhere in that speech does Lincoln ctate owning slaves, or that he is pro-slavery |
EstimatedProphet |
Dec-28-10 07:52 AM |
#98 |
| -
Simple-Minded Nonesense, Sir |
The Magistrate |
Dec-27-10 08:23 AM |
#5 |
| -
Thank you for making my point. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 08:28 AM |
#8 |
| -
codswallop |
cali |
Dec-27-10 08:42 AM |
#14 |
| -
. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 08:52 AM |
#23 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-27-10 09:09 AM |
#28 |
| -
yeah, that's why the underground railroad was such a huge undertaking |
cali |
Dec-27-10 08:42 AM |
#15 |
| -
Deleted sub-thread |
Name removed |
Dec-27-10 08:47 AM |
#20 |
| -
slave economy nt |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-27-10 08:27 AM |
#6 |
| -
New England had a "slave trade" economy |
unc70 |
Dec-27-10 04:59 PM |
#74 |
| -
No. New England had some wealthy families involved in the trade. |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-27-10 05:43 PM |
#76 |
| -
Economics and slavery were THE SAME ISSUE |
NWHarkness |
Dec-27-10 08:41 AM |
#13 |
| -
well argued |
mix |
Dec-27-10 08:44 AM |
#18 |
| -
Agreed. The level of confederate sympathizer talking points cropping up here is egregious. |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 08:46 AM |
#19 |
| -
Indeed |
hootinholler |
Dec-27-10 11:40 AM |
#46 |
| -
Actually, it's probably closer to the truth (if such exists) to say that |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-28-10 03:19 PM |
#169 |
| -
The point is Lee or no one else ruined the south... |
hootinholler |
Dec-28-10 05:45 PM |
#195 |
| -
Admirably expressed. Points well taken. I do think you would |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-28-10 09:53 PM |
#206 |
| -
Try Not To Let It Ruin Your Day. (n/t) |
Paladin |
Dec-29-10 06:41 AM |
#217 |
| -
And Some Would Argue That DU ... |
Kweli4Real |
Dec-28-10 10:10 PM |
#207 |
| -
Ah. Creative is gone. |
JVS |
Dec-28-10 10:21 PM |
#209 |
| -
The civil war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 09:19 AM |
#29 |
| -
What a banal assertion. |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-27-10 09:36 AM |
#32 |
| -
It is you that is living in an "alternate universe, for you are unable to acknowledge the |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 09:50 AM |
#34 |
| -
I attacked your assertion, not you. |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-27-10 10:07 AM |
#37 |
| -
I think the guy who started this war probably knows more than you or I about why it was fought. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 10:32 AM |
#38 |
| -
I give up. |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-27-10 10:36 AM |
#40 |
| -
It's not a matter of winning or losing, or being an apologist for the South. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 11:05 AM |
#41 |
| -
How about acknowledging post 7 where Alexander Stephens said it was about slavery |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 11:40 AM |
#47 |
| -
How about acknowledging where Lincoln said it was not. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 12:09 PM |
#52 |
| -
Since Stephens was one of the guys who started the war, he knows better than Lincoln why it happened |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 12:25 PM |
#54 |
| -
. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 02:26 PM |
#60 |
| -
Actually, I believe it was the North which invaded the South. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 02:28 PM |
#63 |
| -
It was Southern troops who attacked federal soldiers at Sumter. |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 03:16 PM |
#69 |
| -
Lincoln started the Civil War? |
mix |
Dec-27-10 11:57 AM |
#50 |
| -
A blockade is an act of war. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 02:27 PM |
#61 |
| -
As is the bombardment of a federal fort. nt |
NoGOPZone |
Dec-27-10 03:07 PM |
#66 |
| -
And the bombardment happened before the blockade. |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 03:16 PM |
#70 |
| -
Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12th, 1861. |
mix |
Dec-27-10 07:01 PM |
#77 |
| -
That man was also capable of . . . |
DeltaLitProf |
Dec-29-10 05:31 AM |
#216 |
| -
Name a reason |
NWHarkness |
Dec-27-10 09:57 AM |
#36 |
| -
Here is one of the many...taxes. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 10:34 AM |
#39 |
| -
Not Applicable |
NWHarkness |
Dec-27-10 11:06 AM |
#42 |
| -
It most certainly is applicable, as was the suspension of habeas corpus. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 11:35 AM |
#44 |
| -
Again, not applicable |
NWHarkness |
Dec-27-10 11:55 AM |
#49 |
| -
But those states were not at war until that happened; thus, that was a REASON for the war. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 12:08 PM |
#51 |
| -
That makes no sense at all |
NWHarkness |
Dec-27-10 12:22 PM |
#53 |
| -
The alleged Taney Arrest Warrant is not an accepted historical fact. |
NoGOPZone |
Dec-27-10 03:11 PM |
#67 |
| -
The warrant was issued and it was documented by the Federal Marshal |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 07:39 AM |
#96 |
| -
Several of Lincoln's biographers regard the story as false. |
NoGOPZone |
Dec-28-10 08:05 AM |
#101 |
| -
However, Lincoln's first biographer, the federal marshal who issued the warrant |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 08:55 AM |
#105 |
| -
You've cleverly avoided the documentation issue |
NoGOPZone |
Dec-28-10 10:52 AM |
#118 |
| -
Lamon was one of Lincoln's closest friends and confidants. In my view, that validates his statement. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 11:37 AM |
#125 |
| -
Yes, in your view. So now I'm back to my original statement |
NoGOPZone |
Dec-28-10 11:41 AM |
#126 |
| -
Yes, "several historians" who never met Lincoln. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 11:52 AM |
#127 |
| -
No, documentation would establish his statement as historical fact |
NoGOPZone |
Dec-28-10 11:55 AM |
#128 |
| -
He didn't simply meet Lincoln, they were extremely close. And the fact remains |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 05:22 PM |
#189 |
| -
His closeness to Lincoln does not establish his veracity |
NoGOPZone |
Dec-28-10 05:38 PM |
#193 |
| -
The reason for the naval blockade was that it was considered a less violent means of subduing... |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 12:40 PM |
#55 |
| -
Surly, you must be aware of the fact that a naval blockade constitutes an act of war. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 02:34 PM |
#64 |
| -
See responses to 64. I can't believe how far you go to try to justify those treasonous dogs. |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 07:17 PM |
#80 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-28-10 06:55 AM |
#92 |
| -
That's like saying, if I say Nazis are "genocidal bastards"... |
Commie Pinko Dirtbag |
Dec-28-10 08:01 PM |
#201 |
| -
The "War of Northern Aggression" then? |
mix |
Dec-27-10 09:51 PM |
#86 |
| -
Up until that time, most people believed that there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 07:09 AM |
#93 |
| -
Misleading and mistaken revisionism. |
mix |
Dec-28-10 10:36 AM |
#115 |
| -
It is not revisionist to state what many believed at the time. Moreover, this issue was never |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 05:31 PM |
#192 |
| -
No, And don't call me "surly"! |
TexasObserver |
Dec-28-10 02:43 PM |
#157 |
| -
Bombing a fort is also an act of war |
martymar64 |
Dec-28-10 07:59 PM |
#200 |
| -
That's like saying the Super Bowl would happen with or without the institution of football |
fishwax |
Dec-27-10 11:06 PM |
#88 |
| -
74% of Southerns did not own slaves; thus, it is clear that there was more going on in |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 07:47 AM |
#97 |
| -
80% of the people in this country holds 20% of the wealth |
EstimatedProphet |
Dec-28-10 08:04 AM |
#100 |
| -
So? What percent of Americans owned stock in 1929? |
fishwax |
Dec-28-10 11:05 AM |
#119 |
| -
By the same token, did not poor northerners benefit from slave ownership in the North? |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 11:31 AM |
#123 |
| -
So you think it wasn't about slavery for the south because the north got benefits too? |
EstimatedProphet |
Dec-28-10 12:17 PM |
#134 |
| -
they weren't as reliant on it, clearly |
fishwax |
Dec-28-10 12:18 PM |
#136 |
| -
I understand, slavery is okay with you as long as some people aren't "as reliant on it" as others. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 12:44 PM |
#139 |
| -
lol -- that's simply an absurd response, since I never said anything remotely like that |
fishwax |
Dec-28-10 02:26 PM |
#153 |
| -
Yet slaveowners and poor whites enjoyed the privilege of their whiteness in the South. |
mix |
Dec-28-10 11:08 AM |
#120 |
| -
Sorta. |
lumberjack_jeff |
Dec-27-10 11:33 AM |
#43 |
| -
Compensated Emancipation was used to free the slaves in the District of Columbia. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 09:15 AM |
#108 |
| -
Exactly. |
H2O Man |
Dec-28-10 01:39 PM |
#145 |
| -
the timing of secession is suspicious. |
unblock |
Dec-27-10 08:54 AM |
#24 |
| -
If slavery was THAT big an issue, why did the political party which based their campaign |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 09:23 AM |
#30 |
| -
oh please. 1852? |
unblock |
Dec-27-10 09:35 AM |
#31 |
| -
Historically, 3rd parties are harbingers for major party issues. |
TexasObserver |
Dec-28-10 02:47 PM |
#158 |
| -
In the South of the time, slavery WAS economics |
demwing |
Dec-27-10 01:55 PM |
#57 |
| -
I am not trying to sanitize the institution of slavery, I am simply making the point |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 07:21 AM |
#94 |
| -
I do understand you are not defending slavery, please try to understand |
demwing |
Dec-28-10 07:58 AM |
#99 |
| -
The point I am trying to make is that although slavery was an outdated leftover institution from |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 08:53 AM |
#104 |
| -
This is a lot like saying that the Titanic sank because it filled with water |
EstimatedProphet |
Dec-28-10 10:14 AM |
#114 |
| -
are you suggestion that seccession should have been allowed? |
salin |
Dec-28-10 01:03 PM |
#142 |
| -
You seem to be an advocate of calling it The Northern War of Aggression. |
TexasObserver |
Dec-28-10 02:55 PM |
#160 |
| -
Yes, I choose to acknowledge things like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Emancipation Proclamation, |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 03:36 PM |
#171 |
| -
Something tells me you're also reading the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" |
TexasObserver |
Dec-28-10 10:45 PM |
#212 |
| -
So I give you a WIDE open door to condemn slavery |
demwing |
Dec-29-10 07:03 AM |
#218 |
| -
Which is an attempt to sanitize the institution of slavery |
EstimatedProphet |
Dec-28-10 08:05 AM |
#102 |
| -
It was economics. The outmoded slave labor versus the new capitalist system based on wage labor |
Better Believe It |
Dec-27-10 02:08 PM |
#58 |
| -
I agree with much of what you say, for Capitalism cannot work with slave labor. |
Creative |
Dec-27-10 02:40 PM |
#65 |
| -
There is nothing that precludes the use of slave labor in a capitalist system. |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-28-10 08:56 AM |
#106 |
| -
I prefer to use the dictionary to define words. You see, unlike opioniions, |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 09:27 AM |
#110 |
| -
Do you have a reason for stating that? |
EstimatedProphet |
Dec-28-10 10:51 AM |
#117 |
| -
great - I see your are taking my suggestion. |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-28-10 02:11 PM |
#149 |
| -
I am not arguing that states cannot own slaves. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 02:56 PM |
#161 |
| -
"capitalism is the only economic system that recognizes property rights" |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-29-10 03:20 PM |
#221 |
| -
I agree. nm |
rhett o rick |
Dec-27-10 03:15 PM |
#68 |
| -
By what legal mechanism could Lincoln have banned slavery |
MannyGoldstein |
Dec-28-10 05:24 AM |
#91 |
| -
That's simple, the North was already ignoring the Constitution with regard to fugitive slave laws. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 07:26 AM |
#95 |
| -
I don't think that's the case |
MannyGoldstein |
Dec-28-10 08:53 AM |
#103 |
| -
Okay, let my try to make my point more clearly. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 09:46 AM |
#111 |
| -
In 1860, Lincoln was not yet president |
Art_from_Ark |
Dec-29-10 03:03 AM |
#214 |
| -
So slavery was at the heart of secession after all? nt |
mix |
Dec-28-10 11:18 AM |
#122 |
| -
Nice try, but the point made was Lincoln choosing not to free ALL slaves being held in the US. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 12:09 PM |
#131 |
| -
again, slavery nt |
mix |
Dec-28-10 12:10 PM |
#132 |
| -
Again, if slavery was the reason, why not free them all? |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 12:17 PM |
#135 |
| -
That was eventually done. |
mix |
Dec-28-10 12:39 PM |
#138 |
| -
Dude - economy and slavery were the SAME ISSUE ... |
Cosmocat |
Dec-28-10 09:55 AM |
#112 |
| -
The hypothesis is correct, as anyone who has studied History knows. |
TexasObserver |
Dec-28-10 01:38 PM |
#144 |
| -
Tell me then, how could the north fight for the emancipation of slaves in the South |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 02:14 PM |
#150 |
| -
Have you considered taking reputable courses from a good university? |
TexasObserver |
Dec-28-10 02:30 PM |
#155 |
| -
Clearly, you are the victim of a substandard educational process. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 02:38 PM |
#156 |
| -
Clearly you are a victim of a Confederate educational process. |
TexasObserver |
Dec-28-10 03:08 PM |
#165 |
| -
Well, at least my victim status did not lead me to the same conclusions that you revealed |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 03:16 PM |
#168 |
| -
BS, hands down it was about slavery and preserving the union |
Taverner |
Dec-28-10 03:14 PM |
#167 |
| -
Well then, perhaps you can explain to me how it could have been about slavery, |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 03:28 PM |
#170 |
| -
Although there was slavery in the North, most Americans at the time thought there wasn't |
Taverner |
Dec-28-10 04:01 PM |
#174 |
| -
Unlike others, you are at least willing to acknowledge the fact that slavery did indeed exist |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 04:39 PM |
#178 |
| -
Well yeah, and indentured servitude was going on too |
Taverner |
Dec-28-10 04:45 PM |
#181 |
| -
Oh and for what I'm smoking - I don't consider Howard Zinn a drug |
Taverner |
Dec-28-10 04:46 PM |
#182 |
| -
Here is a link to the Confederate Constitution |
sudopod |
Dec-28-10 05:28 PM |
#191 |
| -
Here is a link to the US Constitution. If it was about slavery, you would not find these words: |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 05:56 PM |
#196 |
| -
Propaganda for the masses. WMD, anyone? It was an economic |
tsuki |
Dec-28-10 06:06 PM |
#198 |
| -
According to the South Carolina Declaration of Secession, it was exactly about slavery |
martymar64 |
Dec-28-10 07:47 PM |
#199 |
| -
Sorry, but no |
DeltaLitProf |
Dec-29-10 05:29 AM |
#215 |
| -
The vice-president of the Confederacy said this. |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 08:27 AM |
#7 |
| -
Pretty much proof positive that the war was about slavery |
Taverner |
Dec-28-10 04:39 PM |
#179 |
| -
For the North it was about preserving the Union, for the South it was about maintaining slavery. |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 08:28 AM |
#9 |
| -
er, it was also very, very much about abolition for much of the North. |
cali |
Dec-27-10 08:47 AM |
#21 |
| -
"for much of the north" better reflects the various perspectives, but I'd say that the official... |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 08:54 AM |
#25 |
| -
Preserving a union with capitalism as the national economic system! |
Better Believe It |
Dec-27-10 02:16 PM |
#59 |
| -
If so, then Marx found Capitalism winning over a chattel slave system is nothing lamentable. |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 03:37 PM |
#71 |
| -
This is a beautiful document you have linked to. Brought tears to |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-27-10 03:58 PM |
#73 |
| -
You are committing the 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacy that |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-27-10 03:49 PM |
#72 |
| -
Why was a civil war over slavery assured? |
Art_from_Ark |
Dec-27-10 08:42 PM |
#82 |
| -
It wasn't. If the sides had been more evenly matched in terms of factories and |
gkhouston |
Dec-28-10 11:18 AM |
#121 |
| -
King Cotton. |
mix |
Dec-28-10 11:36 AM |
#124 |
| -
The South also wanted a "Tropical Empire" |
Taverner |
Dec-28-10 04:48 PM |
#183 |
| -
And the 2nd Amendment gave the Rebels mistaken encouragement. |
sharesunited |
Dec-27-10 08:33 AM |
#11 |
| -
So many of the history books written by southerners in the south say that slavery |
loudsue |
Dec-27-10 08:43 AM |
#16 |
| -
"People are supposed to be bent to their will, and the truth should be bent to their liking. " |
eleny |
Dec-27-10 09:02 AM |
#26 |
| -
Thanks! |
loudsue |
Dec-27-10 09:54 AM |
#35 |
| -
During the civil rights movement, |
LuvNewcastle |
Dec-27-10 08:51 AM |
#22 |
| -
I believe we are dealing with a "primal directive" to dominate, a |
ladjf |
Dec-27-10 11:39 AM |
#45 |
| -
Bingo! It has always been about power |
MadMaddie |
Dec-27-10 12:47 PM |
#56 |
| -
Very true - the CSA created a culture that is still alive today |
Taverner |
Dec-28-10 04:53 PM |
#185 |
| -
Of course it was - they wanted free labor. nt |
TBF |
Dec-27-10 11:42 AM |
#48 |
| -
And the North used *practically* free labor |
Art_from_Ark |
Dec-27-10 05:30 PM |
#75 |
| -
Thank God slavery was abolished! Now can we move on to focusing |
RegieRocker |
Dec-27-10 02:28 PM |
#62 |
| -
I rank such denial as only slightly less nauseating than Holocaust denial. -nt |
Commie Pinko Dirtbag |
Dec-27-10 07:12 PM |
#79 |
| -
Why "slightly less"? n/t |
Kweli4Real |
Dec-28-10 10:23 PM |
#210 |
| -
Yes |
ismnotwasm |
Dec-27-10 07:37 PM |
#81 |
| -
The South was more interested in gaining new states |
Art_from_Ark |
Dec-27-10 09:21 PM |
#84 |
| -
Oh, I've no doubt. |
ismnotwasm |
Dec-28-10 01:57 PM |
#147 |
| -
DU needs to come up with another "bingo card" for slavery apologists, |
bullwinkle428 |
Dec-27-10 08:43 PM |
#83 |
| -
Four squares down, 20 to go. Let me try to help. |
Commie Pinko Dirtbag |
Dec-27-10 09:40 PM |
#85 |
| -
The one that absolutely enrages me is the trope that Lincoln |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-27-10 10:53 PM |
#87 |
| -
Come to the brainstorm! |
Commie Pinko Dirtbag |
Dec-27-10 11:21 PM |
#90 |
| -
I have to disagree ... |
Kweli4Real |
Dec-28-10 10:30 PM |
#211 |
| -
OK, using your definition of 'racist' (questionable on its surface but be that as it may), |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-28-10 11:10 PM |
#213 |
| -
Oh, Come on ... |
Kweli4Real |
Dec-29-10 12:31 PM |
#219 |
| -
I had forgotten that passage from the 1858 debate and I think I may |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-29-10 01:34 PM |
#220 |
| -
How about |
JVS |
Dec-27-10 11:21 PM |
#89 |
| -
And maybe we can add |
Rabrrrrrr |
Dec-28-10 09:19 AM |
#109 |
| -
BINGO! |
TexasObserver |
Dec-28-10 03:03 PM |
#164 |
| -
Can't be BINGO already ... |
Kweli4Real |
Dec-28-10 10:18 PM |
#208 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-28-10 09:58 AM |
#113 |
| -
you should get your facts and dates right first |
mix |
Dec-28-10 10:38 AM |
#116 |
| -
Most reputable scholars agree that there was more to the Civil War than slavery. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 11:57 AM |
#129 |
| -
Agreed. |
mix |
Dec-28-10 12:06 PM |
#130 |
| -
This is the legal definition of "civil war." |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 12:15 PM |
#133 |
| -
I do not consider your link an authoritative source. |
mix |
Dec-28-10 12:30 PM |
#137 |
| -
Well, that is the legal definition and you know what they say about leading a horse to water... |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 12:46 PM |
#140 |
| -
Article I, Section 8, spells out the power of Congress |
mix |
Dec-28-10 01:28 PM |
#143 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-28-10 02:08 PM |
#148 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-28-10 02:17 PM |
#151 |
| -
Yours is simply a misreading of the Constitution. |
mix |
Dec-28-10 02:27 PM |
#154 |
| -
Well, since the issue has not been decided by the courts, I will have to rely on |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 03:45 PM |
#172 |
| -
It did come before the Supreme Court in 1868, Texas v. White. |
mix |
Dec-28-10 05:27 PM |
#190 |
| -
I believe the war ended in 1864; prior to this decision. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 06:00 PM |
#197 |
| -
The war ended in April 1865, not 1864. |
martymar64 |
Dec-28-10 08:22 PM |
#204 |
| -
So what shall we call it... the failed war for independence? |
salin |
Dec-28-10 12:51 PM |
#141 |
| -
You can call it whatever you want, the point remains the same--slavery was an issue, |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 02:19 PM |
#152 |
| -
So it's Greed vs. Human Compassion Then and Now |
Mojeoux |
Dec-28-10 03:02 PM |
#163 |
| -
I agree. You need to dig a little more beneath the surface. |
EstimatedProphet |
Dec-28-10 04:05 PM |
#175 |
| -
I thought it was more about 'States Rights' |
LynneSin |
Dec-28-10 01:42 PM |
#146 |
| -
See up thread, just as segregation was a 'state's rights' issue. |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-28-10 02:55 PM |
#159 |
| -
It also seems very odd that none of the Free States seemed to find a need to secede to protect... |
JVS |
Dec-28-10 04:14 PM |
#176 |
| -
The only "right" in question was the right to be a slave state |
Recursion |
Dec-28-10 02:57 PM |
#162 |
| -
You are correct, state's rights and trade (economics) were the primary reasons. |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 03:10 PM |
#166 |
| -
Slavery is economics as in FREE LABOR. Ever take a look at the CSA Constitution? |
neverforget |
Dec-28-10 04:25 PM |
#177 |
| -
I don't have to look at th CSA Constitution, for slavery was legal under the US Constitution |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 04:42 PM |
#180 |
| -
Too inconvienent for ya that the Confederates enshrined slavery in their |
neverforget |
Dec-28-10 04:49 PM |
#184 |
| -
And also enshrined protective barriers for the domestic "slave breeding" industry. |
JVS |
Dec-28-10 04:56 PM |
#186 |
| -
Inconvenient…? Actually, I find it disgusting; but no more disgusting |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 05:10 PM |
#187 |
| -
I see it's not disgusting enough to defend the Confederacy though |
neverforget |
Dec-28-10 05:19 PM |
#188 |
| -
You have purposefully misconstrued my position, for I have simply argued that |
Creative |
Dec-28-10 05:39 PM |
#194 |
| -
How can you possibly say that Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to exist |
neverforget |
Dec-28-10 08:10 PM |
#203 |
| -
This BS revisionism started with the neocons |
Scruffy1 |
Dec-28-10 03:50 PM |
#173 |
| -
I fail to see what this has to do with Michael Vick. n/t |
rucky |
Dec-28-10 08:05 PM |
#202 |
| -
Is there really still major denial? |
MellowDem |
Dec-28-10 08:56 PM |
#205 |
| -
Major Denial is now Dearly Departed. |
Warren Stupidity |
Dec-29-10 03:21 PM |
#222 |
| -
Ah that's too bad. I was hoping for a response to #203. The historical |
neverforget |
Dec-29-10 03:27 PM |
#223 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore