Respect for the Confederacy?

The House passed it, there never was a final Senate vote. Thanks.
And this wasn't about a vote, according to you. It was all about black oppression. Had nothing to do with economics at all, lol.

Ignoring reality - the liberal way.

 

Homework fail. Yes, there was. I linked to the results. Please do your homework on your own claims. And please don't ask for references when you aren't actually interested in them.

There was a Senate vote. And it passed. After 7 states had seceded. Those 14 votes from those 7 states would have been enough to block it. Are you expecting a check or something? To be paid to address historical facts? That's not happening.

Another homework/"didn't read the thread" fail. Try again. Well, try for the first time, that is.

I've presented you with historical facts that contradict your opinion. All of which you have failed to address, despite pretending to be interested in an honest discussion. I guess you are the one adopting "the liberal way" here.

Can you spend at least one post referencing any historical citation at all? Just one? That would be nice. I know you won't, but when you do ask for historical references, can you at least address them when you are provided? So far, that's been too much to ask for as well. Will that ever change? Let's face it, no. You haven't addressed any of the Declarations of Causes, or the Peace Summit of 1861, or the Crittenden Compromise, or the Cornerstone Speech, etc. etc. etc. And you never will.

 

Slavery was the economics of the south. You really think that plantation owners cared more about money or the concept of owning people?

I bet most of them would have happily given up all their slaves for one John Deere tractor, lol.

But the north had just completed a half century of screwing the south with tariffs of various levels.

Economics caused the civil war. Period. You can argue it was over slavery, but slavery was their economics.

Slavery is morally reprehensible, but the fact is that cooler heads could have prevailed, the North could have been less immorally belligerent, and America wouldn't have had to go to war.

Simple FACT.

 

They cared about both. And said so.

Their own writings, which you refuse to review because they challenge your religious beliefs, say otherwise.

The South was winning on tariffs. A fact proven and which you still have yet to address. Because you can't.

I've never denied that economics was a subset of their concerns over slavery. Ever.

I thought the war wasn't over slavery? So why are you no arguing that it was?

 

I said so, lol. You disagreed over and over and over and over.

 

I never disagreed that the South had an economic concern about slavery. In fact, I mentioned the fact that they cited it AS THEIR PRIMARY ECONOMIC CONCERN. Quote me ever saying otherwise. If you can't be honest, you can go on iggy.

 

.

This is an interesting article regarding the economic causes of the Civll War:

Below are only quotes... go to link for the entire article:


Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War


Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act. For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.


As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.

Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.

Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government’s annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.


A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.



entire article at link

http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

.

 

You said it was SOLELY and ONLY, and EXCLUSIVELY because of slavery, lol. I said economics were the factor, and you vehemently disagreed, lol.

Slavery was their means of income, which the North, for the previous 50 years, had screwed with.

Your simplistic explanations of the Civil War are second grade BS.

 

As has already been shown, the tariffs in force at the time were at a historic low and had been authored by the South. A fact the Confederate apologists have been incapable of addressing.

 

It's so odd. Southerners who look back and condemn slavery at least recognize that the debate was about money.

Northerners, who are mostly mis-educated liberals now, claim it was all about skin color, and ignore the economics, despite having the single largest system of black slavery in human history - the welfare system.

Democrats kept slavery alive, even after the war. And now the liberal slave owners can't stand when a black person leaves the plantation.

 

Economics as a subset of slavery? No, I never denied that. Do I need to go over how to draw a Venn Diagram?

As well they should have.

Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge what the seceding states had to say about their own reasons for seceding is far more simplistic, as it is historically ignorant. Stamping your feet and randomly throwing out numbers for supposed "grades" won't change the historical facts.

If you want to take this above a grade-school level, try addressing the historical sources instead of just throwing out schoolyard insults. I won't hold my breath.

 

At no point did I say that the entire issue was skin color. As you would know if you had read (which you have revealed you have not). If you had asserted from the beginning that slavery was the main cause, but that there were economic concerns that were subset of those slavery concerns, then we would have never had a quarrel. That's not what happened.

 

When you claimed it was only, exclusively about slavery, lol. Scroll up.

So, now you're going to dishonestly steal my talking points and pretend they're your own, and pretend you didn't say what you said.

Figures. This is how liberals argue. Dishonest as always.

 

Oh, really?

Yeah, classic lighthearted leg-pulling, you ugly, mentally-unhinged knuckle-head! Since I am unfamiliar with the film clip you use to sarcastically (to all objective appearance, for those of us not in the know) diminish the value of my opinion of, or amiable disposition towards you, l did not appreciate its claimed intent. In fact, in the clip, the lines are also, clearly, used sarcastically. And the situation gets resolved through a knife fight. So call me stupid for not recognizing this as a well-intentioned, obvious attempt at, "lightening," the mood. It quacked like smarmy sarcasm, so that's what I took it as. I guess I will just have to accept your word for that. Any reason I couldn't take that to be reliable?

Fyi, that is a complete lie. Notice that, for your benefit-- due to your stated idiosyncracy of interpreting anything in caps as, "yelling"-- I am trying to avoid that way which I use to emphasize terms, as when someone continually misunderstands, or misrepresents, my words (because you seem to feel that your own practices are the standard, & others are invalidly interpreted, except through your own lens). However, due to your utterly inaccurate depictions of my opinion, I do feel it necessary to lend a hand, pointing out the discrepencies between my words & your, "re-stating," of them. I also point out, were you to not misstate my position, there would be no need of all my, annoying, arrows of focus. I hope my underlining isn't, too much, hurting your ears, or losing me your precious attention, Ed.

Below is my further justification for underlining the words (above) continually, and not, regarding your mis-asserting my view:

I never wrote that this should, or could, be a unilateral decision. (Guess which word, in that sentence, seemed to warrant caps, to me).

Again, forgive my not re-editing my quote to remove the all-caps (I did shrink the size, however, to lower the volume, in your perception). But you continually ignore, or purposely misread & distort my argument. Who is really the one refusing to discuss this, when all you do is mock my perspective with strawman arguments? Everything you say about me believing states should be able to leave the Union at will is complete horse-shpoop. As is the claim, below:

Says who? Only you. So I will repeat, that nothing in the section you quoted, says that states may not ever leave the Union. I thought, therefore, that a marriage contract would make a lucid analogy for you: conduct that would be interpreted as infidelity, for example, according to that contract, is not a prohibition against a person legally ending that contract (& then none of the proscriptions that existed, during the marriage, would still apply).

Which is where all, "disputes between states," are designated to be resolved. Where is your basis for pretending that a state wishing to leave the Union is not a legitimate subject of, "dispute?"

This is patently false. A judge often makes a determination as to division of family assets, alimony payments, child support & visitation rights. Though, of course, it is preferred that the parties involved can come to a mutual agreement, which the court would only need approve. That would not have been the case, with secession, as the right would have been contested. This is the first, & most important, item the Court would have needed to decide, at which your argument about the implied "no escape," clause from Article 1, could have been presented. It is not, however, clearly indicated, in the text.

Once more, I only underline the, "not," in the above sentence because you repeatedly state your position as an evident truth, which it is not. It is only your personal interpretation which, if you do not feel it would be appropriate for me to simultaneously misrepresent & mock it, I would be curious to know why you fail to see your hypocrisy in doing that to me.

As to the emboldening of the word, "this"-- referring to the SCOTUS's decision as to whether a state could sever its bonds with the Union, not to mention all the attendant questions surrounding that procedure-- I justify with this:

In keeping with your preceding replies, I am anticipating-- after your making an issue of not liking my use of editing tools-- you now poking fun at my explanations of those tools I did use. It would be on par with the seriousness of your, "counter-argument," thus far. I am holding out a little hope, still, you might be able to restrict yourself to a straight-forward discussion or debate, which is what you claim, as your wish.

 

You have yet to show me contradicting myself on anything. You are almost as adverse to addressing what I've said as you are of addressing historical sources. I keep asking you to engage, and you keep making up **** instead. Wonder why?

 

Keep pretending you never made the arguments you made earlier. No skin off my nose. It's your reputation you're contradicting. Thanks for playing, though.

 

I said it was about slavery. I didn't ever say that there weren't multiple concerns ABOUT slavery. You keep talking about 3rd graders . . . maybe have one help you parse this out?

Now you are claiming that your talking point was always that slavery was the cause of secession and that economic concerns were a subset of that? That's cool. Can you quote where you ever said that? Ah, no, I see. You've run out of arguments, so now you are just going to copy/paste the word "liberal" and hope no one tries to read.

 

Once you learn to read the posts you are "responding" to and the sources you've asked for, then you can pretend to care about the truth. Let me know when we can expect that to happen so that I can put it on my calendar.

 

That flag is history and hurts no person.
As to the founding of the USA, clearly slaves came due to England's laws.
The founders as you say did not believe slaves counted as humans.
The South did not go to war over slavery. The South was forced into war when Abe invaded VA in the first all out battle.
Men and women died due to the Abe invasion.

The South voted to leave the union in major part that they wanted to keep slaves.
Today that would be totally unacceptable and even when Abe invaded VA, he gave talks that he did not wage war on VA due to slavery. Famously he said slaves were not important to him in effect.

There is confederate history in a lot of places in America. We would be stupid to pretend our history did not include slavery and a major war as well.

 

Wasn't the republicans pressing them over slavery and the Democrats enjoyed the fruits of slavery?

The secession was over property rights called slaves. The war happened when Abe invaded VA with a full army and killing men and women in combat.

 

The Republicans (or, as the Confederates called them, the "black Republicans") had political control of the North. They were anti-slavery. The Democrats split in two. The Southern Democrats (which formed the Confederacy) were explicitly pro-slavery and even criticized Northern Democrats for not being sufficiently pro-slavery. Is that what you were asking for?

Secession was over slavery. The "property rights" to those slaves was a subset of the concerns. Slavery was the primary concern.

The war started back when VA was still part of the Union. Where do you come up with this bull ****?

 

Excellent and true commentary shown

That war caused when Abe invaded VA is the single most costly war of this nations history. To sanctify that war is a travesty to those who fought that war.

 

The war started before VA ever seceded. Please, please educate yourself. This ain't rocket surgery.

 

Unlike most posters defending the UNION, I classify the invasion of VA as the first combat battles killing men and women.
You can take up your sword for a president, a Republican, for his invasion. I look at the death he caused and damn Abe Lincoln as a traitor to this nations own constitution.

 

Your refusal to acknowledge historical facts will not make those historical facts go way.