Posted on 05/25/2017 11:20:02 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876
FREEPORT THIS POLL
"African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."
Should monuments be removed - “no” only slightly ahead - needs more Freeping.....
No, Alexander Stephens tells us that slavery was the primary reason for the existence of the CSA and a few weeks after he said that, the CSA attacked Fort Sumter.
Why should I defend him? I don't agree with his statement.
Jeebus dingus - we’ve been over this a thousand times. The north went to war because the south went to war against them. It was the south who went to war to protect the Peculiar Institution of slavery.
I didn't know that Alexander Stephens was voted President of the Universe. He was entitled to say anything he wished, but for whatever reason they created the CSA, the point remains that they had a right to do so under the principle articulated in the Declaration of Independence. You know, the principle that created the USA?
Really? The people who fought the war would disagree with you.
The Civil War was about States Rights, not about slavery.
Thanks for a great post, we cannot overemphasize how important this point is, since DiogenesLamp and many others in our culture work day and night to convince Americans of a 100% role reversal -- according to them Lincoln was basically a Big City slicker Democrat and Deep South slavocratic secessionists were the Constitutional conservative Republicans.
But the opposite is true, then & now.
In 1860 cotton was Big Business -- the United States' biggest business allying Deep South Mega-agribusiness with Northern Big City slicker finance & merchants.
None of those people were abolitionist Republicans.
Republicans were your average Americans -- small farmers, small town tradesmen, manufacturers & store keepers.
Republicans didn't care so much about Big City merchants & finance, they did care a lot about Slave Power intrusions into their labor & produce markets.
That's why they nominated & elected back-woods rail-splitter Lincoln instead of a more accomplished politician like former New York Governor & then Senator William Seward.
Lincoln then, like Trump today, represented the vast mass of "forgotten Americans".
Democrats then as now were the Big City slicker finance & merchant class allied with Deep Cotton South mega agribusinesses, just as today they ally with global & illegal alien business & labor interests.
1860 slaves were the equivalent to illegal alien workers today.
Lincoln then & Trump today want them at least restricted if not abolished in the United States.
Which “states rights” specifically? The only one they ever mentioned was the right to own other human beings.
The North was asked to leave and refused. They were an unwelcome "guest" who refused to leave after the homeowner made it very clear that they were not wanted there.
Rather than do the decent thing, they sent a war fleet with orders to attack.
The South did what any rational person would have done under the circumstances.
It was the south who went to war to protect the Peculiar Institution of slavery.
It was the North who went to war to protect the *MONEY* their power brokers were making through trade with Europe which the South was about to rip away from them.
The "We started a war to free the slaves" is just bullsh*t. They started the war to protect their revenue streams.
That right was fully protected by the Union. In fact, parts of the Union owned other human beings till six months after the war was over.
So how do you feel about supporting a government that guaranteed the right to own other human beings?
As the London Spectator noted in 1862:
"The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States"
If you mean Sumter then your metaphor is a whacked as you are. Sumter belonged to the union - Anderson had every right to be there and the South Carolinian's had ZERO right to try to expel them. What they did was an act of war.
The "We started a war to free the slaves" is just bullsh*t.
yes it is - so why do you keep repeating it?
What, you weren’t able to locate any Pravda quotes to defend your idiotic claims?
Let’s say that Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens were the heart and soul of the CSA. But you don’t agree with either one of them, and can’t defend them. Is that why they call it a Lost Cause?
The Civil War was about the Southern Slave States Rights.
“Slavery continued in the Union until banned by the 13th amendment December 6, 1865. Six months after slavery had been abolished in the South. If the Union was fighting to end slavery, don’t you think they would have ended it in their own States first?” That was because the Federal Government had no Constitutional means to end slavery in any state were it was legal per Scott V. Sanford. Lincoln worked quite hard to get Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware to end the institution, but he could not force them to end slavery.
rockrr ~ yes it is - so why do you keep repeating it?
DL needs to cling to the invented arguments of the giant windmills he creates or his mad fantasy will blow away. He waxes "quixotic". He projects his anger of Davis and Stephens onto Lincoln. Someday, and it won't be a happy day, he will honestly ask himself why did the South secede. It won't be a pretty picture when he realizes they were only interested in preserving their peculiar economic institution. Follow the money, indeed.
I sometimes wonder if quixotic is pronounced “chaotic” as applied to DegenerateLamp’s assorted ravings.
Arthur MacArthur ended the Civil War as a brevet Colonel.
Needs more “noes”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.