Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why are All you Southerners in Denial? Of Course It Was About Slavery!!

Posted on 04/09/2002 9:35:02 AM PDT by GulliverSwift

You people are in denial. Without the issue of slavery, there would have been no Civil War. I know you try to justify their fight against the federal government, and I think it's good to fight against today's left-wing trash bureaucracy that runs the federal government. But back then slavery was the catalyst that started the whole thing.

In each of the states that seceded, their official document that announced secession referred to slavery as the number one issue.

Now, the average Southern soldier probably didn't think about owning slaves since he sure couldn't afford one. But the average Joe Southerner didn't finance the war. The war was financed by the wealthy class in the South, and they're the ones who had a stake in preserving slavery. The wealthy controlled all the newspapers, the town councils, and the economy, and they're the ones who controlled what people heard and thought.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery out of future states that would expand in the West, which would create more Congressman from free states that would tip the scales on the Hill. So Southern governments threatened that if Lincoln won the election, they would secede. And sure enough, the seceded.

There's nothing wrong with hating the federal government, the nosy SOBs and DOBs in the bureaucracy feel it's their job to run everything. But that doesn't mean that we also have to agree with what the South did, even if it was against the federal government. I don't want two different United States--two weak countries--especially not one with slaves.

Yes, it was about slavery. Southern states stated that as their official reason, and the wealthy class in the South, the ones with money to pay for the guns and cannons, wanted slavery as well.

You and liberals have something in common. Both believe that it was about "states' rights." Liberal blacks think it was about that because they hate to think that so many white people would want to stop slavery. You Southerners think it was about "states' rights" because you hate to think that so many people fighting against the federal government could ever be a bad thing.

Usually, it's not.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: civilwar; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-225 next last
To: GulliverSwift
I'm sure that every Confederate soldier, who was very poor and lived just as hard as most of the slaves, fought and gave their lives so a few rich people could maintain their plantations with slaves. I'm so sure...

By the way, jut a little historical note; most of the plantations and huge mansions in Natchez, Mississippi were owned by rich families in Chicago. They would move South for the winter social season where the weather was much milder. In the summer, they would go back north.

61 posted on 04/09/2002 10:14:08 AM PDT by A. Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MasterSamwise
I used to think it was about slavery. Then I did some actual research

Start your research over, you seem to have gone off track.

More from South Carolina's (the first to seced) own words:


62 posted on 04/09/2002 10:14:25 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Slave holding losers? How many on this forum do you think own slaves, Einstein?
63 posted on 04/09/2002 10:15:44 AM PDT by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: newcats
No you little twerp , as compared to the treatment of "free" industrial workers in the north . An Irishman on the dock in New York was more likely to be expended than a chattle slave in New Orleans .
64 posted on 04/09/2002 10:17:29 AM PDT by texicano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rebelyell
Slave holding losers? How many on this forum do you think own slaves, Einstein?

Only very very old ones. Why would you think I was referring to anyone living, Sherlock?

65 posted on 04/09/2002 10:17:59 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Here is a link to the Texas Declaration of Seccession:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm

I can't get this to make an actual link, but it does seem to be about slavery. You'll have to type in the link yourself to see what it says.

66 posted on 04/09/2002 10:23:01 AM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom
link
67 posted on 04/09/2002 10:24:25 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Hi 4CJ,

Long time no see.

Do you remember this piece?

Justice For the South

It's a bit long.

68 posted on 04/09/2002 10:24:45 AM PDT by RikaStrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MasterSamwise
No slams to anyone, not accusing, but IF slavery had never existed, do you think the War between the States would have happened, when it happened, by the collection of states that fought it?

Example, many folks cite the fact that the war was over agarian policies versus industrial policies, with the Union states being pro-industry and the Confederate pro-agriculture. But at that time, Iowa, Wisconson, Illinois, and Minnesota, for example, were as argicultural, if not more so, than Virginia, Louisiana, or South Carolina. Seems to me if it was about tariffs on argricultural goods, the Confederacy should have included those (then) Northwest states.

Also, Southrens need to be reminded that the Abolitionists of those days could be a very vile creature. The cheered slave revolts and murder of innocent whites. They wanted the blacks freed, but didn't want them moving up to Philly and Boston (NIMBY). They hurled epitaths and abuse on Southrens, and many said (like Rosie O'Donnel about gun owners) that if they got into power they would throw slaveholders in jail or hang them. It was this type that forced many a southren man who was not pro-slavery to eventually take a defense of slaveholding stand.

69 posted on 04/09/2002 10:27:30 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Because your bold message is not applicable to ANYONE ALIVE TODAY, YOU F*^&ING IDIOT. Would you fight (and possibly kill or die) to keep any state in your precious "union", yankee? Tell the truth...
70 posted on 04/09/2002 10:27:33 AM PDT by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom
Texas Declaration of Seccession:


71 posted on 04/09/2002 10:27:41 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

To: Constitution Day
LOL - we allways have fun. So many lies - so little time. Lincoln wanted to keep slavery out of future states that would expand in the West, which would create more Congressman from free states that would tip the scales on the Hill.

Free-soilers wanted all blacks excluded from the new territories so that ALL jobs and land would be for the whites. Freeing the slaves in the South would have ADDED more Southern representatives - not less. The last thing they wanted was the south to have more representation and competition for jobs in the territories.

73 posted on 04/09/2002 10:30:48 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rebelyell
Would you fight (and possibly kill or die) to keep any state in your precious "union", yankee? Tell the truth...

Actually, as a Libertarian, I believe in the individual right to seced from the government. That's irrelevent as to whether I believe any individual can ever acquire the right to "murder" or hold slaves, etc -- which they can't.

YOU F*^&ING IDIOT

Can't do much about the latter, try to do the former as much as possible, though. :-)

74 posted on 04/09/2002 10:32:06 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Good reply!
75 posted on 04/09/2002 10:33:00 AM PDT by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RikaStrom
Hi Rika ;o)

Of course I remember it, and will read it again in a few. That's for pointing it out.

76 posted on 04/09/2002 10:33:07 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: RikaStrom
Anybody got a spell-checker? "That's" should be "Thanks". LOL
77 posted on 04/09/2002 10:33:57 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
While I admire your passion, I abhor your vehicle for displaying it. If you think that the documents show that it was all about slavery, maybe you should look a little harder at the last four states to leave the Union, when they left, and their declarations. If you were to make that same case for the original seven who did rely heavily upon slave labor to work the cotton fields, it would almost be plausible. Almost. Problem is that it was legal in both the North and the South, it was practiced in both the North and the South, it was protected in both the North and the South, and it was up to the several states to decide if they wanted to keep it or not.
78 posted on 04/09/2002 10:34:39 AM PDT by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #79 Removed by Moderator

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-225 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson