Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) every time this comes up, perch tries to resurrect the argument that the civil war was NOT about slavery, it was about tarriffs or some such. when it does, i always go back to the same documents. each state drafted a declaration of secession in 1861. i'm not going to dig them all out again, but if you have any doubt about this google them and read the reasons the southern states themselves declared for their secession. you'll see slavery mentioned in just about every other sentence, and you won't see tarriffs mentioned once. edit: and i don't think liberal yankee carpetbaggers wrote texas' declaration of secession. so that pathetic ruse won't quite cut it here, spain. Edited April 2, 2006 by Azazello1313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 every time this comes up, perch tries to resurrect the argument that the civil war was NOT about slavery, it was about tarriffs or some such. when it does, i always go back to the same documents. each state drafted a declaration of secession in 1861. i'm not going to dig them all out again, but if you have any doubt about this google them and read the reasons the southern states themselves declared for their secession. you'll see slavery mentioned in just about every other sentence, and you won't see tarriffs mentioned once. 1399474[/snapback] link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 that pathetic ruse won't quite cut it here, spain. 1399474[/snapback] If we begin dismissing spain's pathetic ruses, he'll have nothing left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) link. 1399477[/snapback] those are different documents than i was thinking of, actually. (shorter and more legalistic). i was thinking of these. south carolina mississippi alabama georgia texas edit: Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. Edited April 2, 2006 by Azazello1313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Heavens, I always figured Az, Squeegie, and I could find argument in the "water is wet" issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 hmmm, DMD went away while posting (he normally does this and comes back with a vengeance) for the record, I see no reason at all why this thread should get locked. also for the record, I start some seriously good threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 hmmm, DMD went away while posting (he normally does this and comes back with a vengeance) for the record, I see no reason at all why this thread should get locked. also for the record, I start some seriously good threads. 1399500[/snapback] Seriously - this is one of the few interesting threads we've had here in a while. And success has clearly gone to Wiegie's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) Seriously - this is one of the few interesting threads we've had here in a while. And success has clearly gone to Wiegie's head. 1399504[/snapback] Fortunately, at his diminuitive 4'9 1/2", it doesn't have a long journey to get there. But seriously, I think any thread with a mention of "Irwin Rommel Middle School" has justified its existence. Edited April 2, 2006 by Chavez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Fortunately, at his diminuitive 4'9 1/2", it doesn't have a long journey to get there. 1399507[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I see Hankk lurking. I'm curious what fabulous insight he'll bring to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 the first two paragraph's of mississippi's... In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 the first two paragraph's of mississippi's... 1399510[/snapback] No shock there, in 1860 the ten richest men in the US not only lived in Mississippi, they all lived in plantations in the Natchetz district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 the first two paragraph's of mississippi's... 1399510[/snapback] Yes in reading all the declarations Mississippi left little doubt what they're concerns were! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Yes in reading all the declarations Mississippi left little doubt what they're concerns were! 1399526[/snapback] none of the others are any different if you read them carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) Or to make the point using an equally powerful symbol, THIS was used to symbolize "to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck." for roughly 3000 years. 1399362[/snapback] Indeed, but Hitler reversed it. The crooked cross of Nazi infamy points clockwise. I don't equate Nazi Germany and the CSA at all. For one, the Nazis conquered all of continental Europe, northern Africa, and big hunks of Russia and the Middle East before being beaten back by some of the great generals ever to wear the stars (Ike, Patton, Montgomery, etc). The CSA couldn't even hold their home turf against that drunk Grant. 1399422[/snapback] Might want to throw a quick bone in the direction of Georgi Zhukov, who did more than any other general to defeat the Nazis. Oh, and Montgomery was a Field Marshal (after Sept 1944) and British Field Marshals don't wear stars. Edited April 2, 2006 by Ursa Majoris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 none of the others are any different if you read them carefully. 1399528[/snapback] I read them all. Tell me your not going to argue that Ms wasnt the most obvious in their intentions after you yourself used it as your example. He11 Brent could beat you in that arguement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Might want to throw a quick bone in the direction of Georgi Zhukov, who did more than any other general to defeat the Nazis. Oh, and Montgomery was a Field Marshal (after Sept 1944) and British Field Marshals don't wear stars. 1399538[/snapback] Pish posh, I was making a point. Don't be pedantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankk Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I see Hankk lurking. I'm curious what fabulous insight he'll bring to the table. 1399509[/snapback] Sorry. This topic is like soooo tedious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Pish posh, I was making a point. Don't be pedantic. 1399546[/snapback] Everybody forgets the Russian war effort and jerks off to Patton et al. I was merely bringing the fact that there was actually a war going on in Europe / Russia for three years prior to D-Day to general attention. The likely casualty numbers between June 1941 and June 1944 are in the region of 20,000,000 for that theater alone. It's worth a mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Everybody forgets the Russian war effort and jerks off to Patton et al. I was merely bringing the fact that there was actually a war going on in Europe / Russia for three years prior to D-Day to general attention. The likely casualty numbers between June 1941 and June 1944 are in the region of 20,000,000 for that theater alone. It's worth a mention. 1399553[/snapback] So were your ancestors Belorussian or Ukranian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 every time this comes up, perch tries to resurrect the argument that the civil war was NOT about slavery, it was about tarriffs or some such. when it does, i always go back to the same documents. each state drafted a declaration of secession in 1861. i'm not going to dig them all out again, but if you have any doubt about this google them and read the reasons the southern states themselves declared for their secession. you'll see slavery mentioned in just about every other sentence, and you won't see tarriffs mentioned once. edit: and i don't think liberal yankee carpetbaggers wrote texas' declaration of secession. so that pathetic ruse won't quite cut it here, spain. 1399474[/snapback] Yeah , the good ole plan by Lincoln was to send all the blacks to 1 of the Dakotas and for them to have to stay there. He used the slavery thing as just another reason to keep those ports in the south.not that slavery was not bad, because it was horribly pathetic, but acting like Lincoln really cared much about the blacks is baseless outside of some old war propaganda. I mean where did the blacks go after the war? they stayed in the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I mean where did the blacks go after the war? they stayed in the south. 1399559[/snapback] Good point, it's not like any Northern cities have sizable black populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I've never seen anyone here suggest that Lincoln "cared much about the blacks." The only ones who believed that were the Southerners who ran screaming when he was elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 So were your ancestors Belorussian or Ukranian? 1399556[/snapback] Neither - both those countries had significant numbers of men in the German Army and SS, interestingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Good point, it's not like any Northern cities have sizable black populations. 1399561[/snapback] Leave the cities in the north and look for all black towns, you won't find it friend. then drive through Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia. How is my point now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts