Did you read the last half of my post? The one with the articles of secession? I provided a link to the full text of each of them, did you not read it?
Why do I even bother linking to source material here? No one ever takes the time to look at it.
To most white Southerners: Justify using the Confederate flag!
- Thread starter Sims2789
- Start date
Did you read the last half of my post? The one with the articles of secession? I provided a link to the full text of each of them, did you not read it?
Why do I even bother linking to source material here? No one ever takes the time to look at it.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Very sorry, I thought that you were linking the materials to supplement your points. Ill read though them now.
Well, either read them or take me at my word that slavery is not mentioned in most of the articles of secession. It's your choice.
Just don't reply to a post of mine outlining why the South did not secede because of slavery, backed up with source material, with "HURR HURR THE SOUTH SECEDED BECAUSE OF SLAVERY."
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Kilroy, I'm busy working for the next week, but I think it's time for a showdown on this time-worn topic, don't you?
I hereby challenge yuh to a duel, Mistah' Kilroy, suh.
Resolution: was protecting slavery the goal of secession?
On the affirmative, Richard W. III the Third
On the negative, Mistah' Kilroy, Esquire
Date: Oct. 6th. New thread. If you agree, we will select an appropriate mod to start the thread. If you choose, we can also select seconds to supplement our original text.
One first salvo each of 1500 words due in at 12:00midnight GMT, plus one rebuttal each of no more than 500 words the following day, at the same time. The thread will be a poll as well, judged by our CFC peers?
R.III
I hereby challenge yuh to a duel, Mistah' Kilroy, suh.
Resolution: was protecting slavery the goal of secession?
On the affirmative, Richard W. III the Third
On the negative, Mistah' Kilroy, Esquire
Date: Oct. 6th. New thread. If you agree, we will select an appropriate mod to start the thread. If you choose, we can also select seconds to supplement our original text.
One first salvo each of 1500 words due in at 12:00midnight GMT, plus one rebuttal each of no more than 500 words the following day, at the same time. The thread will be a poll as well, judged by our CFC peers?
R.III
We'll see. I'm also pretty busy.
Plus, it's certainly not my contention that slavery had nothing to do with the secession, just that it was not the prime motivator. Most of the posts in this thread have been arguing that either slavery was the prime motivator or that it was the sole motivator. So you might show that slavery was related, only to have my rebuttal consist of "yeah well, there were other things too." Besides, I think I've brought a pretty good case against this already, perhaps you can address some of those?
I'll think about it though.
Plus, it's certainly not my contention that slavery had nothing to do with the secession, just that it was not the prime motivator. Most of the posts in this thread have been arguing that either slavery was the prime motivator or that it was the sole motivator. So you might show that slavery was related, only to have my rebuttal consist of "yeah well, there were other things too." Besides, I think I've brought a pretty good case against this already, perhaps you can address some of those?
I'll think about it though.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
after reading what people have written, i now realize that not all people(but most) who fly the Confederate flag are rascist. however, i still see it as a rascist, anti-american symbol that needs to come off of publicly owned buildings.
Archer 007
Rebirth
I like this idea of duel 
Kind of loaded since you will essentially be arguing over whether "the" or "a" is the most appropriate word to place between the words "slavery" and "goal" in the above resolution while conveniently ignoring the North's willingness to let slavery continue to some extent in order to preserve the union. What kind of gentlemen takes bullets from his opposition before engaging in a dual?
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
If there were so many other clear reasons for secession, as y'all contend, then the advantage is his, not mine. He has to prove that other reasons existed to tear up the Union; I have to prove that there were effectively no such other reasons.
I don't see how this is relevant, quite frankly. The issue is, what did the Confederacy secede for? Slavery, or a whole range of things?
The US is not the subject here, because the US didn't secede. And if there had been no slave states constantly fighting to preserve slavery, the US would clearly have voluntarily eliminated it - obviously. When the North had the chance to eliminate slavery without needing to worry about Southern sensibilities, it did - incrementally over a few year period, but it did it. So to try to create moral equivelancy between a North that ended slavery over time and a South that fought a war to preserve it is, I think, pretty bizarre.
I, for one, agree that the original war aim of the US was to preserve the Union. But the US wouldn't have had to have had a war aim in the first place if secession hadn't happened.
I should add that if your argument is valid (um, no), then the only gentlemen taking bullets out of Mr. Kilroy's hands are the gentlemen who chose to secede in the manner they did in the first place.
R.III
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I would, except for the fact that it seems that any sound argument I make is simply ignored by others in favor of picking on straw men.
