Originally posted by aaminion00
Once again you show your ignorance of history and reason. Only an idiot would say that the South seceeded simply because it wanted to keep it's slaves. Economic and cultural reasons played just as big of a part as slavery did....
Your statement that state-rights and slavery were intervined in the Confederate States of America just show even more you have no idea what you're talking about. Go read a few history books.
And another thing. If the whole point of the CSA was to keep it's slaves, why the hell did so much of it's army come from poor Southerners who would never have been able to afford one themselves?!? Why? If they hadn't, there might still have been slaves now.
Since you've just flamed me by inference - because I sure as hell am not an idiot - let me demonstrate clearly just how, um, ignorant you are - and arrogant by inference by suggesting that only you and your prejudiced views can possibly be correct, despite an apparent lack of reading on your part. I say prejudiced in the "prejudged, presumed correct" rather than bigoted sense, of course.
I wish I had the search function to pull up everything I'd done in the previous thread on this (can a mod help me here?) because I don't want to have to pull from all the goddamn sources again, but:
Name one issue outside of slavery that was a major states-rights dispute that made secession necessary? (If you pick tariffs, you're trying hard, but I don't know of Correct answer, of course, is beyond tariffs, there aren't even any POTENTIAL arguments).
If the south was REALLY upset because of the power of the executive and states' rights, then why was the confederate constitution almost identical to the union constitution, save and except for (a) two minor changes to congressional power to make the president more powerful, (b) longer terms for the president, and, uh, (c) a bill of rights guarantee that the right to own Negro slaves should not be infringed?
Why did Jefferson Davis specify that the Confederacy was to be in structure the same as the Union, save for preserving slavery?
Why did the Vice-President of the Confederacy's speeches before and after his inauguration specify that the aim of secession was to preserve slavery?
If the Confederacy was so much more important than slavery was, then why didn't the Confederacy simply free the slaves in 1864 as was proposedby Gen. Cleburne, so that southerners could "give up the Negro slave rather than to be a slave himself?"
Why did Lee's endorsement of a proposal to arm slaves not include Cleburne's proposal to grant slaves who fought their freedom, thereby making the proposal useless?
Why, if independence was so important, did the Confederacy on its most desperate hour even reject a limited proposal by its federal government to "buy" slaves for military labor purposes on the grounds that it looked too much like emancipation?
Can any idiots answer these for me?
Oh and "The why did po' whites fight" argument. There is, of course, ample documentation of this from several angles. First, racism: you might be poorer than your neighbor, but you'd always be better than your neighbor's slaves. Second, competition - freeing the slaves meant greater competition for general labor. Three - nationalism based on slavery - the southern press had for years been building an image of a distinct southern nation based primarily on its "peculiar institution," and poor southern whites were urged to defend their states from being picked on for having such an institution.
I hold quite sincerely to the position that anyone holding to the idea that the war FOR THE SOUTH was about anything other than slavery is either a bigot or intellectually lazy. The literature is there, in the South's own words. It's not that hard to find. The real question is whether you're willing to look for it or not.
One example: compare constitutions. Guess what, those rebs were SO upset with the Union that they created a second one.
Rebel, secessionist, slaveholder's constitution
IX (1) and (2) codifies the existing anti-slave trade treaties then in force into law, primarily to appease the Brits, who were legally bound to attack Confederate shipping otherwise.
Note in particular, IX (4), "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
And here's the Real Constitution, which you're showing disloyalty to if you fly the reb flag
R.III
)
