Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now then, jacmac, do you not see the obvious flaw in your assertion/accusation by this definition? If not, let me give it a shot...
1. No one ever denied that the Southern states were not slave-holding states. Therefore? The your claim of "Tu Quoque" is fallacious from the start.
2. The counter-reply that the northern states were responsible for the slave-trade itself is not saying the original claim is false. It is only making a legitimate counter-reply to the ridiculous and absolutely absurb contention that those who hate the South and its history have any grounds whatsoever to indict/condemn.
You literally have nothing to say.
No honest person could deny that merchants in the North were involved in the slave trade and profited from it. Nobody posting on this thread has said any such thing.
The fact is that the slave states started the war because of their desire to preserve slavery.
Someone is a fan of the movie 300, which is an inane and childish movie.
Who might that someone be? I generally don't appreciate period pieces or any historical drama with a crippling reliance on digital effects, poor acting, and a plot which is rooted in fantasy.
If you can't see the harrowing effects of the Greco-Persian wars beyond the recent CGI-fest film I suggest you crack open a history textbook and cease your puerile behavior toward other members based upon wild assumption.
The fact is that the slave states started the war because of their desire to preserve slavery.
The slave states LEFT the Union to preserve slavery. They didn't start the War to preserve Slavery.. in fact, it was the North, specifically Lincoln, who provoked the South into firing the first SHOT in order to gain support for the war. You can say the South started the war by firing on Ft Sumter but there is no doubt that it was the North's desire, specfically Lincoln, to wage war in order to pull the Southern States back into the Union.
Whether or not the South would have simply minded their own business had Lincoln taken a more diplomatic approach is debatable. I think the South was itching for a fight as much as Lincoln was so War was likely inevitable. But you can't put the cause and fault of the Civil War soley at the feet of the South.
Why did the Africans slave sellers practice slavery themselves...? Why didn't they just refuse to engage in the slave-trade at all?
Oh, I see.
The Southerners sunk to the lowest common denominator vis a vis treating humans as animals. How did they justify that? "...well, other people are selling people, so why shouldn't we.."???
Lamest excuse in the book. Lame, dumb, and greedy.
Oh, and if pigs had wings, they's be pigs with wings; not eagles.
One can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
One cannot make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.
The slave states LEFT the Union to preserve slavery. They didn't start the War to preserve Slavery.. in fact, it was the North, specifically Lincoln, who provoked the South into firing the first SHOT in order to gain support for the war. You can say the South started the war by firing on Ft Sumter but there is no doubt that it was the North's desire, specfically Lincoln, to wage war in order to pull the Southern States back into the Union.
Whether or not the South would have simply minded their own business had Lincoln taken a more diplomatic approach is debatable. I think the South was itching for a fight as much as Lincoln was so War was likely inevitable. But you can't put the cause and fault of the Civil War soley at the feet of the South.
Well, in two respects you are demonstrating minimal honesty, which is more than we see from other defenders of the Confederacy.
1. You admit that the South acted to preserve slavery.
2. You admit that it is legitimate to say that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Why this elementary fact escapes so many apologists for the traitors is beyond me.
I still can't agree that trying to keep slaves, trying to expand slavery into new territorial acquisitions, and trying to exercise the power to pursue escaped slaves into the non-slave states is "minding their own business", though.
I have to presume that you clueless, obtuse, and intellectually dishonest supporters of the Confederacy would be happy if the Union fragmented itself into a collection of petty, squabbling, insignificant countries, like something in the Balkans.
Regardless of how the Civil War started, Lincoln went to war to SAVE THE UNION; a pretty noble goal, in my opinion.
The mother of a teacher my wife works with passed away. So, the teacher took last Friday off because she had some court dealings she had to take care of that were related to her mother's passing. When she arrived at the court it was closed. She (along with the rest of us) weren't even thinking about it being Lee-Jackson day.
Well, in two respects you are demonstrating minimal honesty, which is more than we see from other defenders of the Confederacy.
1. You admit that the South acted to preserve slavery.
2. You admit that it is legitimate to say that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Why this elementary fact escapes so many apologists for the traitors is beyond me.
I still can't agree that trying to keep slaves, trying to expand slavery into new territorial acquisitions, and trying to exercise the power to pursue escaped slaves into the non-slave states is "minding their own business", though.
I try to exercise Complete Honesty but often overlook basic truths by focusing on the Forest rather than the Trees. An honest mistake I can assure you.
On the point of minding their own business: My point was that the SOUTH MAY have wanted to MIND THIER OWN BUSINESS AFTER Secession, not before! I don't think the SOUTH WOULD HAVE minded their own business but I think its debatable.
The South was NOT Minding their own business by Keeping slaves?? huh?
I am not gonna argue right vs wrong because I don't think there is an argument to be made concerning the rights of slavery. Slavery was wrong, PERIOD. The South left the Union to preserve slavery, yes.. but the North DID NOT engage in War to END slavery.. they engaged in War to preserve the Union.. or to bring the Southern States back into the Union. So I don't really understand the argument that the South was NOT minding their own business by keeping slaves since the North didn't care if they kept their slaves or not.. ?
The South was Minding their own business by trying to Expand Slavery into new Territories.. ie. Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri. As for exapanding slavery, there is no doubt the Southern states were NOT minding their own business. But during these HEATED debates, the SOUTH was still part of the UNION so it WAS their Business even if their BUSINESS was morally corrupt! Now after secession, the South may have had grandiose ideas about expanding slavery into new territories but they didn't have much time to put those ideas into motion.. they were too busy trying to keep what they already had..
The South was not Minding their own business by Exercising their Power to Pursue escaped Slaves. ie. the Fugitive Slave Laws. I'm not sure how much of this occurred after secession but prior to 1861 I know it was a fairly lucrative buisness and the law was stuck down sometime in 1863 at least in the Northern States. If I were to guess, I wouldn't expect that there were many Southern slave trackers roaming around the Northern States during the Civil War trying to catch escaped slaves. I could be wrong but its hard to imagine!
To be Completely Honest, my point was the South MAY have wanted to MIND their own business after LEAVING the Union not BEFORE. I don't think that was their INTENT.. but its debatable non the less. Your points are valid but only when taken in consideration prior to secession. After secession, your minding their own business points are not valid.
All of this talk of who started the war...Wasn't seceding from the nation an act of war? If Alaska, or Texas, or Arizona, say, seceded from the nation today, declaring all military bases and federal properties their own, wouldn't you be howling about them being traitors on these very pages?
I think that after secession, what the South wanted was for the North to mind its business. And if not for Lincoln's ideas about preserving the Union, that might very well have happened. In the spring of 1861, nobody really thought there was going to be a prolonged, devastating war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
