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.
If they "fooled" others into believing other things were at stake, then clearly they would be fighting for OTHER THINGS, and not slavery, correct?
War is a rich man's battle, and a poor man's fight. People can be fooled into fighting for anything. The elites wanted secession because they wanted to keep slavery. It started as a last ditch attempt to keep slavery. I've brought up the Articles of Secession over and over, and you've been unable to refute it.
War is a rich man's battle, and a poor man's fight. People can be fooled into fighting for anything. The elites wanted secession because they wanted to keep slavery. It started as a last ditch attempt to keep slavery. I've brought up the Articles of Secession over and over, and you've been unable to refute it.
yes you've brought up the articles of secession over and over while ignoring the fact that the articles of secession is what triggered the war.
Prior to any articles of secession there was no talks of fighting over slavery..
All you keep doing is disproving your own arguing and dont realise it..
There is no reason to dispute that escaped slaves were returned oftentimes in accordance to the law.
Who stated otherwise?
DING DING DIGN.. You AGAIN, disputed the notion that it was about slavery and you dont even realise it..
it was about the ARTICLES OF SECESSION..
Tell me green, if the articles of secession was never written, do you think a civil war would have taken place over slaves?
Wrong. The Articles of Secession clearly sites slavery. I did not dispute that it was about slavery. I pointed out that the desire to keep slavery played a large part in this.
If the southern states didn't have the desire to secede, there would be no Articles of Secession. Prove me wrong.
I never claimed that all the farms in the South had slaves.
But the fact that most Southerners didn't have slaves and still fought to keep a system that actually disenfranchised whites just makes Southerners look even lamer. They should've been fighting for the Union.
What about all the Blacks that fought to keep the South ?
What bout all the Black slave owners themselves ?
Wrong. The Articles of Secession clearly sites slavery. I did not dispute that it was about slavery. I pointed out that the desire to keep slavery played a large part in this.
If the southern states didn't have the desire to secede, there would be no Articles of Secession. Prove me wrong.
Why do you keep asking people to prove you wrong while you continue to argue with others even though you are agreeing with them..
fact: yes, if there was no articles of secession there wouldnt have been war.. meaning the war was over the articles of secession.
Why the articles of secession was written is MEANINGLESS because it could have been over something like abortion, or obamacare, or any other issue someone decides the states should decide and not the federal government.
There was no talks of war over slavery, prior to the articles of secession, PROVE ME WRONG..
What about all the Blacks that fought to keep the South ?
What bout all the Black slave owners themselves ?
Geezus...You're going there?
Yeah...blacks, brainwashed as hell from a lifetime of indoctrination in a society that holds them in no higher regard than a dog, fought for the South. Often at the side of their masters.
Now really...You, with your STEM degree and all, are gonna equate that with free men fighting voluntarily for a cause.
Really? Really? Really?
And black slave owners? SMH...Why do you Confederate apologists always bring up the relatively few blacks that owned slaves in order to make a point that blacks approved of their standing in the South?
Yeah...blacks, brainwashed as hell from a lifetime of indoctrination in a society that holds them in no higher regard than a dog, fought for the South. Often at the side of their masters.
Now really...You, with your STEM degree and all, are gonna equate that with free men fighting voluntarily for a cause.
Really? Really? Really?
And black slave owners? SMH...Why do you Confederate apologists always bring up the relatively few blacks that owned slaves in order to make a point that blacks approved of their standing in the South?
The first legal slave owner in america was black..
Why would a southern farmer who had no slaves, fight and die so their neighbors farm who did have slave, could compete and offer lower prices than they could?
They of course wouldnt have. To suggest a southern farmer would go to war and fight so someone else can keep slaves, thereby pricing them out of the marketplace, is ridiculous.
No...that's EXACTLY what they did.
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.
