cowboycwr said:
Johnny Bear said:
cowboycwr said:
Johnny Bear said:
D. C. Bear said:
Redbrickbear said:
D. C. Bear said:
Johnny Bear said:
D. C. Bear said:
Fre3dombear said:
ATL Bear said:
Fre3dombear said:
ATL Bear said:
UTExan said:
This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.
It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free
And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.
Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.
As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.
But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman
progress, science and stuff
The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.
Wrong.
From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.
The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.
Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?
They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.
They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC
And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.
Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.
Wrong.
They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.
Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.
The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.
They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.
What is an "illegal country"?
I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".
Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"
China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"
Countries belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.
Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community & government than the United States of America.