End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Muravyets]

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Good to know you accept anything Cat Tribe posts as dogma. <snip>

False and inflammatory (mildly, more like in-warm-atory, really) dismissive attack indicates that you don't really have a counter-argument, and thus I'm not going to waste time on your point-by-point.

By the way, fyi, TC is a guy.

[Natapoc]

"Rights need oversight shocker"

False "rights" such as the right to keep another person as property often do.

[Maurepas]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

Of course, Phenia doesn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and Lincoln was trying to have it both ways...

Hence the problem of who was actually the formal aggressor (although Lincoln was perfectly happy to kill everything in his path to "Preserve the Union," even if it meant murdering 600,000, according to his own definition, American citizens).

The 'formal' aggressor isn't a problem, that was the confederacy. They set in motion the war through secession, and initiated hostilities. Do you really think the secessionists thought that there wouldn't be a war? That would be awfully naive of them if they did.

Well, naive or no, many of them did believe they could avoid it, President Davis foremost among them...

[Free Soviets]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

my favorite states' right that had to be protected was the right of southern states to force northern ones to return escaped slaves, in violation of the laws and democratic will of those northern states.

huzzah for liberty!

[Melkor Unchained]

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Good to know you accept anything Cat Tribe posts as dogma. <snip>

False and inflammatory (mildly, more like in-warm-atory, really) dismissive attack indicates that you don't really have a counter-argument, and thus I'm not going to waste time on your point-by-point.

By the way, fyi, TC is a guy.

LOL like your entire first post isn't a "dismissive attack?"

[Bryn Shander]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

[Muravyets]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

Of course, Phenia doesn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and Lincoln was trying to have it both ways...

Hence the problem of who was actually the formal aggressor (although Lincoln was perfectly happy to kill everything in his path to "Preserve the Union," even if it meant murdering 600,000, according to his own definition, American citizens).

The Confederacy was the formal aggressor because the waters and military properties they claimed had been the legal property of the whole United States of America until a subset of that nation decided to take for their exclusive use what had been available for the use of all Americans. Essentially, they were attempting unilaterally to convert "ours" into "theirs."

If they had managed to secede successfully by political means and to gain control of those waters and facilities by grant or treaty of the nation they had left, and then the Union invaded, you would have an argument. But they didn't do that. They just tried to take the territory, like thieves, and they failed.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

my favorite states' right that had to be protected was the right of southern states to force northern ones to return escaped slaves, in violation of the laws and democratic will of those northern states.

huzzah for liberty!

[Blouman Empire]

Who on here is defending the Confederacy?

after reading the OP I don't think anybody could possibly make a reasonable argument that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery. So I think in this thread, the answer will be either no-one or people who simply ignore/dismiss the entire OP. or trolls.

In other words anyone who disagrees with you or as you said trolls.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Good to know you accept anything Cat Tribe posts as dogma. <snip>

False and inflammatory (mildly, more like in-warm-atory, really) dismissive attack indicates that you don't really have a counter-argument, and thus I'm not going to waste time on your point-by-point.

By the way, fyi, TC is a guy.

LOL like your entire first post isn't a "dismissive attack?"

*swipes image*

[Phenia]

The 'formal' aggressor isn't a problem, that was the confederacy.

Only if you accept that SC never had the prerogative to leave the Union. Seeing as there is still legitimate debate over this issue, you cannot say that the South was the formal aggressor for certain.

There are debates over many 'issues' which I nonetheless stand by my opinion on. Can I say it for "certain?" Well, no, I can't even say that this reality is "certain." But I'm as certain of my position as you are of yours.

They set in motion the war through secession, and initiated hostilities. Do you really think the secessionists thought that there wouldn't be a war? That would be awfully naive of them if they did.

Totally irrelevant. For the South to be an aggressor simply by leaving, they would have to have wanted the war, and there is no indication that, as a whole, they wanted a war, even if they felt that it would be inevitable (after all, part of the reasoning behind leaving was because the North could and did push them around to no end and get away with it).

If they thought war was inevitable consequence of their secession (and it was) then their wishes are totally irrelevant: they knowingly put in motion events leading to war.

And fired the first shots. You can "debate" the sovereignty of their waters, but opening fire on and killing troops is irrefutably an act of war.

[Muravyets]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

No, urnotright. Try reading the OP.

[Maurepas]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

Tariffs were a bigger issue 30 years prior, times had changed though, and although both sides had things they were unhappy about with the Nullification Crisis, the issue was no longer at the forefront...

[Bryn Shander]

If they thought war was inevitable consequence of their secession (and it was) then their wishes are totally irrelevant: they knowingly put in motion events leading to war.

Thus always to tyrants.

[Muravyets]

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

Can I answer this, or will you get all indignant again?

You can do whatever you want -- after all, it's a free country, thanks in part to Lincoln -- but don't expect me to answer you beyond this post.

Well, seeing as you were technically answering me with your own little straw man, I feel obligated to defend myself. If you're not interested in debate that's fine, but you should probably be prepared for one when you come in and twist someone's remarks into this kind of nonsense.

You were not the only person fronting that argument. You put it up and a few others +1'd to it, so I was referring to a group of people proposing that nonsense, and thus the claim that I was talking to you is wrong. So feel free to defend your position, if you can, but if you do it in the form of picking a fight with me, you will be wasting your time.

[Maurepas]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

Of course, Phenia doesn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and Lincoln was trying to have it both ways...

Hence the problem of who was actually the formal aggressor (although Lincoln was perfectly happy to kill everything in his path to "Preserve the Union," even if it meant murdering 600,000, according to his own definition, American citizens).

The Confederacy was the formal aggressor because the waters and military properties they claimed had been the legal property of the whole United States of America until a subset of that nation decided to take for their exclusive use what had been available for the use of all Americans. Essentially, they were attempting unilaterally to convert "ours" into "theirs."

If they had managed to secede successfully by political means and to gain control of those waters and facilities by grant or treaty of the nation they had left, and then the Union invaded, you would have an argument. But they didn't do that. They just tried to take the territory, like thieves, and they failed.

To be clear though, would you consider the Continental Congress thieves? If you do, then I have no argument with your assessment...

[Muravyets]

I can understand the position, it's not my position as there were Prominent members of this government that agreed with the Hypothetical person, Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., for example, who had the power and ability to have that purpose changed, had things gone differently...

but, I understand the position...

Fine, but I would just end by pointing out that Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., also could have avoided being tainted with the guilt of slavery if they really cared about it by doing the same thing as our Hypothetical Person -- not joining the Confederate army. At the time it was created, there was nothing forcing those men to join it and obey its orders, regardless of what they thought of the CSA's political and social aims. If they opposed slavery, they really didn't have to toss in their lot with a government that supported it.

EDIT: Damn these spoiler thingies.

[Melkor Unchained]

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

Can I answer this, or will you get all indignant again?

You can do whatever you want -- after all, it's a free country, thanks in part to Lincoln -- but don't expect me to answer you beyond this post.

Well, seeing as you were technically answering me with your own little straw man, I feel obligated to defend myself. If you're not interested in debate that's fine, but you should probably be prepared for one when you come in and twist someone's remarks into this kind of nonsense.

You were not the only person fronting that argument. You put it up and a few others +1'd to it, so I was referring to a group of people proposing that nonsense, and thus the claim that I was talking to you is wrong. So feel free to defend your position, if you can, but if you do it in the form of picking a fight with me, you will be wasting your time.

So yes, you are (in effect) answering my points.

At any rate (for anyone with a genuine intellectual interest in the topic), I never said the South was "helpless" to make such a change. But slavery was commonplace in North America well before the revolution, so yes, it was "foisted" on us in a way, even though we didn't object overly at the time.

But to expect (as some seemingly do) that the US would instantly and overwhelmingly come to the correct moral decision and abolish slavery in 1777 is probably a bit unrealistic. Slavery has existed in some form just about as long as civilization has, and the idea that it's immoral is actually a relatively new one in the grand scheme of things. I'm not saying that's right, but to give the USA shit because they were all of thirty whole years (gasp!) behind the British in abolishing slavery (nevermind that British policy still allowed for slaves in India and a few other colonies) is more than a little myopic. Cultural and social change is usually slow and seldom arrives on time.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

[Muravyets]

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Good to know you accept anything Cat Tribe posts as dogma. <snip>

False and inflammatory (mildly, more like in-warm-atory, really) dismissive attack indicates that you don't really have a counter-argument, and thus I'm not going to waste time on your point-by-point.

By the way, fyi, TC is a guy.

LOL like your entire first post isn't a "dismissive attack?"

See my sig, and kindly return to the topic of the thread, thanks.

[Derscon]

Mur, what the fuck happened to that last post of yours? o.O

EDIT: Nevermind.

[Melkor Unchained]

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Good to know you accept anything Cat Tribe posts as dogma. <snip>

False and inflammatory (mildly, more like in-warm-atory, really) dismissive attack indicates that you don't really have a counter-argument, and thus I'm not going to waste time on your point-by-point.

By the way, fyi, TC is a guy.

LOL like your entire first post isn't a "dismissive attack?"

See my sig, and kindly return to the topic of the thread, thanks.

*points up*

[Maurepas]

Fine, but I would just end by pointing out that Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., also could have avoided being tainted with the guilt of slavery if they really cared about it by doing the same thing as our Hypothetical Person -- not joining the Confederate army. At the time it was created, there was nothing forcing those men to join it and obey its orders, regardless of what they thought of the CSA's political and social aims. If they opposed slavery, they really didn't have to toss in their lot with a government that supported it.

True, but, they felt that they had to defend themselves from a Federal Army that was gathering to take their homes, which they felt overrided that sort of thing...

Lee said so himself when he declined the request to lead said army...

[Derscon]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

Tariffs were a large issue, but they weren't the direct cause of secession. It did create a substantial animosity, though.

[The Cat-Tribe]

So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

So, other than just ignoring the evidence I've laid out, do you have anything to back up your opinion that the Civil War was not "by a long shot" about slavery.