End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Muravyets]

As Murv said, if you fight to uphold a nation that states its reason for formation as slavery, then there really is no way to claim you're not supporting slavery. It's like saying that I support the KKK because I like the sheets.

History should not have a political agenda.

The fuck??? What do you think history is, other than the minutes of all the past political agenda meetings of the world?

What Maurepas is arguing is that the Confederacy had the right to self-determination and the right to secede from the Federal State - regardless of what motivated them to do so. Which is true. Again, you allow your political biases to override the basic facts of the matter.

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

All of Maurepas's arguing and all of your revisionism amount to nothing but wishful thinking and day-dreams next to that fact.

The Confederacy was a movement in support of slavery and nothing else, and anyone -- then or now -- who thought otherwise was/is either uninformed or kidding themselves, since the facts were published for all to see.

EDIT: You don't want history to have a political agenda? Then stop trying to impose one on it. States' rights = a political agenda. National self-determination = a political agenda. Slavery = a political agenda. Abolition = a political agenda. Secession = a political agenda. Unionism = a political agenda. There is not a single aspect of the US Civil War that is not a political agenda, including the thing you wish it had been about. All you are doing here is trying to impose your own agenda in place of other people's and claiming that your agenda is somehow pure fact instead of an agenda.

[Muravyets]

Also, it is wholly ignorant to claim that a war was motivated only be a single factor.

I don't think anyone claimed that, so. Strawman!

So you think the entire Confederate population was fighting solely to preserve slavery?

Did he say that either? You (and others) are repeating this fallacy where you say the other side is making an absolute statement of intent on behalf of every single person place thing or animal in the Confederation.

The thing is though, are we talking about the Confederate Government, or the Confederacy as a whole? As the latter does include the latter from your statement...

I explained why that doesn't matter.

[Maurepas]

Also, it is wholly ignorant to claim that a war was motivated only be a single factor.

I don't think anyone claimed that, so. Strawman!

So you think the entire Confederate population was fighting solely to preserve slavery?

Did he say that either? You (and others) are repeating this fallacy where you say the other side is making an absolute statement of intent on behalf of every single person place thing or animal in the Confederation.

The thing is though, are we talking about the Confederate Government, or the Confederacy as a whole? As the latter does include the latter from your statement...

I explained why that doesn't matter.

I got that,

[Muravyets]

I have to say I really enjoy the whole "how dare you look at the declarations that gave our reasons for secession in order to figure out our reasons for secession? You're supposed to look at the reasons people made up much later when supporting slavery fell out of style." The Southern states gave their reasons as states and collectively. Those reasons were given by elected representatives that southerners chose and those reasons were supported by those same southerners. They may not have been the only reasons that southerners went to war, but if you supported a war where the all the articles that declared that war stated that the war was to protect slavery, then you fought to protect slavery.

People don't support the KKK for the fashion sense. The KKK's central philosophies are racist. If you support them you support racism. People don't support the Catholic Church for their lovely incense. Their central philosophies are centered around Christianity and following the Pope. If you support them you support both Christianity and the Pope. And if you supported a Confederacy whose central philosophies centered around preserving slavery, then you supported slavery.

I know that's really frustrating to southerners who were brought to believe it was an aggressive war by the "North". THey want to believe it was something more noble than the right to own people. It wasn't. I'm sorry, but it wasn't. That's not revision. That's supported by all the documentation for the reasoning behind the war. They had other issues, no doubt, but the central and driving issue was slavery.

It is also not a toggle. It's not the South was noble or the North was noble. Neither was particularly noble. The only difference between the two is that what the Union did was legal according to the mutually agreed upon laws of the US of A.

The interesting result is that I would say that the Confederacy was ultimately responsible for bringing about the end of slavery sooner.

Quoted just because I agree with it so much.^^

And yes, I can imagine that it sucks mightily to find oneself connected in some way to the villains of a story -- especially if modern Southerners happen to agree that slavery is villainous. We would all much rather be connected to the good guys, the heroes of our ideals, etc., etc. We all want to be able to take credit for the accomplishments of our forebears, and it must be very frustrating when one's forebears did something one is ashamed of. I wouldn't know -- my forebears never did a damn thing worth noting, for good or bad.

But making up more flattering stories for our ancestors doesn't really help. It only makes liars of us -- even if we are only lying to ourselves -- and it doesn't change anything. The world we live in now was built by those people and the things they did -- not the things we wish they had done. Modern Southerners who want the south to be a paradise of independence and self-reliance, personal loyalty and honor, are going to have to make it so themselves for the future, because that's not what it was in the past.

Just like modern Northerners who want the North to be a utopia of reason and justice, industry and egalitarianism, are going to have some work to do, too, to overcome our region's history of hypocrisy and corruption, and don't forget the wonderful vicious class divisions.

[Muravyets]

Also, it is wholly ignorant to claim that a war was motivated only be a single factor.

I don't think anyone claimed that, so. Strawman!

So you think the entire Confederate population was fighting solely to preserve slavery?

Did he say that either? You (and others) are repeating this fallacy where you say the other side is making an absolute statement of intent on behalf of every single person place thing or animal in the Confederation.

The thing is though, are we talking about the Confederate Government, or the Confederacy as a whole? As the latter does include the latter from your statement...

I explained why that doesn't matter.

I got that,

I just don't want you to start backsliding as you listen to Lynyrd Skynyrd.

[Maurepas]

Also, it is wholly ignorant to claim that a war was motivated only be a single factor.

I don't think anyone claimed that, so. Strawman!

So you think the entire Confederate population was fighting solely to preserve slavery?

Did he say that either? You (and others) are repeating this fallacy where you say the other side is making an absolute statement of intent on behalf of every single person place thing or animal in the Confederation.

The thing is though, are we talking about the Confederate Government, or the Confederacy as a whole? As the latter does include the latter from your statement...

I explained why that doesn't matter.

I got that,

I just don't want you to start backsliding as you listen to Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Tell you the truth, I'm not a fan of a Lynyrd Skynyrd, they only have a few good songs, and those are overplayed,

[United Dependencies]

So perhaps, for my own categorical purposes, it would be more accurate to say I support the South, not the Confederacy...

More accurate and a good idea in general. Some people may disagree but the South is not the Confederacy and when I am talking about the latter, I am definitely not talking about the former.

I agree, and feel better about that, on alot of levels, thank you...

This is exactly how I feel.

[North Suran]

As Murv said, if you fight to uphold a nation that states its reason for formation as slavery, then there really is no way to claim you're not supporting slavery. It's like saying that I support the KKK because I like the sheets.

History should not have a political agenda.

The fuck??? What do you think history is, other than the minutes of all the past political agenda meetings of the world?

Again, history should not have a political agenda.

What Maurepas is arguing is that the Confederacy had the right to self-determination and the right to secede from the Federal State - regardless of what motivated them to do so. Which is true. Again, you allow your political biases to override the basic facts of the matter.

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

All of Maurepas's arguing and all of your revisionism amount to nothing but wishful thinking and day-dreams next to that fact.

The Confederacy was a movement in support of slavery and nothing else, and anyone -- then or now -- who thought otherwise was/is either uninformed or kidding themselves, since the facts were published for all to see.

Are you genuinely illiterate?

That's the only justification I can think of for the fact that you have gone off on a tangent about something totally unrelated to the post you quoted. Whatever their reasons, the Confederacy had the right to secede, just as the American colonies had the right to break away from the British Empire. Period. Fact. That was what I was arguing. But feel free to beat against strawmen for all your worth.

The only reason why this sort of hypocrisy is tolerated is because, as aforementioned, the central state lost in the first case but won in the second case.

[Tekania]

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

The "Confederacy" didn't secede... States did. The Confederacy was subsequently formed from states which had already seceded. As such, "Slavery" was not the singular issue of secession, though it was a connective issue. If it had merely been "slavery" Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee wouldn't have seceded, seeing as how under merely a slavery issue secession failed in their legislatures.

It's valid to say that secessions occurred because of issues relating to slavery, or to point at a particular state (South Carolina for example) and say that it seceded to preserve slavery; but to claim that the purpose of session in all cases amongst every state was the preservation of slavery in all those states to which seceded is disingenuous at best. Merely the possible threat of the legal termination of slavery at the federal level was not enough to cause some states (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee) to secede, it took the call of the raising of federal troops subsequent to invasion to cause them to secede.

[The Cat-Tribe]

As Murv said, if you fight to uphold a nation that states its reason for formation as slavery, then there really is no way to claim you're not supporting slavery. It's like saying that I support the KKK because I like the sheets.

History should not have a political agenda.

The fuck??? What do you think history is, other than the minutes of all the past political agenda meetings of the world?

Again, history should not have a political agenda.

What Maurepas is arguing is that the Confederacy had the right to self-determination and the right to secede from the Federal State - regardless of what motivated them to do so. Which is true. Again, you allow your political biases to override the basic facts of the matter.

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

All of Maurepas's arguing and all of your revisionism amount to nothing but wishful thinking and day-dreams next to that fact.

The Confederacy was a movement in support of slavery and nothing else, and anyone -- then or now -- who thought otherwise was/is either uninformed or kidding themselves, since the facts were published for all to see.

Are you genuinely illiterate?

That's the only justification I can think of for the fact that you have gone off on a tangent about something totally unrelated to the post you quoted. Whatever their reasons, the Confederacy had the right to secede, just as the American colonies had the right to break away from the British Empire. Period. Fact. That was what I was arguing. But feel free to beat against strawmen for all your worth.

The only reason why this sort of hypocrisy is tolerated is because, as aforementioned, the central state lost in the first case but won in the second case.

You keep blathering on about whether the Confederacy or the American colonies had a right to secede, even though that nothing whatsoever to do with the OP (which is about WHY the Confederacy seceded from the Union.)

To the extent the question of the difference in the legitimacy of the two cases of secession is relevant, I would ask whether the American colonies had voluntarily entered into a compact that bound them together under a central government?

Because the Confederate States had done so. See, e.g., Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 725-726 (1868)("The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 380-391 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.) ("The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.")

[Gift-of-god]

It is good to see you, Cat-Tribe.

[Muravyets]

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

The "Confederacy" didn't secede... States did. The Confederacy was subsequently formed from states which had already seceded. As such, "Slavery" was not the singular issue of secession, though it was a connective issue. If it had merely been "slavery" Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee wouldn't have seceded, seeing as how under merely a slavery issue secession failed in their legislatures.

It's valid to say that secessions occurred because of issues relating to slavery, or to point at a particular state (South Carolina for example) and say that it seceded to preserve slavery; but to claim that the purpose of session in all cases amongst every state was the preservation of slavery in all those states to which seceded is disingenuous at best. Merely the possible threat of the legal termination of slavery at the federal level was not enough to cause some states (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee) to secede, it took the call of the raising of federal troops subsequent to invasion to cause them to secede.

I can tell by your choice to quote only one paragraph out of all my posts that you are probably not interested in addressing other people's actual arguments on this topic, but nevertheless, I have to tell you that I already explained (several times) why I disagree with you in my other posts. Kindly read them, if you wish to debate with me, thanks.

[Muravyets]

As Murv said, if you fight to uphold a nation that states its reason for formation as slavery, then there really is no way to claim you're not supporting slavery. It's like saying that I support the KKK because I like the sheets.

History should not have a political agenda.

The fuck??? What do you think history is, other than the minutes of all the past political agenda meetings of the world?

Again, history should not have a political agenda.

And I should have a rich, sexy husband. I don't, and sadly you don't get your way, either. Your wishful thinking about conditions you wish existed does not actually support or lend validity to your argument.

History doesn't have a political agenda. It IS a catalogue of political agendas. That's why you cannot discuss history without dealing with politics.

What Maurepas is arguing is that the Confederacy had the right to self-determination and the right to secede from the Federal State - regardless of what motivated them to do so. Which is true. Again, you allow your political biases to override the basic facts of the matter.

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

All of Maurepas's arguing and all of your revisionism amount to nothing but wishful thinking and day-dreams next to that fact.

The Confederacy was a movement in support of slavery and nothing else, and anyone -- then or now -- who thought otherwise was/is either uninformed or kidding themselves, since the facts were published for all to see.

Are you genuinely illiterate?

That's the only justification I can think of for the fact that you have gone off on a tangent about something totally unrelated to the post you quoted. Whatever their reasons, the Confederacy had the right to secede, just as the American colonies had the right to break away from the British Empire. Period. Fact. That was what I was arguing. But feel free to beat against strawmen for all your worth.

The only reason why this sort of hypocrisy is tolerated is because, as aforementioned, the central state lost in the first case but won in the second case.

This flame is hilarious coming from you, considering that your entire argument misses the point of the thread and is dependent on you either misreading or not reading at all the OP. TCT already explained why, so I'll just content myself with laughing at you for attacking me.

[Waterlow]

Yeah, but not that long before. If Europe abolished slavery 100 years earlier and didn't practice violent colonialism, I'd probably respect their criticism a bit more than I presently do. But to say, in effect, that we're morally inferior because we didn't abolish a system that at least half of our country was built to rely on "soon enough" is what really grates me, especially considering many Europeans' blithe ignorance about what their own governments were doing at the exact same time.

Really? There are many 'Europeans' (again with the inappropriate grouping, what is it with this place?) saying this? I don't think this assertion is all that widespread. Shit, most Brits - for instance - I know have a pretty negative view of empire and all that jazz. Likewise my French friends. As for the Germans... Christ, they wallow in shame.

[Tekania]

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

The "Confederacy" didn't secede... States did. The Confederacy was subsequently formed from states which had already seceded. As such, "Slavery" was not the singular issue of secession, though it was a connective issue. If it had merely been "slavery" Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee wouldn't have seceded, seeing as how under merely a slavery issue secession failed in their legislatures.

It's valid to say that secessions occurred because of issues relating to slavery, or to point at a particular state (South Carolina for example) and say that it seceded to preserve slavery; but to claim that the purpose of session in all cases amongst every state was the preservation of slavery in all those states to which seceded is disingenuous at best. Merely the possible threat of the legal termination of slavery at the federal level was not enough to cause some states (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee) to secede, it took the call of the raising of federal troops subsequent to invasion to cause them to secede.

I can tell by your choice to quote only one paragraph out of all my posts that you are probably not interested in addressing other people's actual arguments on this topic, but nevertheless, I have to tell you that I already explained (several times) why I disagree with you in my other posts. Kindly read them, if you wish to debate with me, thanks.

No, I quoted that specific paragraph with the particular bolding, because that was where you were in factual error, regarding overall secession relating to each state. There was no need to respond to the rest because there was no other disagreement except that one issue regarding the secession views.

Now, if you think secession was in all cases "about slavery" why don't you tell me the results of the secession decision of the Virginia Convention on April 4th, 1861?

[Caninope]

Slavery was the Confederacy's reason behind the war and anyone who fought for the Confederacy supported that reason directly even if they disagreed with it in spirit.

Almost. It was their way of life they were fighting for.

[Free Soviets]

Slavery was the Confederacy's reason behind the war and anyone who fought for the Confederacy supported that reason directly even if they disagreed with it in spirit.

Almost. It was their way of life they were fighting for.

their 'way of life' being defined as owning black people.

[SaintB]

I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).

I've also said that the Union wasn't fighting over slavery.

Simply saying that the American Civil War was about slavery is to me a fallacy, it was about more than that to the South and not even about that to the North.

People might bring up the "Emancipation Proclamation". Which in reality only freed slaves in Confederate States... states already disregarding the US government and its laws, it did not fee slaves in Maryland or other non secessionist states (aka, it didn't do a damn thing for slaves). It was a political statement that helped ensure that the Confederacy would never gain international support... and it worked.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).

Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution, what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

The "Confederacy" didn't secede... States did. The Confederacy was subsequently formed from states which had already seceded. As such, "Slavery" was not the singular issue of secession, though it was a connective issue. If it had merely been "slavery" Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee wouldn't have seceded, seeing as how under merely a slavery issue secession failed in their legislatures.

It's valid to say that secessions occurred because of issues relating to slavery, or to point at a particular state (South Carolina for example) and say that it seceded to preserve slavery; but to claim that the purpose of session in all cases amongst every state was the preservation of slavery in all those states to which seceded is disingenuous at best. Merely the possible threat of the legal termination of slavery at the federal level was not enough to cause some states (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee) to secede, it took the call of the raising of federal troops subsequent to invasion to cause them to secede.

I can tell by your choice to quote only one paragraph out of all my posts that you are probably not interested in addressing other people's actual arguments on this topic, but nevertheless, I have to tell you that I already explained (several times) why I disagree with you in my other posts. Kindly read them, if you wish to debate with me, thanks.

No, I quoted that specific paragraph with the particular bolding, because that was where you were in factual error, regarding overall secession relating to each state. There was no need to respond to the rest because there was no other disagreement except that one issue regarding the secession views.

Now, if you think secession was in all cases "about slavery" why don't you tell me the results of the secession decision of the Virginia Convention on April 4th, 1861?

I'll return to your specific challenge about why Virginia seceded from the Union. In the meantime, care to answer the other points raised in the OP, such as the contents of the CSA Constitution?

[SaintB]

I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).

Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

[Jocabia]

As Murv said, if you fight to uphold a nation that states its reason for formation as slavery, then there really is no way to claim you're not supporting slavery. It's like saying that I support the KKK because I like the sheets.

History should not have a political agenda.

The fuck??? What do you think history is, other than the minutes of all the past political agenda meetings of the world?

Again, history should not have a political agenda.

What Maurepas is arguing is that the Confederacy had the right to self-determination and the right to secede from the Federal State - regardless of what motivated them to do so. Which is true. Again, you allow your political biases to override the basic facts of the matter.

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

All of Maurepas's arguing and all of your revisionism amount to nothing but wishful thinking and day-dreams next to that fact.

The Confederacy was a movement in support of slavery and nothing else, and anyone -- then or now -- who thought otherwise was/is either uninformed or kidding themselves, since the facts were published for all to see.

Are you genuinely illiterate?

That's the only justification I can think of for the fact that you have gone off on a tangent about something totally unrelated to the post you quoted. Whatever their reasons, the Confederacy had the right to secede, just as the American colonies had the right to break away from the British Empire. Period. Fact. That was what I was arguing. But feel free to beat against strawmen for all your worth.

The only reason why this sort of hypocrisy is tolerated is because, as aforementioned, the central state lost in the first case but won in the second case.

Actually the South did not have a right to secede according to the law, a law they joined in creating. Mississippi doesn't have any more right to secede than I do. You can argue all day that the law can't override the rights of those people, but those people voted to live under that law. They created it. They entered a contract and that contract required them to obey the law. They don't get to change the contract because they're unhappy their guy didn't win the previous election. I don't like the current mayor. I think I'll secede from the Unio.. uh, city.

As for whether or not they supported States' rights, it's rather easy to examine. What was one of the huge dividing issues that brought about their secession. That the federal government wasn't going far enough to get their slaves back from other states. They wanted the federal government to have MORE power.

And just like now, they support giving the feds more power when they like the people in office. They get out their country music and their flags and the praise the US. That is until you do anything that to them like minorities might become their equal and then holy shit, it's but a moment before they're cutting up the flag and trying to dismantle the US. Country songs go from songs about God blessing our country and our soldiers to songs about how the federal government better not tread on them or those soldiers are going to get blasted in the face.

All the revisionism in the world won't change that the same shit is still going on. Georgia has voted for secession three times. The first was to protect slavery. The second was to protect segregation. And the third was an IMMEDIATE response to the first black man being elected President. In GA, seccesion is just a word they throw around that replaces "fuck you, nigger". The Southern states have a terrible history (as does this country). If they ever want to move past that history, then crying about how people won't recognize just how much less racist they are when they were whipping and killing black men they owned really isn't going to accomplish that.

To me, and this is just me, stop getting pissed off at people who call it like it is about Southern states and start shouting down all the old racists that control your states. Just saying.

[Jocabia]

I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).

Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

[North Suran]

As Murv said, if you fight to uphold a nation that states its reason for formation as slavery, then there really is no way to claim you're not supporting slavery. It's like saying that I support the KKK because I like the sheets.

History should not have a political agenda.

The fuck??? What do you think history is, other than the minutes of all the past political agenda meetings of the world?

Again, history should not have a political agenda.

And I should have a rich, sexy husband. I don't, and sadly you don't get your way, either.

Something discussed on NSG will have no effect on the real world? Say it ain't so!

History doesn't have a political agenda. It IS a catalogue of political agendas. That's why you cannot discuss history without dealing with politics.

Politics do not override the basic facts. And the basic facts are that the Southern states, whatever their reasoning or justifications, had the right to secede.

What Maurepas is arguing is that the Confederacy had the right to self-determination and the right to secede from the Federal State - regardless of what motivated them to do so. Which is true. Again, you allow your political biases to override the basic facts of the matter.

Bottom line: The leaders of the Confederacy itself stated in very clear terms that the purpose of the Confederacy, the secession, and the war was to preserve and continue the institution of slavery. Period. Fact.

All of Maurepas's arguing and all of your revisionism amount to nothing but wishful thinking and day-dreams next to that fact.

The Confederacy was a movement in support of slavery and nothing else, and anyone -- then or now -- who thought otherwise was/is either uninformed or kidding themselves, since the facts were published for all to see.

Are you genuinely illiterate?

That's the only justification I can think of for the fact that you have gone off on a tangent about something totally unrelated to the post you quoted. Whatever their reasons, the Confederacy had the right to secede, just as the American colonies had the right to break away from the British Empire. Period. Fact. That was what I was arguing. But feel free to beat against strawmen for all your worth.

The only reason why this sort of hypocrisy is tolerated is because, as aforementioned, the central state lost in the first case but won in the second case.

This flame is hilarious coming from you,

If you think that's a flame, feel free to report it.

considering that your entire argument misses the point of the thread and is dependent on you either misreading or not reading at all the OP.

If you had bothered to read even a few posts down from the OP, you'd see how ridicilous that claim is. Furthermore, discussing the legitimacy of the secession is a natural progression from a thread about whether the Confederacy seceded purely due to slavery. For the same reason that discussing healthcare is a natural progression from a thread about a new health Bill. Furthermore, I have already addressed the point of the OP.

TCT already explained why, so I'll just content myself with laughing at you for attacking me.

Of course, when you come swinging out of left field, spewing arrogant vitriol, it's just a post, yet when I respond, it's obviously an "attack". Still feeding that persecution complex, I see.

[Sapiency]

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

[offtopic]Why do all Bryn fanbois use that kind of 4chan font in their posts?[/offtopic]