Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Slavery Was Not the Cause of War Between States; Gene Kizer Jr

Although both of them have already been equated to 'liberals' and 'lemmings' here for their particular views on this issue.

Joe Bob- no, but last I looked we are not at war and have not been invaded again - unless you believe the Jade Helm whackos. :-)

The war ended arguments of the day by force but did not put an end to cultural differences.

The centralist Yankee mentality still pervades society via the media. Guessing many might consider that an invasion of sorts.

Reading the opinion of the day, however, the earlier post quoting from the CSA VP clearly indicates slavery at the core of the split with the Union in his mind.

Do I think most Southerners fought to kept the institution of slavery. No.
Do I think Yankees fought so freed slaves could marry their daughters or vote in elections. N0.

Lee fought for Virginia foremost, and the continued autonomy of brother states, but in an inescapable bit of irony did so for the freedom of slaveholders. No getting around it.

Lincolns action can be argued as justified but it seems to me harder to say they were legal.


Lincoln used the issue of slavery to galvanize his cause just as southerners saw it as the litmus infringement to their self rule.

I think a harder question to answer is whether or not Lincoln would have invaded had the south abolished slavery?? I am thinking he still would want to but would be without the moral highground on the one hand while facing the very real probability of a British alliance with the south on the other. So...????


Sound like a contradiction but since these are all "what -ifs" I still find it impossible to imagine the civil War if there were no slaves in the first place. The difference between northern and southern states would be blurred.

Except you support the heritage, cause and, flag that supported slavery.

My family fought for VA and TN against an invading force illegally raised by the POS Lincoln. I am damn proud they did and damn proud of the flag. The cause to be free and independent was as just for the south as it was for the American Colonies and as just as Texas was in securing their freedom from Mexico.

You claim a southern heritage, did your home state leave the union?

From the inception of the Republic to the Civil War didn't your beloved Union also support slavery? Let's see it was legal wasn't it?

Well its my beloved Union too, I feel privileged to even be here, YMMV.

But no, the Free States were repeatedly obliged to compromise with the Slave States, to the point that Jefferson was pressured to remove the immortal phrase heard round the world...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal."

..such that slavery was outlawed in the Free States during or shortly after the American Revolution.

In the 19th Century, as the country grew, compromising with slave states dominated National politics in repeated attempts to avoid secession and war.

It is beyond doubt that the looming specter of abolition was a major factor in pushing the South to a point they felt they had no alternative but secession.

Leastways that is the viewpoint of the textbook you highly recommended.

Birdwatcher

Where have I framed a single piece of evidence in terms of
"feelings"?

However one might take freely thrown insults as evidence of feelings.

Is there and insult worse than "Liberal"?




The irony being that you haven't provided "mountains of evidence to the contrary". Your main College textbook recommendation with which you opened that other thread confirms exactly what I thought I knew re:the South, that war, and its causes.



Does this also apply to the men who fell fighting to preserve the Union? If not, why not?

Birdwatcher

More Liberal Lemming I see. Go on back to the echo chamber Liberal I am Done with you except for adding you to the Ignore list where all vermin should be.

djs has only ever supported an ever increasing .gov, in true fascist style. His socialist tendencies only reinforce that.

On a positive note, we'll outlive the bastard so he'll never have to worry about his grave being dry. Perhaps he'll live long enough to reap the fruits of his fascist socialism and be devoured (literally) by the monster he did everything possible to create.

As stated before about his claim of heritage; if a cat gives birth in the oven, do ya call them biscuits?

You should feel that way because you're pretty late to game here. Go for 30,000 words now even 100,000 because it's not going to change the fact you're wrong.

Hell of bunch of it going here. I would say stuff "biscuits" like that in a sack and chunk em in the creek.

As he sits in a state that seceded TWICE with slavery among their reasons, one that he supported (implicitly) and one he opposed, whilst married to a woman of Mexican origin - a nation that Tejas seceded from in order for Tejas to continue slavery, and a nation that today has a very large population of slaves for sex, drug running, drug production, industrial, and domestic work (about which he says and does nothing).

I'll take sanctimonious bastards for 1000 Alex.

I think you mean inconsistent, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical sanctimonious bastards for $1000, correct?

That's it

"Well then..." says Birdwatcher in his best John Cleese imitation.... "no point in me replying then is there?"

You'd be far better off posting something of substance, actually doing some research, and getting back to us.

JMHO,

Birdwatcher

This:





is the only thing that should be seen where Birdy is concerned.

His Liberal Lemming Vermin Ass deserves nothing else.

The research has been done long ago. Preach away but you're still wrong.

Considering that the variable position of the inconsistent, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, sanctimonious Tejican has been systematically and utterly destroyed Constitutionally, legal, factually, and historically by myself and others including hillbillybear, you needn't post any research as it's already been done.