Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Can't stand the Neo-Con Swamp Bitch, but,

I recall it being said that the Civil War was about Economics, not Slavery..which is half true.

The high falutin' southern democraps could not maintain their standard of living and still provide a competitively priced product without slaves to do the work. This means that the war was was about Southern Democraps being able to CHOOSE to live lavishly at the expense of others.... Much like politicians do today.

Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.

Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.

They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.

They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.

The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.

The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.

Any hope of resolving the slavery issue and averting the Civil War ended with John Brown’s raid. It was at that point that since Brown’s purpose had been to cause a slave rebellion that would have seen countless innocent killed, Southerners realized it was no longer a somewhat abstract political question, but one where the other side wanted them dead. And it may have been different if Brown had been some lone nut, but he wasn’t. His harebrained scheme was funded by some of the wealthiest men in the country. They were so complicit that four of them fled the country to avoid a prosecution that never came. Northern newspapers called him a hero and lamented the failure of his scheme. Southerners saw this hateful rhetoric. They saw the act. They saw the government’s refusal to take any action against those who had funded and encouraged Brown. And they rightly concluded that you couldn’t share a country with people who wanted you dead and refused to enforce any laws on the books they felt like ignoring.

As such, attitudes hardened. Positions radicalized. And people began to prepare for the inevitable.

Seems that way today. Sanctuary cities ignore federal law. BLM rioters get no punishment or very lenient sentences while January 6th protesters rot in federal prison over misdemeanors. Joe Biden is openly bribed while crimes are invented against Trump. Billionaires openly fund the destruction of our country and white people are hunted with impunity in some of our cities while the rhetoric from every approved source blames them for everything wrong in the world today. All the while one side chants “democracy” like some sort of deranged mantra while doing everything it can to subvert wnd destroy it.

So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with California today? Right? I mean if your ex-wife can get your kid to California, she can get him a sex change under the full protection of California law no matter what custody orders you have in your own state or what laws it has on the books about the issue. And you will be arrested and prosecuted if you go to California and try to forcefully bring your son back.

That’s the kind of “states rights” you’re championing. That’s what you agree is right.

I always read it was about states' rights (to own slaves). In fact, slavery was such an important part of the southern economy, states joining the CSA were denied the right to end slavery in their state per the CSA constitution. The notion the CSA was interested in states' rights didn't survive for very long. It was definitely about economics and at the end of the day; a bunch of poor people died in an attempt to keep the wealthy wealthy. That does not absolve the North as they imposed many taxes aimed at the South and to prevent the expansion of slavery to the West; allowing the North to out-vote the South.

More like if I come from a state were cannabis is legal, I should be able to ignore state laws where it is illegal and take my pot into those states without those states being able to enforce their own state laws against it. In fact those free states need to actively support my rights to my slaves. Switch out cannabis for enslaved people and that the Southerns version of “states rights” at the time.

What happens when one of these whackadoodle states (looking at you Oregon) outlaws animal husbandry and PETA starts stealing cows and turning them loose in Oregon? Are their owners expected to say, “Well, that’s the breaks, they made it to Oregon, they’re free now.”)

But just to be clear, you are completely fine with California allowing children to
be kidnapped from other states and mutilated because that is now their state law, right?

I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;

"We the People"

NOT "We the States"

He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.

Lincoln didn't argue against slavery. His entire focus was "to preserve the Union".

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

I take it you’ve never read or listened to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Yes, during most of his Presidency Lincoln’s overwhelming concern was the preservation of the Union because it was falling apart. But, to say Lincoln didn’t argue against slavery is a statement profoundly ignorant of US history.

Doesn't hunt. check
doesn't fish. check
wants to ban firearms. check
doesn't kn ow basic history. check

Didn't they?