I had a dream! tonight

[skyblue1]

I was speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation. Where Lincoln freed the slaves on the southern side of the border. It was a tactical move, to increase unrest.

 In Mississippi on the southern side of the battle lines the slaves stopped work. On the northern side they continued to work the fields.

[P7PSP]

Perhaps the most important states rights argument during those times.

Was about  the southern states wanting to trade with whomever they wanted, without their goods being tariffed when they came into northern ports. The southern states wanted to do more trade with England, as the English paid more for our goods. The US government frowned on that.

Which does not change what Alexander Stephens himself identified as the"immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution". The North had their own grievances with the South playing fast and loose with congressional representation by identifying non voting negroes as 3/5 of a man for purposes of garnering more members of congress than they would have been entitled to had they counted their census the way the non slave owning states did.

From the Declarations of Causes For Secession

Georgia - "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate states with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Mississippi - "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world."

South Carolina - "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all states North of that line have united in the election of a man to high office of the President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Texas - "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery -- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits -- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

There is nothing in any of these documents from 1861 that would lead me to believe that slavery was some sort of "oh by the way" after thought in this whole process skyblue. Slavery was the cause of secession.

As for the states rights arguments - why would the CSA revolt over states rights, specifically the right to own negroes, and then deny the right of any of its constituent states to outlaw slavery? How is taking away that option being all about states rights? Here is the Confederate Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html Read Section 9.4 "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
That was a fucking disgusting document back in 1861 and it still is.

dont get pissed at me , I wasnt alive during those days.

Neo confederate revisionism tweaks my tail a bit. I have family that fought on both sides of that war, I'm not ashamed of the ones from the South - but they were on the wrong side. No amount of "He did it too" finger pointing at Sherman or Sheridan will make slavery okay IMO. There is no way to justify the CSA without justifying slavery. Separating the CSA, or the Civil War, from slavery is akin to shaving shit off of a turd IMO. Slavery was a degenerate institution that the CSA intended to keep forever if they could.
 

[P7PSP]

This is not personal skyblue. It is a subject that I feel strongly about. None of the arguments trying to separate the war, or the CSA, from slavery make any sense to me. Documents from the CSA leadership from the era all show slavery the be the primary cause.

[skyblue1]

Perhaps the most important states rights argument during those times.

Was about  the southern states wanting to trade with whomever they wanted, without their goods being tariffed when they came into northern ports. The southern states wanted to do more trade with England, as the English paid more for our goods. The US government frowned on that.

Which does not change what Alexander Stephens himself identified as the"immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution". The North had their own grievances with the South playing fast and loose with congressional representation by identifying non voting negroes as 3/5 of a man for purposes of garnering more members of congress than they would have been entitled to had they counted their census the way the non slave owning states did.

From the Declarations of Causes For Secession

Georgia - "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate states with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Mississippi - "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world."

South Carolina - "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all states North of that line have united in the election of a man to high office of the President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Texas - "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery -- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits -- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

There is nothing in any of these documents from 1861 that would lead me to believe that slavery was some sort of "oh by the way" after thought in this whole process skyblue. Slavery was the cause of secession.

As for the states rights arguments - why would the CSA revolt over states rights, specifically the right to own negroes, and then deny the right of any of its constituent states to outlaw slavery? How is taking away that option being all about states rights? Here is the Confederate Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html Read Section 9.4 "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
That was a fucking disgusting document back in 1861 and it still is.

dont get pissed at me , I wasnt alive during those days.

Neo confederate revisionism tweaks my tail a bit. I have family that fought on both sides of that war, I'm not ashamed of the ones from the South - but they were on the wrong side. No amount of "He did it too" finger pointing at Sherman or Sheridan will make slavery okay IMO. There is no way to justify the CSA without justifying slavery. Separating the CSA, or the Civil War, from slavery is akin to shaving shit off of a turd IMO. Slavery was a degenerate institution that the CSA intended to keep forever if they could.

the north with its treatment of africans (as slaves and servants) didnt have a thing to brag about. Slavery was in fashion before that time ( and still is today).

Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).

Or the recent repentant that joins the evangelicals and says everyone else should believe as they do.

Change took time.

So, anyway, you can get off your high horse and I`ll climb down off my soapbox.

[midlifeaspie]

Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).

How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same?  Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.

[skyblue1]

Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).

How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same?  Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.

Tsk. Another strawman?

Makes less sense, thean your last.

I have moved on.

[eris]

This must be like the 5th time this thread changed directions

[midlifeaspie]

Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).

How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same?  Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.

Tsk. Another strawman?

Makes less sense, thean your last.

What strawman have I used here?

I have moved on.

I would to if I were in your position. 

[skyblue1]

Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).

How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same?  Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.

Tsk. Another strawman?

Makes less sense, thean your last. [\quote]

What strawman have I used here?

I have moved on.

I would to if I were in your position. 

hmm a strawman statement,  that is actually, just baiting....nice try   thanx for the oppurtunity to advance my post count

[midlifeaspie]

Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).

How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same?  Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.

Tsk. Another strawman?

Makes less sense, thean your last. [\quote]

What strawman have I used here?

I have moved on.

I would to if I were in your position. 

hmm a strawman statement,  that is actually, just baiting....nice try   thanx for the oppurtunity to advance my post count

Always happy to help 

Here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man