HorseLoverGirl
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2015
- Messages
- 1,207
- Reaction score
- 169
- Location
- Lexington North Carolina
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That's nothing any state should brag about.
That's where research comes in. You will learn that slavery was not the overall main issue.
I'm not asking you about races. I'm asking you about ethnicities. You obviously do think light skinned people whose heritage is northern and central European are superior to people from any other place on the planet. You don't have to keep this silly game of evading the question. You've already told us this by playing that game. Game's over. You are a Eurosupremacist.
The written statements from seceding states say the direct opposite.
You gonna base the entire South on Mississippi? Please. You're gonna make us all look bad.
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Uh, you were talking about the level of voters who hold to segregationist views that voted for Thurmond....and I asked you to continue on discussing THAT idea......but suddenly you switch to discussing Helms!
OK.
Let's go with that.....what percent of voters that held to segregationist views voted for Helms?
I have no idea why you are limiting the statements of secession to Mississippi.
I didn't negate that you talked about Helms, but you did decide to not continue discussing segregationists for Thurmond.No I merely pointed out that while the segregationists in South Carolina loved Thurmond there were plenty of people in NORTH Carolina who loved Jesse Helms.
Again, that is not what was being discussed by you....OR me.As for percentages of who was segregationist and who was not, I really do not know.
No doubt, but you continue to ignore the topic.....the topic you brought up.....the same topic that you are continuing to avoid in this post. I suppose it is "effective" for you to change the subject/avoid the subject/respond with something unrelated to the subject, but it is all just different ways of losing the debate.I have lived in North Carolina long enough to know that its a blood red state, and South Carolina is about as bad. North Carolina, as we discovered, is a good ol boy club state. Jesse Helms was in cahoots with that club here in NC and I'm sure Thurmond was in SC. So you see the Carolinas are similar
Any state that joined the Confederacy....was "all about" slavery. It was the economic and ideological cornerstone of the Confederacy.Because we know Mississippi was all about slavery. Doesn't mean the whole south was.
Any state that joined the Confederacy....was "all about" slavery. It was the economic and ideological cornerstone of the Confederacy.
I didn't negate that you talked about Helms, but you did decide to not continue discussing segregationists for Thurmond. Again, that is not what was being discussed by you....OR me. No doubt, but you continue to ignore the topic.....the topic you brought up.....the same topic that you are continuing to avoid in this post. I suppose it is "effective" for you to change the subject/avoid the subject/respond with something unrelated to the subject, but it is all just different ways of losing the debate.
If you are not here to take a position and defend it in debate.....wtf are you here for?
That's where research comes in. You will learn that slavery was not the overall main issue.
So I guess you don't care that they were tired of being heavily taxed to pay for the war of 1812 then
Because we know Mississippi was all about slavery. Doesn't mean the whole south was.
He leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the Confederacy.The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stevens disagree with you.
Alexander Stevens, vice president of the Confederacy made this statement the day the Civil War began:
" Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law.
Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material -- the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so.
It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory. The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws."
The Civil War Was About Slavery. Confederate Leaders Were Totally Clear On This.
Sure, that was cited all the time as above the economic and ideological rationales of slavery.So I guess you don't care that they were tired of being heavily taxed to pay for the war of 1812 then
I posted the Cornerstone speech statements from Confederate VP Stephens on the previous page. They were ignored.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt it would seem.
Wow.
The subject was not the percentage of owners, but the level of discrimination different population groups in the US faced.
This is a whopper of a non-sequitur.
Sure, that was cited all the time as above the economic and ideological rationales of slavery.
I wonder....are you confusing "taxes" with tariffs placed on imports to pay for the War of 1812?
You are not reading my posts, I asked you what percent of segregationists voted for Thurmond...because you brought it up:You asked the percentages, I just don't know, and no one probably does. If not telling you what you want to hear bothers you, well I tell it as is
Um, actually, the whole idea is to cause imports to be more costly than the domestic supply. If they were not purchasing the domestic, then they have no one to blame but themselves.Yes she is.
And those Tariffs hurt the South because they depended upon those products from overseas, and those products now had to be purchased for a higher price due to the tariffs, which had a greater effect on the economy of the south.
Sorry, I missed that, Haymarket. But since she doesn't seem to have a problem repeating her revisionist history, it shouldn't hurt to keep repeating the truth and correcting her whenever and as much as possible.
edit: actually I posted Stephan's quote before you did, which why I missed it. So please don't think I was ignoring you.
This is just a non-sequitur, it is an apology of Confederacy, your usual rhetorical bs.People on both sides of the Mason Dixon had no care for the well being of the black man, nor believed him to be equal to the white man.
They did, however, just a few decades prior to the civil war come to a "moral epiphany" if you will (mostly due to the fact that their industrial economy no longer required slaves) that slavery was "teh evil" (which it is), and thus the south (whose farming economy depended on it) needed to quit it as well.
Slavery and Racism are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. The fact that the North decided to give up slavery shortly before the Civil War doesn't mean they suddenly became non-racist people.
I think somehow through the focus on the South and its slavery, history has attempted to compartmentalize all of this country's racism during the civil war into the south.
This is just a non-sequitur, it is an apology of Confederacy, your usual rhetorical bs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?