West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus

[Lord of Planar]

Well it's certainly refreshing to hear a conservative admit that the Confederate states seceded over the issue of slavery. That wasn't so hard was it? I hope you speak up the next time a conservative denies it, hearing the truth from another conservative might help them face reality...

Slavery was maybe the trigger, taxation and other events preceded that. When you add enough smaller numbers together, you get a large enough number of states to decide to secede.

Shouldn't we ask ourselves what other motives there were instead of ignorantly pinning it all on slavery?

 

[Tigerace117]

So what. Doesn't the constitution matter to you?

The remedy happened with the 13th to 15th amendments. It was done the right way then.

It is treasonous in my opinion to violate the constitution because you don't like it. Changing the constitution is the right way to do it.

Right now, we have a civil war in Ukraine, that may develop into WWIII because Ukraine violated their own constitution almost 10 years ago.


But it legally happened. What is wrong with you thinking I like slavery? Is that the only way you think you can win an argument of history? I am only saying it was constitutionally accepted back then.


That most certainly was in play, but it was their constitutional right.

How can you sit there, take the higher ground, while supporting the violation of the constitution.

You are really on the wrong side here. You change the constitution. Not violate it.

Please provide the exact portion of the constitution where it says slavery is to be protected in perpetuity. Or that it’s prohibited to oppose slavery.

Nowhere?

It doesn’t exist?

Then howling “but it was legal at one point” means zilch.

Gee, you mean like the South did?

You keep babbling about an imaginary “violation of the constitution” without being able to elaborate what this supposed violation was in the first place.

And the guy defending slavery has no room to accuse others of being on the “wrong side”.

 

[Tigerace117]

Yes, by many it was. Why on earth do you think you are saying something we don't already know?

That opposition to that degree came almost 100 years after our nation was formed.

Bullshit. Stop shitting on the constitution.

Yet the 13th to 15th amendments were needed.

Irrelevant. The CSA’s secession to protect slavery happened at a time when global opinion was opposed to slavery.

More hysterical babbling about supposed “constitutional violations”. Here’s an hint: actual constitutional violations are things like going to war to protect slavery.

Because the south chose to go to war to protect slavery. Duh.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please provide the exact portion of the constitution where it says slavery is to be protected in perpetuity. Or that it’s prohibited to oppose slavery.

Why does this matter? The constitution did have the 2/3rds compromise, and following the constitution was the Fugitive slave acts, the second on was in 1850.

It was law. Even if all this was removed, there was still the 10th amendment.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Irrelevant. The CSA’s secession to protect slavery happened at a time when global opinion was opposed to slavery.

More hysterical babbling about supposed “constitutional violations”. Here’s an hint: actual constitutional violations are things like going to war to protect slavery.

Because the south chose to go to war to protect slavery. Duh.

Opinions do not supersede law.

What is wrong with you lefties?

 

[Tigerace117]

Why does this matter? The constitution did have the 2/3rds compromise, and following the constitution was the Fugitive slave acts, the second on was in 1850.

It was law. Even if all this was removed, there was still the 10th amendment.

The Fugitive Slave Acts?

You mean the acts which trampled all over the supposed “states’ rights” you claim to care about?

Please provide the exact portion of the constitution where it says slavery is to be protected in perpetuity. Or that it’s prohibited to oppose slavery.

If it doesn’t exist—which it doesn’t—then there is absolutely nothing wrong with opposing slavery on any level.

 

[Tigerace117]

Opinions do not supersede law.

What is wrong with you lefties?

The guy frantically trying to defend slavery because “it was legal” has no room to talk.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Have you read Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution?

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.​

Seems to be covered here.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The guy frantically trying to defend slavery because “it was legal” has no room to talk.

LOL...

You love law-breakers huh?

 

[Tigerace117]

LOL...

You love law-breakers huh?

Again, you are defending slavery.

Real mask off moment for you bud.

 

[Tigerace117]

Have you read Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution?

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.​

Seems to be covered here.

Nowhere does that say slavery is to be protected in perpetuity.

Nowhere does it say opposition to slavery is forbidden.

Try again.

 

[SoCal]

Slavery was maybe the trigger, taxation and other events preceded that. When you add enough smaller numbers together, you get a large enough number of states to decide to secede.

Shouldn't we ask ourselves what other motives there were instead of ignorantly pinning it all on slavery?

Well you're right there were many factors, fears and motivations, slavery just sums them all up. The secession commissioners "...argued not only for the need to protect ownership of slave labor; they also warned against bloody slave insurrections likely to result from abolitionist interference in the South and, should slavery be abolished, revengeful attacks by the formerly enslaved on their former masters. They spoke as well of miscegenation and threats to Southern womanhood."

The bottom line is that they we just trying to protect and continue their way of life but their way of life was built on the back of slavery and it could not continue on without it. In the end after the war and reconstruction thanks to their poll taxes, literacy tests and the rise of the KKK, southern whites basically stripped the rights blacks were guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, so their fears were way overblown. Also because slaves were an expensive item, white racists always faced and feared the consequences of abusing or murdering one, after the war many wouldn't think twice about abusing or murdering a dirt poor former slave...

 

[Citizen]

Slavery was maybe the trigger, taxation and other events preceded that. When you add enough smaller numbers together, you get a large enough number of states to decide to secede.

Shouldn't we ask ourselves what other motives there were instead of ignorantly pinning it all on slavery?

It was about who was willing to fight to preserve slavery. Slavery was the economy in the south, all else came along with it. Even people who did not live on plantations own slaves. They were not willing to give up their wealth.

 

[Ouroboros]

Another round of Lost Cause hysterics. Hate to break it to you but seeing as the English treated the Irish in the exact same way your blubbering means exactly zilch....and btw, the Russians were FAR harsher on the Poles than the North was on the South. So too, in fact, were the Prussians and Austrians, both of whom would have mobilized to support the Russians in suppressing the Poles. Your persecution complex and historical ignorance continue to amuse, keep it up

And furthermore, the Polish uprising you keep crying about?

It started in 1863.

Halfway through the Civil War.

Which means that trying to use it as an excuse for the entire globe refusing to recognize your slaver heroes is downright hysterical

Of course, your squealing can’t change the fact that the regime you admire so much went to war to try and save slavery.

You can indeed blubber about how much you admire the CSA, how horrified you are that your slaver heroes failed to protect the “peculiar institution”, and how “tyrannical” you think it was that slavery was crushed. No amount of Lost Cause wailing can change the facts

More stupid lies, since I've never said I admired the CSA. I said that the North tried to marginalize the South for their own power and profit, and in our every encounter you've tried to deflect from that basic truth by shifting your argument to how terrible the South was, just as you did here. Classic whataboutism.

Another deflection: first you try to argue that Russian defense of the Union didn't make any difference to the rest of Europe, as if it was like no threat at all. Then, suddenly you bring up an irrelevant claim that the Poles were treated worse than the American South. What's that got to do with the fact that Russia helped the Union for their own counter-revolutionary reasons, and why would it matter when the interference took place? The parallel is that Europe turned their backs on both the South and the Polish people to save themselves trouble, not out of the high moral dudgeon you've conjured up out of nowhere.

You're hilarious when you try to project your political animus onto the past, though, just like the idiots who want statues torn down to virtue signal.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hmmm.
Well..lets just ignore the fact that we are talking about slavery of human beings.
Somehow I doubt if your 14 year old daughter had been called to go to masters room to sexually service master...you would be so nonchalant with " so what".

But..what shredding of the constitution.
When the southern states rebelled they did so though the federal government had done nothing to stop slavery in their respective states.
Instead the south was upset that the federal goverent would not force tge north and western states to abide by what the southern states wanted.
It was the south that shredded the constitution.

Why do you hate the constitution so much?

Where do you get this idea that the new states would have been forced to do something the southern states wanted? Examples, please. Hint: the Missouri Compromise was long dead by the time war was declared.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope, that was the South that did that.

Only in la-la land one anyone believe that to be the only reason. And again, you change the subject when the North is attacked, just as you do when anyone attacks Russia.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not a single country ever recognized the CSA as independent. Even at the time going to war to protect slavery was seen as utterly vile. You being unable to accept that fact can’t change it.

Hate to break it to you but that isn’t actually an excuse for slavery.

Nope, it absolutely was the South’s desperate effort to protect slavery.

Show us some examples of politicians refusing to recognize the South because they said slavery was utterly vile.

 

[Ouroboros]

Even in the 1860s going to war to protect slavery, as the CSA did, was seen as vile. You are wailing about using “modern standards” to judge the CSA when the standards OF THE DAY opposed them?

Guess what? “It was technically legal” is irrelevant. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say slavery is to be protected in perpetuity. It was an incredibly evil system which the South went to war to protect.

The Constitution also does not say that the Union is perpetual, but that hasn't stopped any Libs who want to use perpetuity as a club with which to beat the South.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well you're right there were many factors, fears and motivations, slavery just sums them all up. The secession commissioners "...argued not only for the need to protect ownership of slave labor; they also warned against bloody slave insurrections likely to result from abolitionist interference in the South and, should slavery be abolished, revengeful attacks by the formerly enslaved on their former masters. They spoke as well of miscegenation and threats to Southern womanhood."

The bottom line is that they we just trying to protect and continue their way of life but their way of life was built on the back of slavery and it could not continue on without it. In the end after the war and reconstruction thanks to their poll taxes, literacy tests and the rise of the KKK, southern whites basically stripped the rights blacks were guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, so their fears were way overblown. Also because slaves were an expensive item, white racists always faced and feared the consequences of abusing or murdering one, after the war many wouldn't think twice about abusing or murdering a dirt poor former slave...

And the Black Codes of the North made certain to keep all the freed Blacks in the South, so that they wouldn't be competitors for White labor in other states.

 

[Ouroboros]

Please provide the exact portion of the constitution where it says slavery is to be protected in perpetuity. Or that it’s prohibited to oppose slavery.

Nowhere?

It doesn’t exist?

Then howling “but it was legal at one point” means zilch.

Gee, you mean like the South did?

You keep babbling about an imaginary “violation of the constitution” without being able to elaborate what this supposed violation was in the first place.

And the guy defending slavery has no room to accuse others of being on the “wrong side”.

Slavery remained legal during the entirety of the Civil War; emancipation applied only to the seceding states.

 

[Ouroboros]

Irrelevant. The CSA’s secession to protect slavery happened at a time when global opinion was opposed to slavery.

More hysterical babbling about supposed “constitutional violations”. Here’s an hint: actual constitutional violations are things like going to war to protect slavery.

Because the south chose to go to war to protect slavery. Duh.

Show where the Constitution says that states do not have the right to secede, whatever the motive might be.

Lincoln pulled the Union's perpetuity out of his ass.

 

[Ouroboros]

Opinions do not supersede law.

What is wrong with you lefties?

Pretty much everything.

 

[vegas giants]

Show where the Constitution says that states do not have the right to secede, whatever the motive might be.

Lincoln pulled the Union's perpetuity out of his ass.

They can secede. But if they fire on US troops then it's war

 

[ColdHardTruth]

So what.

Slavery was legal and a protected constitutional right.

Why do you lefties like to shred the constitution?

No respect for the first, second, fourth, tenth amendments. What other parts of the constitution do you hate?

Slavery was NOT in the constitution.

How Does the Constitution Deal With Enslavement?

Throughout its history, the U.S. Constitution has both upheld the rights of states that practice enslavement and prohibited the institution nationally.

www.thoughtco.com

The south firmly believed the slaves were their property and left the union after Lincoln was elected. The words "slave" and "slavery" do not appear in the constitution.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

They can secede. But if they fire on US troops then it's war

This would require the approval of both houses of congress and will never happen.

The fact that some states in the south make this threat is evidence they are not loyal to the USA anyway.