West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus

[Tigerace117]

Shoot, serfs had more rights than many American workers do today.

I wouldn’t say it’s quite that bad today, but to say serfs had it worse than slaves simply isn’t correct.

 

[Indydave]

The Confederacy EXPLICITLY went to war to protect and defend slavery.

Trying to ignore that is ACTUAL historical ignorance.

yep and until today's Civil War buffs and southern historians man up and admit this they will always be laughing stocks of the nation and the fools they are......

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes, they did, as Americans in the first place.

They chose to wage war against the United States to protect slavery. Textbook treason.

No, the legitimate state authority had succeeded from the constitution. Therefore, no allegiance was owed to the United States.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I wouldn’t say it’s quite that bad today, but to say serfs had it worse than slaves simply isn’t correct.

The material standard of living of an African slave in the south, was higher than that of a serf in Ukraine.

 

[Tigerace117]

No, the legitimate state authority had succeeded from the constitution. Therefore, no allegiance was owed to the United States.

How, exactly, did the US “succeed from the constitution”? Lincoln hadn’t even DONE anything yet when the Confederates rebelled!

Furthermore, abolishing slavery— what the south feared Lincoln would do, and motivated their secession— was not unconstitutional in the first place.

 

[Tigerace117]

The material standard of living of an African slave in the south, was higher than that of a serf in Ukraine.

The serfs, once again, had far more rights than slaves here in the US did.

The fact that serfdom wasn’t good doesn’t change the reality that slavery was far, far worse.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Among other things.

They just don't accept that the real issue was the 10th amendment. It doesn't matter if slavery was that aspect or not. The North was set to take away the south's states rights.

 

[Tigerace117]

They just don't accept that the real issue was the 10th amendment. It doesn't matter if slavery was that aspect or not. The North was set to take away the south's states rights.

Still conveniently ignoring the fact the South gleefully trampled all over the “states rights” they supposedly cared about with the Fugitive Slave Act I see.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

How, exactly, did the US “succeed from the constitution”? Lincoln hadn’t even DONE anything yet when the Confederates rebelled!

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting states from seceding. I mean post-Civil War, we have the concept of victors justice, which was imposed, extra judiciously by the north, that says states cannot do that. But that was not establish before the war.

Furthermore, abolishing slavery— what the south feared Lincoln would do, and motivated their secession— was not unconstitutional in the first place.

I am not arguing that abolishing slavery would’ve been unconstitutional. That is not relevant in this discussion.

 

[Tigerace117]

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting states from seceding. I mean post-Civil War, we have the concept of victors justice, which was imposed, extra judiciously by the north, that says states cannot do that. But that was not establish before the war.

I am not arguing that abolishing slavery would’ve been unconstitutional. That is not relevant in this discussion.

Trying to claim slavery isn’t relevant when the South was EXPLICITLY fighting to defend slavery is pretty funny.

You claimed that the government “succeeded from the constitution”. The government’s actions weren’t unconstitutional in the first place. They had no obligation to hand over federal property to the slavers in the first place, and seeing as there was no secession mechanism in the Constitution, claiming their actions were “unconstitutional” is laughable.

 

[prometeus]

see post 18

Seriously? 50 years later and you think that that is part of history?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Trying to claim slavery isn’t relevant when the South was EXPLICITLY fighting to defend slavery is pretty funny.

I didn’t write that.

You claimed that the government “succeeded from the constitution”. The government’s actions weren’t unconstitutional in the first place.

The state governments legally seceded from the constitution by representative votes of their legislatures

They had no obligation to hand over federal property to the slavers in the first place, and seeing as there was no secession mechanism in the Constitution,

Irrelevant. There’s no constitutional mechanism for “judicial review” either. Somethings are clearly implied

claiming their actions were “unconstitutional” is laughable.

Huh?

 

[Tigerace117]

I didn’t write that.

The state governments legally seceded from the constitution by representative votes of their legislatures

Irrelevant. There’s no constitutional mechanism for “judicial review” either. Somethings are clearly implied

Huh?

Which was still betraying the United States, precisely as no “legal secession” process had ever been been created.

You not liking that fact doesn’t change it.

And furthermore, their attempted secession meant that the US government had even LESS obligation to hand over US property to said slaver regimes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wellll...

View attachment 67428980

I agree they are retards, but also less dangerous to our values than so many organizations on the left.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No it wasn’t. It remained legal in Brazil, Cuba, and Santo Domingo Which represented at the time, the most powerful elements of Latin America. Slavery was also practiced in Peru, despite being officially illegal.

Don't you love it when some people are so ignorant that they think "most" equals "all."

 

[Tigerace117]

Don't you love it when some people are so ignorant that they think "most" equals "all."

Coming from the guy defending slavery that means zilch.

And one independent country plus a couple of colonial regimes does not equal “most of Latin America”

 

[Lord of Planar]

The truth is that nowhere in the Constitution is there anything stating that slavery was to be protected or that opposing it is prohibited.

Facts are facts.

Just because variations of the word "slave" are not found in the constitution, doesn't make your statement facts.

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]

That’s not protection of slavery though. Or anything close.

See my post 517.

 

[Ruby Wizard]

Nope. The North went to war because the South shot first.

They ****ed around, they found out.

And everyone on the side of "The North" you consider to be genocidal monsters because of the Indian Wars. All their descendents, "White Americans" are people you proudly hate today. The feeling was also mutual. You and your ancestors had strict quotas on how many of you were allowed to enter The North before the Hart Celler act.

Whats the point of Buffalo Bill Skinsuit nationalism? This is a legit question Ive never understood people who wear their hatred for Heritage Americans on their sleeve trying to wear Abe Lincoln as a skinsuit. Cmon man, be proud of who you are.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Owning slaves was never a good moral choice

I completely agree with that. Do you think all laws are based on morality?

 

[Tigerace117]

Just because variations of the word "slave" are not found in the constitution, doesn't make your statement facts.

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 in there does it say slavery is to be protected in perpetuity.

Nowhere does it say opposing slavery is forbidden.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The posters in question are trying to argue that slavery was okay because it was legal under the Constitution, and that opposing it was somehow a “constitutional violation”.

Why do you deny facts?

 

[Tigerace117]

See my post 517.

As repeatedly established, that section does not protect slavery.

Try again.

 

[Tigerace117]

Why do you deny facts?

The facts are that the south went to war to defend slavery.

The facts are that there was nothing unconstitutional about opposing slavery.

No matter how much those realities seem to trigger you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As repeatedly established, that section does not protect slavery.

Try again.

We disagree.