Was the Civil War about Slavery?

Acton Institute, Prager University ^ | 8/11/2015 | Joe Carter

[TexasTransplant]

Slavery is still the Issue, it is just a matter of %
Today...
If you are on Welfare and Food Stamps (EBT) Medicare or caid Fixed Income or SS ... sorry pal 100% Slave
If you work, 15% - 75% Slave (Obamacare adds ? %)
Our Kids, their kids and their kids 75% plus ... just by being born because of our debt.
I self identify as a “Free Man” so the crap above does not apply. I did my part to try and stop it, now I am going Galt and I will be left alone or else. (I may be more gone than going) My boundaries are posted, protected and must be observed.
I don’t consider my actions to be an OPUS or a withdrawal just self preservation. (If I was 20 years younger a far different path would be taken)
PS If anyone wishes to walk the path that I am on themselves, my first advice would be to buy Shovels, practice, practice, practice with them and when you need it you will instinctively perform

[wardaddy]

To some degree yes

The expansion of it

Why would one of the forums premier member of the Neo yankee Dixie is no Better than Nazi Germany circle jerk.....

Ask such a stupid question that you already know the answer to?

are you so bored?

Join a Trump thread but alas I’ve noticed many of you cretins hate The Donald

But given Mr Thompson like The Donald’s play right now you guys have to kinda timid about it

It’s like those commercials ......priceless....lol

Another weird coincidence I noticed was how many south bashers here dig open season unlimited bag on outlaw bikers

You learn a lot about human nature on this here site doncha?

[DoodleDawg]

A rebuttal worthy of your knowledge and understanding of this subject.

And the only answer that your post deserved.

[central_va]

Seems to me most of these southern bashers and perverters of US history turn out to be flaming liberals. They post on a thread about the US Civil War; their crazy talk; with seeming impunity. However these yellow bellied cowards will not answer simple questions about their core beliefs. So why is that?

It seems these people have an agenda, they might even be paid with the ferocity and amount of time they spend here it is only logical to assume that. There goal is to tear down the culture and history if the South the last bastion of real America. They will lie cheat and slander all day long to do it.

---

So Dawg, it is my opinion you are a liberal and a Democrat. So will you answer a few simple questions?

Regarding the repeal of DADT a few years ago, are you in favor of gays openly serving in the military? Also the latest Obamanation, are you in favor of transvestites serving in the military?

[central_va]

There goal = Their goal (need coffee )

[DoodleDawg]

Seems to me most of these southern bashers and perverters of US history turn out to be flaming liberals.

Au contraire, mon frere. In the words of the esteemed blogger, Kevin "Coach" Collins, "The Civil War was fought over slavery. Only duplicitous liberal apologists say otherwise and their presentations are not very convincing." And by his own admission, Coach Is Right. So I can hardly be a "flaming liberal" if you are a "duplicitous liberal apologist". From a Blue State.

[central_va]

Just answer my two simple questions.

[R. Scott]

I’m not in favor of either one.

[central_va]

I’ll bet DoodleDawg is.

[DoodleDawg]

A betting man, huh? Well stay away from Vegas.

[central_va]

You are a coward. Just like you to dodge a simple question or two. Can’t you just lie and say you are against the repeal of DADT so you can continue to pretend to be a conservative poster on Free Republic? What’s with that? Pride?

[ought-six]

I’m talking about Joe Carter. He wrote the article, and all iowahawk did was to provid the link, sans any comment. Thus, the only post (i.e., comment or narrative) was Joe Carter’s.

[DiogenesLamp]

People have tried to explain to you why they believe that the Union had a right to maintain the integrity of the USA, but you have rejected that reasoning and so you continue to believe as you believe.

The difference between your position and mine is that I have no cognitive dissonance between what happened in 1776 and what happened in 1861. My position consistently applies the same principle to both eras. Yours does not.

Your position applies one set of rules to 1776, and a completely different and subjective set of rules to 1861. You have yourselves believing two opposite and contradictory things, both of which cannot be true.

It is actually a fascinating psychological dichotomy, and it is eerily reminiscent of the same sort of mental bait and switch Liberals do routinely with everything else.

And, that’s okay. It’s okay that you disagree with other people about this matter and it’s okay that you’re unhappy with the way in which our history unfolded. It shouldn’t shock you to learn that I am unhappy with some of the things that happened in our nation’s history, too. It’s all very normal to feel that way.

As I have mentioned before, it is not a consequence of my being "unhappy with some of the things that happened in our nation's history", from my perspective it is more serious than that. The US FedGov is a "Titanic", and the math says it's going to sink.

We are being told we have to go down with the ship because years ago they fought a war about the right to leave, and the subjugation side won.

This is no comfort to those of us who want to escape the sinking should the need arise. We are less concerned with how bad things happened 150 years ago than we are that as a consequence of those bad things which happened 150 years ago, we too will be forced to undergo bad things happening in the present.

In other words, what happened 150 years ago in the past is used today as a justification for a suicide pact. This puts a man in the awkward position of having to rehabilitate the bad press of the previous attempts to become independent in order to justify an assertion of the same principle today.

That I am unhappy that 600 thousand people were unnecessarily killed 150 years ago is completely beside the point.

[rockrr]

I see DegenerateLamp is doing its Liberal Projection™ thing again.

[DiogenesLamp]

In other words, when it suits your purpose you tell us how different the 19th century was from the 21st and when it suits your purpose they're very similar.

The bad parts of that era are the same bad parts we are facing today. Moral busybodies trying to reconstruct society according to their newly enlightened liberal ideas, and using the power of government to do it.

That part is seemingly eternal in human history. As for the differences? Yes, the societies of that time period and the societies of today are very different in terms of motivation and understanding.

Everyone believed in God back then and tried to be moral as they understood the concept. Today, many do not believe in God, nor do they try to be moral, but they are still trying to force their new "morality" (actually the lack thereof) on the rest of us.

[DoodleDawg]

Oh go ahead and send me another nasty email calling me all sorts of names. You know you want to and it’ll probably make you feel better.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sure seems to me the South was defending slavery. You have to take them at their word.

1.7% of the population owned slaves. So yeah, of course the other 98.3% of the population which did not, were fighting to protect the interests of that 1.7%.

It's not like they would have any other reason for trying to kill people that invade their state with an army.

[DiogenesLamp]

I find it amazing that you have the arrogance to call Lee a bad general because his odds of winning were poor and he therefore should have rejected the fight.

I guess the concept of doing the right thing even though your odds of success are bad is an alien concept to you?

Lee fought for his state and the coalition of which it was a part without regard for his disagreement with their decision to leave. In those days, your "state" was very much like your country, and you might just as well criticize the Poles for fighting against the Nazi war machine. Their odds were poor too, and the effort was ultimately futile.

[DiogenesLamp]

Au contraire, mon frere. In the words of the esteemed blogger, Kevin "Coach" Collins, "The Civil War was fought over slavery. Only duplicitous liberal apologists say otherwise and their presentations are not very convincing." And by his own admission, Coach Is Right. So I can hardly be a "flaming liberal" if you are a "duplicitous liberal apologist". From a Blue State.

Maybe he's never seen this letter from Abraham Lincoln demonstrating that he was willing to continue slavery, and so therefore he does not know what he's talking about?

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Someone should show him that letter and set him straight. A lot of people have been taught wrong history, and it's really not their fault.

[rockrr]

I still hold Lee in the great warrior category even though I thoroughly reject his motivations. You will find some thimble-brains that say that people regarded their respective state like we regard our nation today but that’s a cop-out. In truth you can point to the aftermath of the War of 1812 as the beginning of the point where people held our nation in highest regard.

Of course the nitwits who make such invalid comparisons are also inclined to conflate motivations of one period onto another in idiotic analogies.