re: Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"

quote:

---

There you go again, passing judgement on folks who lived and died over 150 years ago.

---

evil is evil no matter the timeline

quote:

---

read the declarations of secession from each state. it's pretty clear as to why each state decided to leave.

---

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Just mind-boggling. Nobody wanted to get a redneck by actually working.

The North had a lot to answer for when it came to stoking Southern passions. Northern textile mills certainly liked the cheap price of Southern cotton at below market prices, but the big landowners were definitely not suffering in any way due to it.

What the North ended up objecting to ....the straw that broke the camel's back was the Fugitive Slave Law that basically gave Southern bounty hunters free range all over the country to retrieve runaway slaves. On its face it would seem not that big a deal...helping someone retrieve stolen or missing "property". The thing was, that it forced Northerners to actually be complicit in turning over slaves or face prison time. It forced the non slave states to enforce the bondage that they objected to. It led to nullification in places like Wisconsin .

Sometimes little things make big splashes and this was one of them

quote:

---

Hence why they seceded.

---

Another bullshite reply. I am shocked. You wonder why I emoji your bullshite.

quote:

---

Incorrect. It wasn't until the late-19th century that the Republican Party began to adopt this idea.

I do appreciate your ad hoc Wikipedia research though. Most impressive.

---

I wasn't talking about the republican party. I appreciate your assumption though. Most impressive...

quote:

---

And yet you agree with me that the North would have eventually legislated slavery out of existence with the admittance of the western territories as free states into the Union...

---

Slavery, in that form, will eventually be legislated out of every place on earth. Again, just more bullshite that doesn't challenge either of my points.

quote:

---

You are creating a complex narrative to avoid admitting a simple truth, that the south seceded for many political and economic reasons and lincoln was the personification of those issues.

---

quote:

---

Where have I ever avoided this truth? I merely stated that slavery was the primary cause of secession. Which it was.

---

Virtually every reply has been an avoidance of this truth. Before you know it, a confederate space program with the mission of colonizing mars for slavers will be the new "primary issue" of the confederacy. My contention was that with or without slavery, that conflict would have occurred, and I bolstered that statement by showing that the south could have kept slavery and stayed in the union, but chose against it. Then I explained why they would exit the union, suddenly and at great cost, despite having the option to take the most slaver friendly road possible. The one offered by Lincoln. The reasons are numerous, and are not merely extensions of the legal ownership of slaves.

Your rebuttal to that was that the south wanted to expand slavery in the future, so they left the union and started a war with a competing nation with the long-shot hope that they could compete with the much more powerful union for those regions. Of course that is a stretch by even a basic analysis. Even more so when one can read formal and informal documents outlining the much more pressing issues, complaints, and predictions of those living in the south. Many of which were realized days into Lincoln's presidency, during the war, and after the war. You haven't addressed any of those points, but instead chose to focus on the racism of a Georgia resident, and largely independent and extremely small scale incursions into south America. You ignored Georgia's formal letter outlining specific injustices against the slaveholding states and those not tied to seafaring and industrial interests. A huge portion of that document had nothing specifically to do with the rights of the slave owners and slave states, but general discontent with the aforementioned interests that could not be solved politically due to a large scale shift in political power in all three branches. A shift most obvious when Abe won office without appearing on the ballot of 10 southern states. You boil all of that down primarily to slavery, when the evidence is that slavery was one aspect of reason for secession.

quote:

---

Obviously the South can't expand westward once they have seceded. Hence why they had the Latin America plan in their back pocket. Once war was enjoined the dynamic changed. If they had come out on top there was a good possibility they could have held onto the Arizona territory as well as gained control of the New Mexico territories from the Union.

---

There is no possibility, because as you said, the dynamic changed in a very predictable way. As I argued, this "back pocket" plan was out of necessity AFTER they seceded, they did not secede in order to overtake South American geography, or to preserve slavery. To believe that this was the South's primary reason for secession is to ignore an enormous amount of other very important political and economic reasons, some of which I have already covered.

quote:

---

One trying to get out and be left alone, one trying to force their way in and be catered to. Pretty simple and big difference that should be easy to see.

---

So...are Mexican descendants from territories won in Mexican-American war allowed to fly the Mexican flag without your judgement?

After all, it is their heritage.

quote:

---

still didn't make it moral

---

was it considered moral then, though?

I mean, on the cusp of the war the anti-slavery sentiment was probably getting pretty loud. . . But again, you are labeling something using modern morality.

You won't find any ignorant rant about "Export cotton taxes" in BCF. Ignorance is definitely bliss I guess.

quote:

---

I mean, on the cusp of the war the anti-slavery sentiment was probably getting pretty loud. . . But again, you are labeling something using modern morality.

---

By 1860, moral opinion around the world was flowing strongly against human chattel slavery. Except, to steal a phrase of Churchill's - in the abodes of the guilty.

quote:

---

was it considered moral then, though?

---

of course not.

quote:

---

modern morality.

---

is a cop out.