quote:
"preservation of slavery" is always a broad scope and dog whistling for the North saying "we'd like to take a major part of your income and (ill begotten via the 3/5 compromise) political power so that the north has power financially and politically over the south."

This looks like reasons why slaveholding states wanted to keep slavery intact. I don't disagree that these are reasons why southern states chose secession. But it does mean slavery caused secession. BTW - Slaves were 3/5 but freed slaves are 5/5; thus, more political power if slaves were free.

quote:
the north wanted to to cripple the south for politics and that's fairly well documented more than their concern for slaves.

Assuming without conceding that this is true, the Articles of Secession make barely any reference to it. What they do reference, and clearly do so, is preservation of slavery.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by 3nOut

Central Texas, TX

Member since Jan 2013

29129 posts

Posted on 1/22/24 at 1:55 pm to Salviati

i wasn't saying slavery didn't cause secession. going down that line of reasoning is always stupid to me. of course it's always over slavery.

i'm saying that the north wanting to take away slavery via the federal route without the south having any say in it is why they did secede.

not directing this at you, but people spend too much time arguing the morality of slavery for the reason as opposed to somebody in NYC getting to tell somebody in Alabama what they can do.

if the south had all the voting power now and managed to outlaw public transportation and multitenant housing, the north would be in an uproar, rightfully so.

we are ok with the outcome because we mostly agree with the moral results

This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 2:00 pm

2 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board