re: Let's have a nice American Civil War argument

quote:

---

but all the North had to do was allow us to peaceably exit the Union

---

Negative... there was no breaking up the Union. Do you really think the United States would have become the juggernaut it is now if the Union had broken up? No. Sherman torched your arse, you lost.

And no... I do not care about the statues, I think paying to take them down is asinine

quote:

---

Well until that Fort Sumter thing.

---

I don’t think you understand that the Southerners tried to get the Northerners to leave that post. They wouldn’t, and as it was on South Carolina property, and of the South, Beauregard was left with not many options as to expelling them.

quote:

---

We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone."

---

quote:

---

Well until that Fort Sumter thing.

---

they were trespassing

I know that

Even if a peaceful secession was allowed, war would have been inevitable due to territorial claims of the unsettled regions of the continental US.

The South was asking the USA to simply allow the nation to be split in half wrecking the economies on both sides of the border.

What should have happened is cooler, less prideful heads of all states should have gotten together and cobbled out a negotiated settlement keeping the USA intact. Both sides are to blame for that not happening and millions paid the price.

A lesson should be learned from the Civil War that still resonates today. When you start to see your fellow countrymen no longer as human beings but as political metaphors deserving to be stamped out, bad things happen.

Cornerstone Speech

quote:

---

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

---

quote:

---

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

---

quote:

---

It's almost as if even the Southern leaders weren't fighting for slavery.

---

quote:

---

Thats because they weren't.

---

What???? Yes they were. What, are you trying to say they were fighting for "state's rights"? The "states rights" idea is completely wrong. The states rights argument is centered around the state's right to choose to have slavery. The states didn't want to give up slavery for economic reasons (plantation labor) and because they felt they were racially superior to slaves. Many plantations couldn't afford to pay workers to perform the work needed to harvest the product and maintain anywhere near the same profit level. GTFO with the idea they weren't fighting for slavery. idk what your teachers were teaching you... and I was educated in the south... smh

quote:

---

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

---

Yet Southerners argue the war wasn't about the preservation of slavery...

Should those words be the cornerstone of the CSA today, we may no longer see slavery but we certainly would continue to see Jim Crow style segregation.

Well, Longstreet said (paraphrase)”I never heard anyone say any other reason than slavery”.

Also, Alexander Stevens blatantly said: “

quote:

---

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split'. He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.

---