Okay, this is the 150th anniversary of the start of succession of the Southern States. It is popular for some southerners to claim that the Civil War was about State's Rights or Southern Pride. On this day I challenge everybody to read the text of the South Carolina Declaration of Succession. Pretty clear the only state right they were concerned about was slavery.
secession
Yeah, it was about slavery, and the displays of the Confederate flag were about opposition to integration in the 1960s.
If South Carolina wants to secede again, fine. In fact, please do.
anton chigurh wrote:
secession
Dammit, I hate that. Thanks for the correction. Wish this board had an edit function.
A book I found at borders states that the south was not only lawful in thier secession but that the north started a war, invaded, and annexed it back. I didnt buy it.
Who attacked Fort Sumter?
Wow There wrote:
Who attacked Fort Sumter?
someone sits on your lawn and doesn't leave, you're not going to go get a shotgun and give them 10 seconds to get off?
There you go.
The South probably would have taken a king thing if that was the way to keep slavery.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Dammit, I hate that. Thanks for the correction. Wish this board had an edit function.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
anton chigurh wrote:secession
Dammit, I hate that. Thanks for the correction. Wish this board had an edit function.
Hey, don't feel bad, you only spelled it wrong 3 or so times, and it was in the title of the article you linked to. Simple typo.
(I support your post on this current thread, but having read some of your other recent posts..... I couldn't resist giving you a hard time)
After the war ended, for 5 years the Union Army butt rammed the cowardly gray militants in prison camps, and turned every young girl out for pleasure. South Carolina became a state of sex resorts for recovering Union soldiers.
Wow, it's awesome to see a classroom full of mentally handicapped kids fight over a box of crayons when not a single one of them has anything to color on anyway.
It was a big deal in New York for horny guys to take sex junket trips to the South for especially male sex in the 1860s.
Wow There wrote:
Who attacked Fort Sumter?
Lincoln did, he had no right occupying a part of a sovereign state that had left the Union. Moreover, nobody died in the "attack" on Fort Sumter, and yet Lincoln killed over 5% of the population of the entire country, maimed more, burdened the country with debt for generations, and improved only the de jure status of blacks, not de facto.
We jacked Dixie and burnt the South down. That was the Union Army of boys of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Massachusetts, Vermont, Ne Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, etc. The Union kicked the confeds ass and got BJs from their wives. Hah hah had. Your women slurp it down well !
Don't forget Wisco, Minn, Iowa, Dakotans joined the Union Army to kill the wimps in the South too. My family has pictures of our relatives who were Union troopers.
The North had to invade the South. Otherwise, how would we get pralines and beignettes?
What do you mean, had no right? The South and North couldn't possibly have peacefully co-existed; the war couldn't have taken the Confederates by surprise.
I'd be hard pressed to name a country that peacefully allowed part of itself to secede.
Ho Hum wrote:
What do you mean, had no right? The South and North couldn't possibly have peacefully co-existed; the war couldn't have taken the Confederates by surprise.
I'd be hard pressed to name a country that peacefully allowed part of itself to secede.
In the scheme of things, the Soviet Union broke apart pretty easily.
What I find so interesting is that US policy seems to be to allow for independent states to pop up, yet when the southern states tried to leave, there was a war. BTW, technically the war from 1861-65 was not a civil war. A civil war involves factions seeking control of the same government/country. The southern states wanted to establish their own country.
Another oddity: everyone today seems to think it was great that the US had a war of independence with GB because of serious and legitimate political issues of how to rule oneself as a land. However, when the southern states invoked a similar idea (that they should be allowed to set their own laws), everyone thinks that was a bad idea.
Slavery was stupid not just from a human rights standpoint (slavery had been going on for pretty much the entire history of mankind) but from an economic standpoint. At some point, the southerners would have realized that paying people to work is far more productive than having to buy and keep slaves. Eventually the practice would have died out on moral grounds as well (as it had in Britain).
Sorry for the rambling. I find this topic interesting albeit I am glad I grew up in the US versus the CSA (being born in Georgia).
I like the idea of an alternative history where Lincoln lets the south secede. What happens? Is there a war over the western lands later? Do any of those territories try to leave for the CSA? Does the CSA have the illegal immigration problems that we have currently? Does the CSA economy remain agrarian? Does MB, BMW, etc put auto plants in the CSA? The good news for the USA would be that Jimmy Carter would never be a US president. You would still likely get Barack though!
South Carolina is one of our most backward states. Perhaps we should treat them more like Haiti. It was just a couple of years ago that you could now buy a drink at a bar w ithout having to buy those minnies. The State had decided that you should not drink more than one minnie at a time. Good to see those right wingers looking out for you.
I believe SC has the third highest ratio of poor in this country. They continue to do well playing the poor whites against the poor blacks.