Statue of Confederate General R.E.Lee Removed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: The3murph
Why shouldn't slavery been allowed in the territory that was won from Mexico?

I know, right! People should be able to enslave other people without care.

Let me know how much you want for the wife and kids. I'm feeling pimpish.

Slavery was as legal as breathing. Why can some property be carried anywhere and some not? See the Dred Scott Decision by Chief Justice Robert Taney.

a reply to: The3murph

No you're right. The president didn't have the power, but the republicans did.
But, like I said, Lincoln was a master of words and a good leader.

it doesn't matter how much you attempt to make the north look like they were the aggressors, Davis said some rather nasty stuff about the African American population, and did not see past the idea of moving away from physical manual labor. Hence why the south lost big time, and the cotton gin was such a turning point and well known piece of machinery.
Davis wasn't dumb, but he sure did have some crazy ideas of his tropical empire full of slaves. He was short sighted.

originally posted by: The3murph
Slavery was as legal as breathing.

That makes it sooo much better! Truly.

I think we should roll back more laws, those stupid women shouldn't be voting either. Just gums up the process.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So you agree that the actions of a few reflect on the majority then?

How right wing of you...

ETA:

1860 census begs to differ on the pop

U.S. Resident Population: 31,443,321

Effect the majority...I don't know about reflect..

You definitely can't blame those born in later generations, but the people who pursfully orcastreated and perpetrated it, such as those raised as the children of plantation owners..

But you gotta grade all that stuff on a curve anyway...

Your average abolitionist back then was far more racist than your average kkk member today..

All of our ancestors were horrible people , sacking cities and torturing slaves.. all of them... or near enough to say all of them.

The one reason imho back people deserve any leeway is because of the still felt immediate ramifications..

No black American before the last MAYBE 2 generations recieved ANY benefit from his forfathers labor...

None inherited a buisness, nor property, nor trust fund nor anything else.

Obviously that doesn't go away instantly..

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: The3murph

No you're right. The president didn't have the power, but the republicans did.
But, like I said, Lincoln was a master of words and a good leader.

it doesn't matter how much you attempt to make the north look like they were the aggressors, Davis said some rather nasty stuff about the African American population, and did not see past the idea of moving away from physical manual labor. Hence why the south lost big time, and the cotton gin was such a turning point and well known piece of machinery.
Davis wasn't dumb, but he sure did have some crazy ideas of his tropical empire full of slaves. He was short sighted.

Again you ruin a decent post with just an astonishing lack of facts or understanding. The cotton gin CAUSED the explosion of the dying institution of slavery. It became ENORMOUSLY profitable to grow cotton after the invention of the cotton gin. A servant could produce one bale of cotton per day when done by hand. The cotton gin made it possible to produce in one hour what several servants could produce in a DAY. Without the cotton gin you probably don't have war.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: The3murph
Slavery was as legal as breathing.

That makes it sooo much better! Truly.

I think we should roll back more laws, those stupid women shouldn't be voting either. Just gums up the process.

It was a classic case of property rights. You don't have to like what the property WAS but an unbiased observer sees it for what it was. The national government does not have the power to seize your property without compensation.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: The3murph

No you're right. The president didn't have the power, but the republicans did.
But, like I said, Lincoln was a master of words and a good leader.

it doesn't matter how much you attempt to make the north look like they were the aggressors, Davis said some rather nasty stuff about the African American population, and did not see past the idea of moving away from physical manual labor. Hence why the south lost big time, and the cotton gin was such a turning point and well known piece of machinery.
Davis wasn't dumb, but he sure did have some crazy ideas of his tropical empire full of slaves. He was short sighted.

Davis didn't say anything nastier about the Black population than Abraham Lincoln did.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Abraham Lincoln
Charleston, Illinois
1859

originally posted by: The3murph

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: The3murph

No you're right. The president didn't have the power, but the republicans did.
But, like I said, Lincoln was a master of words and a good leader.

it doesn't matter how much you attempt to make the north look like they were the aggressors, Davis said some rather nasty stuff about the African American population, and did not see past the idea of moving away from physical manual labor. Hence why the south lost big time, and the cotton gin was such a turning point and well known piece of machinery.
Davis wasn't dumb, but he sure did have some crazy ideas of his tropical empire full of slaves. He was short sighted.

Again you ruin a decent post with just an astonishing lack of facts or understanding. The cotton gin CAUSED the explosion of the dying institution of slavery. It became ENORMOUSLY profitable to grow cotton after the invention of the cotton gin. A servant could produce one bale of cotton per day when done by hand. The cotton gin made it possible to produce in one hour what several servants could produce in a DAY. Without the cotton gin you probably don't have war.

You're missing the point.

The reason why the north wiped the floor with the south was because of the military industrial complex. Lee as amazing of a general and commander he was could not save the south for the life of him.
What I was getting at is that the south was based off of slave labor, they were not willing to change with the times.
And Davis the front man of the south who was a known racist made sure the south was KNOWN for that, even if the people from the south did not agree.

Also, to address another post of yours regarding Davis Vs Lincoln, I made a quote earlier, I think a page before this. Go read it, Davis was far more inhumane about slavery than Lincoln ever was.

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: The3murph

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: The3murph

No you're right. The president didn't have the power, but the republicans did.
But, like I said, Lincoln was a master of words and a good leader.

it doesn't matter how much you attempt to make the north look like they were the aggressors, Davis said some rather nasty stuff about the African American population, and did not see past the idea of moving away from physical manual labor. Hence why the south lost big time, and the cotton gin was such a turning point and well known piece of machinery.
Davis wasn't dumb, but he sure did have some crazy ideas of his tropical empire full of slaves. He was short sighted.

Again you ruin a decent post with just an astonishing lack of facts or understanding. The cotton gin CAUSED the explosion of the dying institution of slavery. It became ENORMOUSLY profitable to grow cotton after the invention of the cotton gin. A servant could produce one bale of cotton per day when done by hand. The cotton gin made it possible to produce in one hour what several servants could produce in a DAY. Without the cotton gin you probably don't have war.

You're missing the point.

The reason why the north wiped the floor with the south was because of the military industrial complex. Lee as amazing of a general and commander he was could not save the south for the life of him.
What I was getting at is that the south was based off of slave labor, they were not willing to change with the times.
And Davis the front man of the south who was a known racist made sure the south was KNOWN for that, even if the people from the south did not agree.

Also, to address another post of yours regarding Davis Vs Lincoln, I made a quote earlier, I think a page before this. Go read it, Davis was far more inhumane about slavery than Lincoln ever was.

"the north wiped the floor with the South" The casualty differential would show that to be false. As long as the odds were anywhere CLOSE to even we WHIPPED the yankee. 3-1 was ok but when it got to 6-1 no amount of valor and bravery can endure. "Quantity has a quality of its own."

Give Robert E. Lee the advantages of the north, Lee turned down command of the entire union army in 1861, and that war is over in a summer. It wasn't over in a summer because of the superior leadership of the Confederates and the fighting qualities of the Southern Soldier.

Davis and Lincoln were both White Supremacists as was 99.99999% of the American population at that time. You are haggling over degrees.

originally posted by: The3murph
It was a classic case of property rights.

Which, in retrospect, is why it was good that the South got its ass handed to it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: The3murph
It was a classic case of property rights.

Which, in retrospect, is why it was good that the South got its ass handed to it.

Yep. 400,000 of you yankee scum defile the sacred soil of the South with the presence of your bones.

originally posted by: The3murph
Yep. 400,000 of you yankee scum defile the sacred soil of the South with the presence of your bones.

Sorry, not a Yankee, my family came here long after the Civil War where Lee earned his participation trophy statue.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: The3murph
Yep. 400,000 of you yankee scum defile the sacred soil of the South with the presence of your bones.

Sorry, not a Yankee, my family came here long after the Civil War where Lee earned his participation trophy statue.

Then your opinion about The Cause and our brave and gallant Men In Gray doesn't matter a "pinch of owl dung".

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: The3murph
Slavery was as legal as breathing.

That makes it sooo much better! Truly.

I think we should roll back more laws, those stupid women shouldn't be voting either. Just gums up the process.

There's a *bit* of a difference between a law and an amendment to the Constitution, just FYI.

originally posted by: The3murph
Then your opinion about The Cause and our brave and gallant Men In Gray doesn't matter a "pinch of owl dung".

Sad to inform you that my opinion does matter, bigly.

Otherwise you wouldn't be going back and forth with me about Robert E. Lee's second place statue.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
There's a *bit* of a difference between a law and an amendment to the Constitution, just FYI.

That's nice. Maybe you can tell the other poster that since he's cool with owning other human beings and seems to be experiencing a touch of rectal discomfort from the outcome of the War of Southern Stupidity.

a reply to: The3murph

Everyone back then was a flaming racist that would give your average modern day kkk member pause..

That's really not even debatable.

The question was did the south sucede over the FEAR of losing slavery...

and I infasized FEAR, because Lincoln had absolutely no desire to abolish slavery..

The southern fire eaters hyped everyone up over an issue that would not otherwise have been addressed.

It was the antebellum South's "they are coming to get your guns!!!!"

When no one has ever even seriously contemplated Gun confiscation because it would be political suicde and a disaster..

A very specific group of elite southern arisoctates used propaganda to attempt to take power and failed.

Fairly miserably..

originally posted by: The3murph

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: The3murph
Yep. 400,000 of you yankee scum defile the sacred soil of the South with the presence of your bones.

Sorry, not a Yankee, my family came here long after the Civil War where Lee earned his participation trophy statue.

Then your opinion about The Cause and our brave and gallant Men In Gray doesn't matter a "pinch of owl dung".

Brave allnd gallant traitors in gray..

Duped into a stupid war over the fear of something that never hapoens, if they don't start said war...

Or atleast doesn't happen anytime soon....

No the south was not right. The south was a bunch of losers that lost.

a reply to: The3murph

originally posted by: Luceononuro
a reply to: olaru12

Oh, Really? Do tell me how the south was carried on the backs of barely a couple hundred thousand blacks. Around 1% of "the south" owned slaves. Logical fallacy much?

www.history.com...

Sorry, that's a common myth. This also debunks the idea that the southern states seceded over states rights rather than slavery and that African Americans fought for the confederacy. They were actually prohibited from joining.

Myth #3: Only a small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

Closely related to Myth #2, the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were men of modest means rather than large plantation owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery. The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas).