[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593398]Obviously not if he is teaching you Lincoln was only in it to fuck the South. North Carolina, by the way, was a state slave that was part of the confederacy, and is a southern state that is as victim to the "southern pride" bias that most southern states share.
So actually review your shit with another source.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://lmgtfy.com/?q=my+paramount+object+in+this+struggle+is+to+save+the+Union%2C+and+it+is+not+either+to+save+or+destroy+slavery%2C+If+I+could+save+the+Union+without+freeing+any+slave%2C+I+would+do+it%2C+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+all+the+slaves%2C+I+would+do+it%3B+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+some+and+leaving+others+alone+I+would+also+do+that[/url]
There's about 3,660 sources for you.
[url]https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=my+paramount+object+in+this+struggle+is+to+save+the+Union%2C+and+it+is+not+either+to+save+or+destroy+slavery%2C+If+I+could+save+the+Union+without+freeing+any+slave%2C+I+would+do+it%2C+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+all+the+slaves%2C+I+would+do+it%3B+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+some+and+leaving+others+alone+I+would+also+do+that[/url]
[QUOTE=OvB;33593386]Well even in the bible belt we learn that Lincoln was an abolitionist and wanted to re-unify the country. He did't do it to fuck the south.[/QUOTE]
Lincoln was not an abolitionist and said himself that freeing slaves was a war measure.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593411]Where does it say that?[/QUOTE]
You don't prove negatives.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593413][url]http://lmgtfy.com/?q=my+paramount+object+in+this+struggle+is+to+save+the+Union%2C+and+it+is+not+either+to+save+or+destroy+slavery%2C+If+I+could+save+the+Union+without+freeing+any+slave%2C+I+would+do+it%2C+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+all+the+slaves%2C+I+would+do+it%3B+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+some+and+leaving+others+alone+I+would+also+do+that[/url]
There's about 3,660 sources for you.[/QUOTE]
i don't understand what you're trying to prove. so he said his primary objective was to protect the union? that doesn't change the fact that he was a abolitionist and that the confederacy were fighting to preserve slavery
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593411]Where does it say that?[/QUOTE]
Article I, section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederacy.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593372]One thing I feel I should mention (aka I'm about to fuck up every anti-CSA argument ever), the Confederate states were set out to abolish slavery anyway.[/QUOTE]
[quote]The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.[/quote]
did you read the part where it says "other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America"
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593425]Lincoln was not an abolitionist and said himself that freeing slaves was a war measure.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure post-war he could certainly be considered an abolitionist.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593425]Lincoln was not an abolitionist and said himself that freeing slaves was a war measure.[/QUOTE]
Again, you're just kind of saying things.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593432]Article I, section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederacy.[/QUOTE]
but nowhere in that section does it say anything about abolishing slavery?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593432]Article I, section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederacy.[/QUOTE]
"Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish."
That has nothing to do with slavery.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593399]You want MLA or what? I posted a quote from a letter he wrote above. You can Google that quote and get a million hits. Pick your source.
[/quote]
lol. that quote says nothing about lincoln's motives, at all. way to create a straw man of lincoln
[quote]
Perhaps I was too haste in saying that it's common knowledge. Me being from NC, they have a lot of the curriculum based around the civil war.[/QUOTE]
of course. it's a common tendency for entities with awful pasts to spend great efforts on apologist education
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593443]but nowhere in that section does it say anything about abolishing slavery?[/QUOTE]
Simply that new slaves cannot be brought into the CSA from any foreign country other than the CSA or American territories.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593413][url]http://lmgtfy.com/?q=my+paramount+object+in+this+struggle+is+to+save+the+Union%2C+and+it+is+not+either+to+save+or+destroy+slavery%2C+If+I+could+save+the+Union+without+freeing+any+slave%2C+I+would+do+it%2C+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+all+the+slaves%2C+I+would+do+it%3B+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+some+and+leaving+others+alone+I+would+also+do+that[/url]
There's about 3,660 sources for you.
[url]https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=my+paramount+object+in+this+struggle+is+to+save+the+Union%2C+and+it+is+not+either+to+save+or+destroy+slavery%2C+If+I+could+save+the+Union+without+freeing+any+slave%2C+I+would+do+it%2C+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+all+the+slaves%2C+I+would+do+it%3B+and+if+I+could+save+it+by+freeing+some+and+leaving+others+alone+I+would+also+do+that[/url][/QUOTE]
Except a few other quotes I posted contradict that as well.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593428]i don't understand what you're trying to prove. so he said his primary objective was to protect the union? that doesn't change the fact that he was a abolitionist and that the confederacy were fighting to preserve slavery[/QUOTE]
What I'm trying to say is that what you just said was wrong.
The [b]North[/b] was fighting to keep the union together. The south was just trying to secede. No war was technically necessary.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593435]I'm sure post-war he could certainly be considered an abolitionist.[/QUOTE]
he wrote bills to abolish slavery while in congress you are full of crap
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Slavery_and_a_.22House_Divided.22[/url]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593452]Except a few other quotes I posted contradict that as well.[/QUOTE]
As I said before, those weren't until after he decided to use that to help the war.
It's politics. Like when we invade a country for its natural resources and say that it's to stop a dictatorship. It's getting people on your side.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593454]No war was technically necessary.[/QUOTE]
The south attacked first: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter[/url]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593372]One thing I feel I should mention (aka I'm about to fuck up every anti-CSA argument ever), the Confederate states were set out to abolish slavery anyway.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing in there about abolishing slavery, just stopping the importation of them (something the Federal government was ALREADY doing).
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593434]did you read the part where it says "other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America"[/QUOTE]
That's just a grandfather clause. they can be moved around within the states but you can't bring new ones in. the goal was to wean everybody off of slaves as the contemporary slaves died off.
I have a nazi flag in my room
It's not racist it's about my German heritage
[QUOTE=Master X;33593454]What I'm trying to say is that what you just said was wrong.
The [b]North[/b] was fighting to keep the union together. The south was just trying to secede. No war was technically necessary.[/QUOTE]
That's debateable.
The Union was created to be whole. That's why slavery wasn't outright abolished in the creation of the nation(even though many of our founding fathers were abolitionist). The country was created so that every single state would participate and create a stronger country that could defend itself against world powers.
If every state was allowed to secede, then it would be easily picked apart by the European Empires.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593466]As I said before, those weren't until after he decided to use that to help the war.[/QUOTE]
Except that while in Congress he fought against pro-slavery legislation, such as his opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act?
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593469]The south attacked first: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter[/url][/QUOTE]
A hand forced by the North.
To anyone trying to debate me about whether or not Lincoln was an abolitionist, please note that that wasn't my argument. Regardless of whether or not he was or wasn't (which he seems he was [my mistake]), my point was that he wasn't fighting the war to free slaves, he was fighting the war to keep the Union united. Freeing slaves was just a side effect of that. Again demonstrated by my earlier quote and my 3,000+ sources.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593395]robert E lee was certainly not one of the main people behind the secession. simply because he was glad slavery was gone doesn't mean that the people who seceded and created that flag were not for slavery because they definitely were. again quoting the C.S. vice prez:[/QUOTE]
They were for slavery because it was economical for them at the time. They also believed it was a religious right by God to own slaves. They saw nothing wrong with it and they did not do it out of hatred or spite. Northerners and Southerners alike were just as bigoted toward black people and that won't change until years down the road with the end of Segregation. I guarantee as soon as Slavery stopped turning over a profit for owners it would've lost popularity and been abolished.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593469]The south attacked first: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter[/url][/QUOTE]
That's hardly an "attack". That was more of a "ousting a foreign army on your soil" issue.
[QUOTE=fenwick;33593479]I have a nazi flag in my room
It's not racist it's about my German heritage[/QUOTE]
pretty much sums up the thread.
there are plenty of ways to express a love of southern heritage or ideals about state's rights without resorting to a symbol of racial hatred. it's like those people who try to convince you using the n word is okay because "it doesn't mean the same thing these days" uhhhh what? A+ revisionism guys
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593476]That's just a grandfather clause. they can be moved around within the states but you can't bring new ones in. the goal was to wean everybody off of slaves as the contemporary slaves died off.[/QUOTE]
You do know that you don't need to import people to acquire more of them.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593476]That's just a grandfather clause. they can be moved around within the states but you can't bring new ones in. the goal was to wean everybody off of slaves as the contemporary slaves died off.[/QUOTE]
Despite the fact that Confederate leaders supported slavery on a moral level, such as the CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens in his cornerstone speech?
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Master X;33593493]A hand forced by the North.[/QUOTE]
How?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593498]That's hardly an "attack". That was more of a "ousting a foreign army on your soil" issue.[/QUOTE]
So how does that second thing negate the fact that they attacked the fort? I mean, the issue at hand was whether the land was theirs or not (it wasn't).
[QUOTE=OvB;33593496]They were for slavery because it was economical for them at the time. They also believed it was a religious right by God to own slaves. They saw nothing wrong with it and they did not do it out of hatred or spite. Northerners and Southerners alike were just as bigoted toward black people and that won't change until years down the road with the end of Segregation. I guarantee as soon as Slavery stopped turning over a profit for owners it would've lost popularity and been abolished.[/QUOTE]
i don't see how that justifies slavery in any way? it's still was/is one of the most despicable practices ever practiced by man. we don't justify cortez & the spanish empires wholesale slaughter of the aztecs because they felt they had the religious right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.