"Pro slavery forces cause worst civilian atrocity of the war"

[Brewster]

You would be full of crap on either count, Joe.  Just another BS sympathizer for southern treason.

[Casull]

Just like those treasonous Founding Fathers. 

[littlecanoe]

@ Brewster

Please, explain how pulling out of a union of states, a right reserved for the individual state, is an act of treason.


Thnks
lc

[BUGEYE]

Heck it all sounds like alot of fun to me. Raping, looting and pillaging. A time when men were men.

Right on!!!

[williamlayton]

Well--first of all, there has never been an army at war who did not experience some atrocities by some and, it never will.
I never heard anyone claim that there was any treason on the part of the South.
Many have tried to claim that the North was the treasonous one.
It was this way---one more time.
There was leadership--not only in the North--that understood that the South was breaking up a Republic and that two things would happen with this breakup.
The South and the North were going to eventually end up in a clash of arms.
They were also sure that either France or England would be involved in support of the South in order to regain a foothold into the wealth that they saw being produced by this nation.
The North did it for self-preservetion of the Republic. It happened and the South lost and the Republic stands.
The most absurd thing the South did was to secede without recognition and support from abroad. That was the height of stupidity---a real, hold this beer and watch this, Bubba move. The South got what it deserved for being so stupid.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

Gentlemen, remember that from the point of view of the original poster, and those who support him, the federal forces could commit no atrocity.  After all, they were, from the start, fighting to end slavery, so anything they did - rape, murder, torture, anything at all - was a fully justified tool of war.

Gang rape and mutilate a 12 year old?  Perfectly fine, just so it helps free the slaves.  Beat a man half to death and then rape his wife and daughters in front of him?  Good for them!  That will demoralize those dirty rebs!  Don't believe me?  Read through some of the other threads. 

Gotta love the moral high ground.

Subjoe
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say the things you claim I did. In the original post I should have put the thread topic "Pro slavery forces cause worst civilian atrocity of the war" in quotes, because that statement came from the article, not from me. Obviously the worst civilian atrocity of the war was the South's continuation of slavery as long as possible, and the abuses that accompanied slavery.
Ironfoot

[subdjoe]

Thank you, gentlemen for making my pointS for me again.  that your entire argument is based on pointing an accusing finger south and shouting "SLAVERY!"  And that you will continue to justify anything that the federals did to force the south back into the Union to keep revenue flowing into the US Treasury. 

As for: "Obviously the worst civilian atrocity of the war was the South's continuation of slavery as long as possibel, and the abuses that accompanied slavery." 

Yep...it was OK for slavery to exist in the north.  It was just fine for northern financial interests to continue in the African slave trade long after it was outlawed, not as if they were going to keep them, they were just trans-shipping them to the Caribbean.  But how DARE those filthy Rebs continue a practice that was legal under federal law!

Putting words in your mouth?  Not I.  Just distilling your position from other threads.  Where you and others defended rape.  Defended murder.  Defended infliction of famine by destruction or confiscation of all livestock and food supplies.  Defended all of that and more as a legitimate tool of war.  Quite possibly if it pains you to see your point of view stated bluntly, you should consider changing it.

[ironfoot]

Thank you, gentlemen for making my pointS for me again.  that your entire argument is based on pointing an accusing finger south and shouting "SLAVERY!"  And that you will continue to justify anything that the federals did to force the south back into the Union to keep revenue flowing into the US Treasury. 

As for: "Obviously the worst civilian atrocity of the war was the South's continuation of slavery as long as possibel, and the abuses that accompanied slavery." 

Yep...it was OK for slavery to exist in the north.  It was just fine for northern financial interests to continue in the African slave trade long after it was outlawed, not as if they were going to keep them, they were just trans-shipping them to the Caribbean.  But how DARE those filthy Rebs continue a practice that was legal under federal law!

Putting words in your mouth?  Not I.  Just distilling your position from other threads.  Where you and others defended rape.  Defended murder.  Defended infliction of famine by destruction or confiscation of all livestock and food supplies.  Defended all of that and more as a legitimate tool of war.  Quite possibly if it pains you to see your point of view stated bluntly, you should consider changing it.

Subjoe
You keep making ridiculous statements and attribute them to others. For example, nobody said it was "ok for slavery to exist in the North". But it was wrong for the South to go to war to perpetuate slavery.
Ironfoot

[subdjoe]

Thank you, gentlemen for making my pointS for me again.  that your entire argument is based on pointing an accusing finger south and shouting "SLAVERY!"  And that you will continue to justify anything that the federals did to force the south back into the Union to keep revenue flowing into the US Treasury. 

As for: "Obviously the worst civilian atrocity of the war was the South's continuation of slavery as long as possibel, and the abuses that accompanied slavery." 

Yep...it was OK for slavery to exist in the north.  It was just fine for northern financial interests to continue in the African slave trade long after it was outlawed, not as if they were going to keep them, they were just trans-shipping them to the Caribbean.  But how DARE those filthy Rebs continue a practice that was legal under federal law!

Putting words in your mouth?  Not I.  Just distilling your position from other threads.  Where you and others defended rape.  Defended murder.  Defended infliction of famine by destruction or confiscation of all livestock and food supplies.  Defended all of that and more as a legitimate tool of war.  Quite possibly if it pains you to see your point of view stated bluntly, you should consider changing it.

Subjoe
You keep making ridiculous statements and attribute them to others. For example, nobody said it was "ok for slavery to exist in the North". But it was wrong for the South to go to war to perpetuate slavery.
Ironfoot

The South did not, as you claim, "go to war to perpetuate slavery."  The seven states of the deep south could have revoked their bills of secession and ratified the Corwin Amendment if it was only about slavery. 

By your total silence on the huge part that the north played in slavery, by pointing ONLY at the South, what other conclusions is one to draw, other than it was just fine for the north to engage in it?  When you totally ignore the part the north played when it is brought up, what other conclusion is one to draw?  When you in fact try to divert any mention of slavery or the slave trade as having any connection at all to the north, what conclusion is one supposed to draw?

Do carry on with your pro-northern revisionism.

[williamlayton]

Joe
You were answered by the posting the deleration SC made for seceding.
It was about the business of slavery and the expansion of the business of slavery.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

Thank you, gentlemen for making my pointS for me again.  that your entire argument is based on pointing an accusing finger south and shouting "SLAVERY!"  And that you will continue to justify anything that the federals did to force the south back into the Union to keep revenue flowing into the US Treasury. 

As for: "Obviously the worst civilian atrocity of the war was the South's continuation of slavery as long as possibel, and the abuses that accompanied slavery." 

Yep...it was OK for slavery to exist in the north.  It was just fine for northern financial interests to continue in the African slave trade long after it was outlawed, not as if they were going to keep them, they were just trans-shipping them to the Caribbean.  But how DARE those filthy Rebs continue a practice that was legal under federal law!

Putting words in your mouth?  Not I.  Just distilling your position from other threads.  Where you and others defended rape.  Defended murder.  Defended infliction of famine by destruction or confiscation of all livestock and food supplies.  Defended all of that and more as a legitimate tool of war.  Quite possibly if it pains you to see your point of view stated bluntly, you should consider changing it.

Subjoe
You keep making ridiculous statements and attribute them to others. For example, nobody said it was "ok for slavery to exist in the North". But it was wrong for the South to go to war to perpetuate slavery.
Ironfoot

The South did not, as you claim, "go to war to perpetuate slavery."  The seven states of the deep south could have revoked their bills of secession and ratified the Corwin Amendment if it was only about slavery. 

By your total silence on the huge part that the north played in slavery, by pointing ONLY at the South, what other conclusions is one to draw, other than it was just fine for the north to engage in it?  When you totally ignore the part the north played when it is brought up, what other conclusion is one to draw?  When you in fact try to divert any mention of slavery or the slave trade as having any connection at all to the north, what conclusion is one supposed to draw?

Do carry on with your pro-northern revisionism.

\


Subjoe
The South did go to war to perpetuate slavery. If slavery wasn't the issue, you would not need to spread the blame of slavery to northern states. Nobody on this talk site has said the North was perfect. But the truth hurts. The South went to war to perpetuate slavery.
Ironfoot

[ironfoot]

Joe
You were answered by the posting the deleration SC made for seceding.
It was about the business of slavery and the expansion of the business of slavery.
Blessings

Ahmen!

[subdjoe]

Secession is NOT making war.  Seven states, for various reasons, rescinded the legislation by which they joined the Union.  NONE of them when they left sent troops to take over NY, or Boston, or Washington, did they?  No.  By acts of legislation they freely left an association that they had freely entered into, and to which there was no Constitutional impediment from any state leaving.  That is hardly war.

[ironfoot]

Secession is NOT making war.  Seven states, for various reasons, rescinded the legislation by which they joined the Union.  NONE of them when they left sent troops to take over NY, or Boston, or Washington, did they?  No.  By acts of legislation they freely left an association that they had freely entered into, and to which there was no Constitutional impediment from any state leaving.  That is hardly war.

Subjoe
You lose an argument, but instead of conceding you move on to a different topic. Lincoln was elected President of the whole country, not just the North. The South engaged in armed revolt in order to avoid being bound by the results of the national election in which the South had participated. Hostilities began when the South took a federal fort by force.
Ironfoot


"Both the outgoing administration of President James Buchanan and the incoming administration rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion. The other eight slave states rejected calls for secession at this point. No country in the world recognized the Confederacy."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

[subdjoe]

Sorry, you were the one who brought up the lie that the south started a war to preserve slavery, not I.  Lincoln started the war by 1) refusing to pull US troops out of SC soil and 2) sending in supplies an reinforcements to those troops.  If I have armed thugs on my front porch ready to break in, and more on the way to join them, I'm not out of line if I confront them and fire a shot at them. 

Let me try this again.  There were seven states that between Dec. 1860 and Feb. 1861 decided to leave the Union, as they saw as their right.  And that view was supported by writings by Jefferson, Madison, and even Lincoln.  That was it...they left the Union.  The did not try to take it over and replace Lincoln with someone else.  I'm not sure how to put it in simpler language for you. 

But, I'm letting you divert me from the premise of my original post on this thread, that you and other federal apologists willingly turn a blind eye to any and all federal atrocity, and in fact deny that any agents of the federal government are able to commit an atrocity, from forced famine to rape to murder of children. 

[williamlayton]

Joe
What do you do with the fact that the South lost its bid to secede and what are you going to do now?
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Joe
What do you do with the fact that the South lost its bid to secede and what are you going to do now?
Blessings

Nothing to be done about it, Will.  All we can try to do is counter the hate speech and distortions that the federals have been dishing out for 150 years.  You are familiar with it - the 5th grade textbook pointing a finger south and shouting "SLAVERY!" at every turn.

[ironfoot]

Subjoe
In the words of Ronald Reagan "There you go again." You state "...you and other federal apologists willingly turn a blind eye to any and all federal atrocity...." Show me where that was done. Then show me where you have admitted any Confederate atrocity. The South took part in a national election, and when they didn't get the result they wanted, the South used military force to occupy a federal fort. The Confederacy was not recognized by any other country. The worst civilian atrocity of the war was the South's continuing to hold people in slavery as long as the South could get away with it.
Ironfoot

[Casull]

Ironfoot, does your hatred of the South cause you to ignore historical facts?  I'm guessing some Southerner beat you up and took your lunch money.

[subdjoe]

Iron, please show in the Constitution the clause that prevented any state from leaving.  Please show any federal law that existed in 1860 or 1861 that prevented any state from leaving.    I've asked for you and the other apologists for the north to do this several times before, and so far none of you have posted either the clause or the law.  Until you can show those, all claims about supreme federal authority and perpetual union are just so much hot air.

[ironfoot]

Ironfoot, does your hatred of the South cause you to ignore historical facts?  I'm guessing some Southerner beat you up and took your lunch money.

You are putting words in my mouth.
I have never said I hate the South.
But I disagree with some of the Southerners on this site as to the cause of the war, and who the "bad guys" were.
A lot of the pro-South camp believe the South was great, Lincoln was bad, and the Union was bad.
Titling the site "aka The War of Nortthern Aggression" encourages the pro-Confederacy camp.
Titling the site "The War of Northern Aggression" implies blame and/or hatred for the North.
I think the site was developed to promote "the South was great, Lincoln was bad, and the Union was bad" viewpoint.
I have the right to defend a different viewpoint.
My belief iis the South seceded in order to preserve slavey where it existed, and to expand it into the territories.
The Union fought in order to preserve the Union, and representative democracy.
Most historians share my viewpoint.

[billy_56081]

I am sure there are some Germans who feel that Nazi Germany was in the right too. Don't mean they were right.

Back to atrocities in war to the victor goes the spoils. War brings men out in their most base nature. If I had been a soldier in their situation I would think I would enjoy looting, pillaging and raping the enemies who fell before me. Sounds like a good way to blow off steam after stressful fighting.

[Ga.windbreak]

I have the right to defend a different viewpoint.

My belief iis the South seceded in order to preserve slavey where it existed, and to expand it into the territories.
The Union fought in order to preserve the Union, and representative democracy.

You most certainly do.

The reason I picked out this part of your quote is quite frankly because it is the part that is the Meat of said quote and the one thing which blows your theory out of the water. (As well as WL's BTW)

You state the South seceded to "to preserve slavery where it existed, and to expand it into the territories." Explain to me just how it would expand slavery if it were out of the Union and was not connected to said territories in a physical way?

Also as pointed out way to many times to count Slavery was legal in the Union at that time thru our Constitution, The Law of the Land! So why Secede?

Just how could leaving and possibly having to fight a war be considered a valid option by any sane man; North or South?
 

[williamlayton]

GW
Would you agree, then, that the North and South were vying for the same territory?
YES or NO.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

How do you get that out of Gs last post, Willy?

[williamlayton]

Let it ride and then you will understand.
Blessings

[Casull]

Let it ride and then you will ubderstand.

I don't think you understand.  The territory in question was territory of the USA.  I don't think the CSA would have had claim to it.

[williamlayton]

Well, that would be incorrect.
There was still a skirmace for New Mexico when the war ended, California and the West coast was in their plans.
As a matter of fact so was Mexico. Now if the South thought that the North would just walk away what did they think Mexico would do.
I agree that there were pacifist in the North that would wnt the war over with and Just give the South what they wanted.
It was going to come to war.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

I have the right to defend a different viewpoint.

My belief iis the South seceded in order to preserve slavey where it existed, and to expand it into the territories.
The Union fought in order to preserve the Union, and representative democracy.

You most certainly do.

The reason I picked out this part of your quote is quite frankly because it is the part that is the Meat of said quote and the one thing which blows your theory out of the water. (As well as WL's BTW)

You state the South seceded to "to preserve slavery where it existed, and to expand it into the territories." Explain to me just how it would expand slavery if it were out of the Union and was not connected to said territories in a physical way?Also as pointed out way to many times to count Slavery was legal in the Union at that time thru our Constitution, The Law of the Land! So why Secede?

Just how could leaving and possibly having to fight a war be considered a valid option by any sane man; North or South?

Your Question: "Explain to me just how it would expand slavery if it were out of the Union and was not connected to said territories in a physical way?"
My Answer: The same way Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US. So is my theory back on the water now?

Your question: "Also as pointed out way to many times to count Slavery was legal in the Union at that time thru our Constitution, The Law of the Land! So why Secede?"
My Answer: Because an anti slavery President was elected on a Republian anti expansion of slavery platform. Lincoln tried to talk the South out of seceding using the same argument you did, that he could not end slavery because it was legal under the Constitution. But Lincoln would not allow its expansion. The South saw the writing on the wall. Soon they would be outnumbered by free states, and the North had a long term goal of ending slavery throughout the country. Read Lincoln's Coopers Union speech.


Read more about Southern plans to expand slavery into the territorries here:

http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/slavery_in_the_territories.shtml

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080123130505AA0ypeb

[subdjoe]

STILL waiting for one of the northern apologists to post the Article of the Constitution, or even the federal law that, in 1860 or 1861 prohibited a state from leaving the Union.  Again, until you can show that, all your arguments and calling it treason are just so much hot air and wishful thinking.