The Confederacy represents racism

The South seceded before the Corwin amendment was proposed.Why make that **** up?

The south admitted, repeatedly, that the seceded over slavery . . . before the Corwin Amendment. And before the Corwin Amendment there was the Crittenden Compromise. And we both know why you will steadfastly refuse to discuss that.

And anyone who has done a week or two of history homework will know why this is a lie. Secession had already happened. The Confederacy wanted more slavery protections than what the Corwin Amendment offered. How do I know? THEY ****ING SAID SO. The south, on the other hand, loved the Crittenden Compromise . . . mostly because they negotiated most of it. You should look it up some time . . . on the off chance you become interested in historical truth.

More fakery. The south didn't "know" they had not chance of winning. They had lots of chances. As far as their wealth is concerned . . . their biggest wealth concern WERE THEIR SLAVES AND THEY ****ING SAID SO WHY ARE YOU SO VIOLENTLY OPPOSED TO READING?????Please read the sources from the time period. I'd say "I'll wait" but, you know, I won't. If you refuse to do your history homework, then I won't wait. On my side I have WHAT THE CONFEDERACY HAD TO SAY ABOUT ITSELF and on the other side I have your pleading that I ignore history and replace it with your fact-less fantasy. I have no patience for that.

 

Then why can't I throw a rock without hitting a Confederate source from the time period that says you are wrong? I'll bet it was a time-traveling Soros or something, huh?

 

Why should I depend on what he has to say over . . . basically everything else from the time period? Why are you pretending that this random soldier was somehow the God of the Confederacy?

 

And if they refused?

 

eminent domain.

 

Wrong. Only seven of the 11 states had seceded. So why didn’t the ones who were left sign the Corwin amendment?

The Crittenden compromise was rejected because it banned the expansion of slavery westward. Something the south would never accept because it would put them at a congressional disadvantage. The Corwin amendment had no restrictions whatsoever.

Either you don’t know what was in the Crittenden compromise and the Corwin amendment or you’re simply not stating the truth as I pointed out above.

The idea that the south rejected the Corwin amendment because they had already seceded is preposterous. To make the argument it was too late to sign a piece of paper and risk nothing but not engage in a war where they risk everything is nothing more than illogical absurdity.

Woah calm down there lol

The confederacy was outgunned, outsupplied, had little to no infrastructure and were outnumbered 3:1. And that was AFTER the rest of the southern states seceded. At the time of the Corwin amendment only 7 of 11 states had seceded and the 7 states had NO guarantee that the other four would secede. Putting them at an insurmountable disadvantage and making the argument that they would choose a war over signing a piece of paper to accomplish the EXACT same goal, complete and utter insanity.

By the way, screaming your ridiculous arguments doesn’t make them any more logical.

Slavery was the CATALYST but it was not the cause. The CAUSE was the willful and intentional violation of the constitution by the northern states and their proxy the federal government even after being ordered on two separate occasions by the SCOTUS to cease.

 

Lol . . . "only" the vast majority, huh? Let that sink in.

And the Corwin Amendment didn't go far enough to support slavery for the Confederacy, as I've shown.

If you don't understand that the Crittenden Compromise provided more protection and support for slavery than the Corwin Amendment did, then you need to try reading. Is reading really too much?

As adorable as this projection is, please do more history homework.

The Corwin amendment didn't go far enough to protect/spread slavery for the Confederate states. Please do homework.

The South wanted more than what the Corwin Amendment offered. They said so. Why is homework too much to ask for? Why can't you read the Crittenden Compromise? Why can't you read the Declarations of Causes? Why can't you read the comments from the guy who designed the CSA flag? Why can't you read the letters from the secession commissioners? Why can't you read the Cornerstone speech? Why will you ignore EVERYTHING the Confederacy had to say about its own motivations?

 

This is all false. At this point I think you don’t know what the Crittenden and Corwin amendments were.

The Crittenden Compromise included:

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction, such as a military post, within a slave state.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

The Corwin amendment was very simple:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

The Corwin amendment made NO restrictions upon slavery or the south, whereas the Crittenden amendment did.

Furthermore you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about because the south had ALREADY won the battle over slavery’s expansion westward. The SCOTUS has ruled it was unconstitutional for the federal government to demand that incoming territories be nonslaveholding as a prerequisite of entry.

Please educate yourself.

 

Slavery was legal so it was just fine?

Wrong. It was a crime against humanity

 

Murdering hundreds of thousands of your own countrymen is a crime against humanity as well.

 

You do understand that the president, Vice President, generals and majority of soldiers were DEMOCRATS, right? And after the war, they continued with their racist ways by voting against the amendments for citizenship and voting rights for Blacks; voted in the Black Code and Jim Crow laws and began the KKK in order to intimidate and make sure that Blacks voted for Democrats, and generally made life hell for them. This is what Biden was a part of because his “people” were the Dixiecrats who voted to keep segregation. Nice Democrat legacy....

 

Slavery was legal so that's not what the Civil War was fought over. Got it? Or do I need to type slower?

 

housing projects for native americans

 

If a local area wants it done then no problem. Though I would argue for preservation as it is about our history. So I'm against destroying them.

That said....

While the leaders of the Confederacy made it about slavery that isn't why everyone fought on the Conederate side. That should be acknowledged just as much as the fact that the leaders fought it because of slavery.

 

But either way, the fact the south rejected both the Crittenden compromise and the Corwin amendment unequivocally shows the war did not occur over slavery. War was not necessary to protect slavery.

However the north had shown a continuous pattern of willful, intentional violations of the constitution. They even continued to do so in violation of direct orders from the SCOTUS because they knew their proxy, the federal government, would never enforce the decisions.

The South had two options. Either concede that the government can simply violate the constitution at will and with immunity or they had to secede. For honorable, God fearing patriots, many of whom descended from the same bloodline as those who fought for that constitution to be enshrined, they only had one choice. Secession.

The south wanted one of two things. Either for the constitution to be followed or for peaceful secession. The North would allow neither and so the war came.

The southerners were not the traitors. The north was.

 

The war was about preserving the institution of slavery. It's not surprising that someone with a CSA battle flag as their emblem would try to excuse both the traitorous actions and slavery itself.

 

The south tried to do unsuccessfully what the 13 colony's successfully did to the British.

 

So our revolution was a crime against humanity as well.

 

Was our revolution ABOUT slavery?

Was it designed to PRESERVE slavery?

No?

Oh

 

Was I replying to you?

No?

Oh

 

Do I give a ****?

No. Next

 

nope, those southern conservatives went to the Republican Party where they are to this day

 

Lol then how about you attempt answering either of the questions I asked earlier.

 

That’s correct. But they almost won even though the north was in a far superior position as an armed force.

 

It also represents treason and sedition.
Confederate monuments have no place in any public places.
Let the reactionaries place them in private locations like mar-a-lago or liberty university where they can be admired by their ilk.