The Confederacy is the symbol of racist losers.

[Queersetti]

- best pizza in Pennsylvania .

Cool. That's like being the world's tallest midget.

 

[kbate]

Is Tommy's next to one of the ghost tour places?

google is your friend.

 

[Saint Peter]

Cool. That's like being the world's tallest midget.

I have a picture of a snow board shop in south Delaware.

Same thing.

 

[Saint Peter]

google is your friend.

ghost tours gettysburg pa
About 27,100 results (0.34 seconds)

Anyhoo. Nice town!

 

[Queersetti]

Of course they wanted to secede. And the North didn't want to allow them to go in peace. If you think the North had some desire to keep the South in the Union for any reason other than self interest we will have to disagree.

It's reductive to claim that the north had a single motivation. Some northerners were staunch abolitionists, some opposed secession on legalist grounds, some were happy to let the southern states go.

To stay on point, none of the motivation on either side can be understood outside of the context of the dispute over slavery.

 

[toubab]

It's reductive to claim that the north had a single motivation. Some northerners were staunch abolitionists, some opposed secession on legalist grounds, some were happy to let the southern states go.

To stay on point, none of the motivation on either side can be understood outside of the context of the dispute over slavery.

The abolitionists were a small minority in the North. The war was not about abolition. It was about secession.

 

[Queersetti]

The abolitionists were a small minority in the North. The war was not about abolition. It was about secession.

Again: Begs the question. What was secession about?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I could be off here but I believe each stat had its own "declaration independence". I also believe each one was built around slavery as a core issue...

 

[NeverEndingMe]

please go see Dr. Phil, he can help you become a non racist

This country was made through a deliberate, continuous, generational dirge of slavery and genocide.

This reaching hipster disingenuousness to pretend the Civil War had some meta multilayers beyond or not connected to America's deeply embedded fuckery of slavery needs to be deaded.

 

[toubab]

Again: Begs the question. What was secession about?

Many things. Economics, taxes, etc. And I'm sure you know this. And of course slavery touched on a lot of it, but the right of secession was the main issue. No secession, no war.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Yep... One example:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

 

[Queersetti]

Many things. Economics, taxes, etc. And I'm sure you know this. And of course slavery touched on a lot of it, but the right of secession was the main issue. No secession, no war.

But why did they put their belief that they had the right to secede to the test? That's the key question. And every answer to it involves the issue of slavery.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Again: Begs the question. What was secession about?

too many liberals in the kitchen ... the south tried to bitch slap them. while the south was better fighters (as lets face it, those liberals and those like obama are cowards) can't fight. the south lacked manufacturing ... while I'm not for slavery (ironic as obama has become a Slave Master), we must remember that we imported more slaves from China, America purchase black slaves from black owners in africia...and people forget about the Irish and Russian slaves). course, Irish slaves doesn't help the obama/sharpton/jessie jackson cause of corruption and fraud

 

[Pookie]

I could be off here but I believe each stat had its own "declaration independence". I also believe each one was built around slavery as a core issue...

South Carolina's definitely was.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

 

[kbate]

That's a reach. Do you rely believe that the south didn't want to secede but decided to do so just to prove they could?

A political entity isn't going to secede from a larger union unless they either feel threatened to the extent that they don't believe they have any other options, or because they think there is some great gain in it for them. In the case of the Confederacy, their motivation contained elements of both, and slavery is intrinsic to their reasoning in either.

The Cooper's Union speech - essentially sealed the deal for Lincoln's election and told the south that at least for the next four years there would be no more federal acquiescence to their demands for laws protecting and expanding slavery.

And that is why they left the union. States Rights weren't even spoken of until long after the war stated and were primarily a recruiting tool to get young men who were too poor to own a slave, care about slavery or otherwise even know about the issue to join up and fight.

Much the same as with most wars and the idea of patriotism.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

what about the southern states wanting a less oppressive federal government?

ironic as the obama regime wants a powerful federal regime, and a weak state government

Yep... One example:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

 

[toubab]

But why did they put their belief that they had the right to secede to the test? That's the key question. And every answer to it involves the issue of slavery.

A better question is why did Lincoln and the North prefer a long and bloody war over allowing the South to go in peace?

 

[Pookie]

A better question is why did Lincoln and the North prefer a long and bloody war over allowing the South to go in peace?

It's a dodge question. Answer Queersetti's.

 

[toubab]

It's a dodge question. Answer Queersetti's.

It's not a dodge question. The South had many reasons for preferring to leave the Union. Preserving the institution of slavery was only one of them, and not paramount as there was no real threat to end the institution. The North was benefiting from it greatly, so had no desire to end it.

The reason the South seceded was for perceived benefit to the South, much of it economic in nature. The reason the North decided a war was better than allowing the South to go in peace was largely economic in nature also.

 

[Queersetti]

A better question is why did Lincoln and the North prefer a long and bloody war over allowing the South to go in peace?

I think that you may be limiting your perspective by assuming that the conflict began with the election of Lincoln. It had, in fact, been building for decades, and in the Kansas/Missouri border region, actual fighting had been taking place for several years.

But to directly answer your question, Lincoln and most Northerners, legitimately believed in the principle that the Union was a sacrosanct contract that could not be broken. In the north, with it's greater immigrant population, faster western development and greater internal mobility, the concept of primary loyalty being owed to one's state before the nation was already moribund for the most part.

In addition, Lincoln was elected President of the United States, not of the north. The southern states contained millions of loyal citizens who wanted nothing to do with secession, and it was his duty to stand for their interests just as much as for the interests of those who lived in the north.


And, by the way, no one seriously believed, then or now, that the South would "leave in peace". It was the clearly stated position of the secessionist leadership that the Confederacy should pursue an aggressive military policy that would ensure military dominance over the hemisphere.

 

[Queersetti]

It's not a dodge question. The South had many reasons for preferring to leave the Union. Preserving the institution of slavery was only one of them, and not paramount as there was no real threat to end the institution. The North was benefiting from it greatly, so had no desire to end it.

The reason the South seceded was for perceived benefit to the South, much of it economic in nature. The reason the North decided a war was better than allowing the South to go in peace was largely economic in nature also.

The south's economy was overwhelmingly based on slavery, so you have undermined your own case.

 

[Pookie]

It's not a dodge question. The South had many reasons for preferring to leave the Union. Preserving the institution of slavery was only one of them, and not paramount as there was no real threat to end the institution. The North was benefiting from it greatly, so had no desire to end it.

The reason the South seceded was for perceived benefit to the South, much of it economic in nature. The reason the North decided a war was better than allowing the South to go in peace was largely economic in nature also.

The "much of it economic in nature" was the institution of slavery. Read from the Declaration.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

 

[toubab]

I think that you may be limiting your perspective by assuming that the conflict began with the election of Lincoln. It had, in fact, been building for decades, and in the Kansas/Missouri border region, actual fighting had been taking place for several years.

But to directly answer your question, Lincoln and most Northerners, legitimately believed in the principle that the Union was a sacrosanct contract that could not be broken. In the north, with it's greater immigrant population, faster western development and greater internal mobility, the concept of primary loyalty being owed to one's state before the nation was already moribund for the most part.

In addition, Lincoln was elected President of the United States, not of the north. The southern states contained millions of loyal citizens who wanted nothing to do with secession, and it was his duty to stand for their interests just as much as for the interests of those who lived in the north.



And, by the way, no one seriously believed, then or now, that the South would "leave in peace". It was the clearly stated position of the secessionist leadership that the Confederacy should pursue an aggressive military policy that would ensure military dominance over the hemisphere.

There was no Confederacy at first. But we will get nowhere in this discussion. It's been going on for generations, and will continue. I'm from near where Lincoln grew up in Indiana, so have had an interest in him and his motivations since I was very young. He believed strongly in the Union. Preserving it was all he cared about, at any cost, especially once he was president of it. He was perfectly willing to allow slavery to continue.

 

[Queersetti]

There was no Confederacy at first. But we will get nowhere in this discussion. It's been going on for generations, and will continue. I'm from near where Lincoln grew up in Indiana, so have had an interest in him and his motivations since I was very young. He believed strongly in the Union. Preserving it was all he cared about, at any cost, especially once he was president of it. He was perfectly willing to allow slavery to continue.

The situation neither began nor ended with Lincoln.

 

[toubab]

The south's economy was overwhelmingly based on slavery, so you have undermined your own case.

There was no real threat to ending slavery.