Slavery or States Rights

BAM this jsut happened

yes another one of these. Just been doing alot of research and what to state something.

The Constitution does not say you can succede at any time. What the Constitution does do is recognize that our nation will have an elected president. This is a contract the people accepted.

It doesnt say if you dont like the eprson elected president then you can leave the United States.

When did the South sucede? BEFORE LINCOLN WAS INAGURATED sounds like treason to me. They blatantly broke the COnstitution agreement reguarding the presidency.

The south left and succeded because they were Fire-Eater democrats that wanted slavery to expand westward. They were thuroughly defeated by Lincoln (impressive since Lincoln was not on the ballot in some southern states (LIKE TEXAS))

Exerpt from the reasons given for Texas' Succession

under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution

Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State

^^^^^that last line is comical what the fuck do they think the Mexican-American War started over?

Most telling statement vvvvvv

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.


States Rights my ass guys, if you cant read from the very people that succeded that this was about slavery then you dont want to accept facts.

States Rights is jargon for protecting slavery WHICH LINCOLN WAS NOT GOING TO ABOLISH his political positions where that slavery would stay in its form in the South.


Up for a laugh read this statement

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations



yep the Declaration Causes of Succession sure werent about slavery it was all about states rights.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html


I you actually read this all the way through your a bad ass ninja who can pick my av for a day (yes anti Shamrock ones are accepted)

Well being a Southerner and a history nerd, I view it differently than you. But really it is doesn't matter anymore, that ship has sailed. Plus I don't give a fuck about peoples views on slavery because most people are completely ignorant on its history. Not just American slavery which is viewed wrongly for the most part, but the entire history of slavery.

well put Andrew, find it funny though you said your from the south so we have different views, playa I am the deep SOUF haha

Slavery is bad unless you own a bunch of hot chicks.

texas doesn't count as the "south" proper though in this context.

how wrong you are wolf

Texas was a part of the Deep South which were the first states to secede

ouch


go look up the first states to secede and youll notice it goes like this

S Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, (THESE 6 STATES ALL SECEDED BETWEEN DECEMBER 20,1860 TO FEBRUARY 1 1861 YOU DO THE MATH)

followed by Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee

simply put we seceded before Virginia, i.e. you dont know dick haha

Add in we had the highest ranking officer killed in the Civil War (Albert Sydney Johnston (look it up))

and John Bell Hoods Texas Brigade was one of the best units in the South before Hood took over the Army of Tennessee (The 2nd biggest Confederate Army next to Army of Northern Virginia.)

Add in Confederates staged 2 invasions of the west from Texas that failed (look it up again)

Texas was very much the South and seceded for the same moronic rights as the other states