John Oliver Explains the Confederacy

[resister]

I'll bet you think that means something, too.

It does, but you will ignore it. I bet you don't know the first thing about the Confederate constitution.

[Ethereal]

After the war.

The various Declarations of Secession and the Cornerstone speech indicate that the only states' right they were interested in preserving was the right to own human beings as does the South's demands that the Federal government override Norther state laws that freed fugitive slaves within their borders.

No, the states' rights dog will not hunt. Get back on the porch.

That is totally false. Those secession documents include numerous other issues like tariffs and the distribution of tax revenues. And legally speaking, the south was 100% in the right. The fugitive slave laws were federal law and the northern states were obliged to enforce them under the interpretation of the constitution that prevailed at the time. The south simply said to the north: If you're not going to abide by the terms of the compact, then we will simply withdraw from it. The issue of slavery was merely incidental. There was ZERO threat to the institution of slavery IN THE SOUTH at the time the south seceded. In fact, the northern political class was working on an amendment that would have expressly legalized slavery before and during the war. Abraham Lincoln endorsed the amendment. Your grade school version of history is a LIE perpetrated by the victors. Nothing more.

[Safety]

I'll bet you think that means something, too.

It seems to mean that the Confederate sympathizers not only backed a loser, but an incompetent one at that. Kinda like how they voted for Trump....when will they learn?

[Chris]

After the war.

The various Declarations of Secession and the Cornerstone speech indicate that the only states' right they were interested in preserving was the right to own human beings as does the South's demands that the Federal government override Northern state laws that freed fugitive slaves within their borders.

No, the states' rights dog will not hunt. Get back on the porch.

What you're failing to understand, anachronistically, is the state's rights the Confederacy fought for is not the same state's rights young southern Republicans stood for when they ran racist Democrats out of office thoughout the south. State's rights leading up to the Civil War had to do with the states standing between the federal government and the people. The federal goverment was growing ever more unconsititutional and people like Calhoun, Davis, Stephens, and others aimed to protect the rights of the people from it. The article I posted explains this. So does post 9 http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...=1#post2175800.

[Chris]

It seems to mean that the Confederate sympathizers not only backed a loser, but an incompetent one at that. Kinda like how they voted for Trump....when will they learn?

That's a great way to win an argument, disparage those you disagree with. Fallacious as hell, but some people are easily fooled by it.

[Safety]

That's a great way to win an argument, disparage those you disagree with. Fallacious as hell, but some people are easily fooled by it.

If the truth hurts, then maybe you have been following false premises.

[Ethereal]

Aren't "progressive" Democrats always telling us that federal law is sacrosanct? That it must be obeyed? If so, then why are they objecting to southern secession, which was predicated on the north's blatant violation and repudiation of federal laws? Doesn't it stand to reason that a contract violated is a contract nullified? I mean, what's the point of remaining in a contract that isn't being adhered to by your counter parties?

[Fredy]

It does, but you will ignore it. I bet you don't know the first thing about the Confederate constitution.

I'm familiar with Article 1, Section 9

[resister]

I'm familiar with Article 1, Section 9

Did you know the importation of slaves was prohibited?

[Fredy]

What you're failing to understand, anachronistically, is the state's rights the Confederacy fought for is not the same state's rights young southern Republicans stood for when they ran racist Democrats out of office thoughout the south. State's rights leading up to the Civil War had to do with the states standing between the federal government and the people. The federal goverment was growing ever more unconsititutional and people like Calhoun, Davis, Stephens, and others aimed to protect the rights of the people from it. The article I posted explains this. So does post 9 http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...=1#post2175800.

What you're failing to understand is that I'm not gullible or uneducated.

I'm sure there are people that buy ex post facto rationalizations for the war as you do, but I'm not one of them.