(April 9, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Polaris Wrote:(April 9, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Brotha, if you think I'm a loudmouthed asshole here, you don't know the half of it.
Things are changing, but it's not a battle, not even a war; it's a struggle, a knock-down drag-out, and that shit takes centuries, you know that much.
Except that the US fought to eradicate the states' right to legalize slavery, while the Confederacy fought to uphold it, and thereby added 600,000 to the bloodroll of slavery.
The North did not care about the rights of slaves...it was entirely a war based on states' rights and the North only changed its tune on slavery to entice slaves to revolt against the South.
So, what right was it that the South was fighting to defend? The right for a state to determine its own foreign policy? The right for a state to not receive federal defense?
Oh, wait, it was for the right of the state to permit slavery.
What's truly pathetic about the "states' rights" revisionism is that assholes like you must actually ignore the Confederate Constitution in order to make your "argument". You see, the Confederate Constitution forbids any Confederate state from abolishing slavery. How's that for "fighting for states' rights"?
Don't believe me -- look it up for yourself, and learn that you've been fed a line of revisionist bullshit. From the Confederate Constitution:
Quote:Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
In other words, the individual states of the Confederacy were not permitted to ban slavery.
Additionally, the North's change of position on slavery vis the Emancipation Proclamation was not moved in order to encourage slave rebellion -- as a sensible reading of that document would reveal -- slaves in rebellious states were freed, but slaves in loyal states were not. Clearly, this was not to encourage rebellion, but to impose a moral casting upon the war, to claim the moral upper hand (especially when you consider the anti-slave feelings of the European countries which suffered from the Union blockade, this was designed to speak to European parliaments).
I'd suggest you learn a little history, and perhaps discretion in speech as well. There's little sadder than someone who is speaking obviously in ignorance.
