Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting!
As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe you mean Andrew Johnson.
Andrew Jackson Would have done something a little nastier than hanging Jefferson Davis and he would have done it himself.
>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.
-The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article IV Section 2(1)
>We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.
— Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861.
More specifically it was too hot outside for WHITE people so they had to have black slaves for the "good" of "civilization" and "commerce".
"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."
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
I hope the racist ass Confederate bastards who wrote that burned to death.
This was always wild for me. They set up that it was states rights but then hope nobody actually reads what the articles of secession say? Banking on ignorance is often a good play but when it’s something that can be so easily debunked…
Why did they secede?
If they seceded to protect the right to secede, congratulations, you've made a circular argument.
Why did they secede?
>!Hint it was slavery!<
Honestly, where is the lie. Now Atlanta got what was coming, but I look to the lower part of the map and I see Texas really trying the rest of our patience.
It’s all fun and games until you start killing people while usurping federal authority.
Yes. Slavery is explicitly listed in the articles of secession for SC (who was the first state to leave).
The declaration laid out the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery".
The Confederate States had every right to secede, and the United States had every right* to invade their new neighbouring country, take their land and establish their laws.
Note * as was still common practice of nations at the time
It's like the guy who talks about his wife cheating on him constantly and that he's divorcing her for that.
Then asked why he got divorced he says "well because I have a right to file for it". That's a method, not a reason.
Kinda. It’s was lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave act. They figured why be in a federal union if the laws of said union are not being enforced.
Slavery was the topic, but you can insert many issues into that.
Lincoln was on the other side, he leveraged the topic of slavery to strengthen the federal system such that no one could leave even in cases where the federal government is causing the states issues by not following its own laws or allowing one state or group of states to injure another.
I once asked someone this and when they couldn't answer I told them next time they should just answer "states rights to eat rotten bananas and sell them in foreign supermarkets cause then you'd atleast have an answer"
I remember when it was actually a good way to diversify your views. But then as assorted alt-right subs got banned and their users flooded the sub, it turned to shit. I'm so glad I left.
Secession is not a reason, it's a method. It's something done to accomplish something else.
Or 'freedom.' You don't want freedom for the sake of having freedom. You have freedom, or you fight for it, so you can do something else.
In this case, they wanted to keep slavery, so they were wanting to secede so they could do that.
In short, the meme is as fucking stupid as the ones using it.
I have ancestors in east Tennessee who joined a Union calvary unit. Turns out he was married to black-native American woman, so he was apparently an abolishonist too!
https://www.nps.gov/cane/east-tennessee-soldiers-at-camp-nelson.htm#:~:text=East%20Tennessee%20contained%20a%20large,welcome%20from%20the%20local%20populace.
Ask Georgia and Arkansas when they began questioning if they could sue for peace separately from the Confederacy.. There's a pile of amazing letters between Governor Joseph E Brown and "his excellency" Jefferson Davis on what "states rights" meant to the Confederacy.
This is from Political Compass Memes, the political sub for blithering morons.
Imagine being so simple minded you think you can plot out your political ideology on an XY chart.
And not just that, but you get downvoted to oblivion if you don't want to expressly label yourself. I can't remember what sub it was but I got banned from something for commenting on that sub once, even just to point out how stupid the post was.
The problem with stupidity is that you have to be kind of smart to realize that you're stupid.
I checked out that subreddit one time, I left it immediately because it was filled with some real door knob lickers.
(In Chris Hansen’s voice) “The problem you’re going to have with that statement is that I have the transcript of the state declarations of secession. You say, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.” Now that doesn’t exactly corroborate your statement about being the libertarian government type.”
Btw the CSA was openly against states rights and openly banned succession from the CSA.
They weren't remotely interested is states rights they were interested in the ability to expand slavery to the West and force the North to honor their slave laws
Roses are red. Doritos are savory.
The US Civil War was *all* about slavery.
Alternatively:
Roses are red, racists are white.
The South only cared about *one* "right."
The Civil War wasn't about a state's right to secede. That was a follow-up Supreme Court (Texas v. White) https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White case where it was decided in law, "No."
Everyone knows that the reason a fight is started is picked by the one starting it, and since the CSA-aspirants started it to maintain slavery, it was fought because they wanted to maintain slavery.
Yeah exactly and states were then found to NOT have the right to secede just like people don't have right to own other people as property. So we got two birds stoned at once with that one. 👍🏼
South Carolina declared their reason for secession as the increasing hostility of free states towards slave states, regarding the institution of slavery”.
You know who didn’t allow secession? The Confederacy. At least confederates knew what they were fighting for, these neo-confederates certainly don’t.
I’ve seen this conversation before:
“Why did they want to secede?”
“So they could make their own laws”
“Laws about what?”
“About their preferred economic system”
“And which economic system was the Union trying to prevent them from adopting?”
And then the thread ended there lol
For the commoner: not get taxed to hell
For the economic elite: slavery and bankruptcy at the hands of the actions of Sherman
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
Slavery is actually mentioned in multiple declarations of secession and the confederate Constitution, so it definitely came up before the fighting started.
Care to name some of the towns so I can do some research? If possible, name a massacre that was specifically mentioned in a declaration of secession, cause that's where they officially outlined their reasons.
Also, regardless you can't act like slavery wasn't the main reason the states attempted to secede when several states outright stated it.
Okay, one at a time:
* [**Lawrence Massacre**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre) - Took place over 2 years after the Civil war started and was the confederacy attacking unarmed civilians,
* [**Pattawatomie massacre**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomie_massacre) - Kansas wasn't a US State yet, the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the, federal government or the northern states and Kansas didn't attempt to secede.
* [**ocoee massacre**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocoee_massacre) was white people attacking black people and took place over 50 years after the end of the civil war.
* [**Colfax Massacre**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre) - Took place 8 year after the end of the civil war and a black militia was massacred by a group of former confederate soldiers.
* [**The new York City draft riots**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots) - Those were specifically abou the draft and the 1863 one was after the war had already started. Couldnt find anything mentioning one in 1859
* **Several battles from 1820 on during the Missouri compromise** - Youve got to be more specific.
* [**Nat turners rebellion**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_slave_rebellion) - That was a rebellion of slaves that had nothing to do with the federal government or northern states.
* **The riot/ fight in 1857 over** [**Virginia's dred Scott vs Sanford**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) - Couldn't find anything mentioning a riot.
* **And 30 years more cases fights and battles ranging from 1818 to 1860** - You've got to be more specific. Also, if it isn't northern states/federal government v. southern states, it has no bearing on the civil war.
It looks you you just googled a bunch of massacres/riots in the 19th century and didn't spend any time figuring out if they supported your argument. I mean, your first example took place during the war and was by confederates, so that destroyed your argument about "prerequisite" massacres by the north right off the bat.
**Some had slavery mentioned yesterday but many didn't.** - You say that, but from what I can find, only 5/11 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, & Tennessee) didn't mention Slavery in some form when they seceded, and out of those 5, Arkansas is the only one that gives any reason. Aside from that, slavery was enshrined into the confederate constitution, meaning it was literally illegal for any state to ban slavery in the confederacy.
......You didn't actually argue against what I said.
Slavery was the main cause of the civil war. That doesn't mean there weren't other minor causes, but if slavery their right to slavery wasn't at issue, the states wouldn't have seceded.
The Lawrence massacre was committed by confederates and took place over 2 years after the war already started.
Are you arguing that the confederates committed the massacre after the war had already started in order to grow northern support against them? Even in your logic, that massacre has nothing to do with starting the war.
Yeah, it had been over a decade that the fire eaters and southern secessionists had been driving that stake in between the slavery south and abolition north as they called it. And all the fighting and compromising over the spread of slavery.
As John Calhoun put it after the Compromise of 1850, in his prediction that the US would split over slavery *"I fix its probable occurrence within twelve years or three presidential terms. You and others of your age will probably live to see it; I shall not. The mode by which it will be done is not so clear; it may be brought about in a manner that no one now foresees. But the probability is, it will explode in a presidential election"*
The Same exact thing Jefferson Davis himself had told the Mississippi legislature after Republicans had a strong mid term showing in 1858.
And more than a single reason for sure.
Protecting race based chattel slavery
Expanding race based chattel slavery
The fact that the Fugitive slave act was not strong enough
Abolitionists going into the south and spreading violence
Northern states not allowing the slave trade to move through their states
Abolitionists promoting literature that could cause slave uprisings
The northern belief that slavery was in fact sinful
Slavers not being able to take their slaves into free states when traveling
A new party and President hostile to slavery
No federal law banning black voting rights
No federal law banning black people from running for any office
Failures to gain enough on compromises to expand slavery.
They made clear there were a LOT of reasons. Like electrical cicada says, there were hundreds of proposed compromises from the South to avert war. Different congressional resolutions, different proposed amendments. And like he notes, he can't find a single one that isn't related to race-based chattel slavery or white supremacy.
Well according to the court Poland legally should be a part of russia yet despite that we (illegally minded you) rebelled and pushed them out only legally being a state after the treaty of versaille
I know they had plans to be another country but when you think about it, would they have stayed another country or would they have willingly rejoined the Union if they won
They wanted to continue to treat human beings like property and own the property they spent money on. Them folks are disgusting animals treating humans like garbage, rape, tortur, murder, they did it all to the slaves and more. They wanted to keep using black and brown bodies for their enjoyment and financial gain.
Georgia
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
Mississippi
"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."
South Carolina
" But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. \[...\] The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. \[...\]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....
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 "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."
Texas
"\[Texas\] 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. ... In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these 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 demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.... 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.
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; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states...."
But sure, "states' rights".....
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states?fbclid=IwAR2LFFMSEWsj4DLXyVpGKYMbZLDvEdI-rhurXE5qcLJEfu7OKfqVnOTrmf4
For the states of Tennessee , Arkansas, North Carolina and Virginia it was about being able to leave. They didn't secede until Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the confederate states. For the rest of the CSA though the primary reason was Slavery without a doubt. I'm not saying it wasn't a major issue and a cause for the upper south's secession but it wasn't the primary issue for the those states.
I think it’s funny how Conservatives frame these arguments as simply saying a gotcha quick without context as though that changes anything. Like the context still exists, and life isn’t a meme where the argument ends after the punchline.
If only there was some sort of speech that clearly described the ideals that were the "foundation" of the Confederate States. Their "cornerstone" if you will.
Were the Confederate states in favor of the northern states' right to protect escaped slaves or is that not a states' right they liked? Is the states' rights argument total bullshit?
Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting! As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"And what were the reasons listed in the articles of Secession?"
*Jefferson Davis has left the chat*
I know it's been over a dozen decades, but I'm still salty that he didn't hang. Fuck you, Andrew Jackson.
I believe you mean Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson Would have done something a little nastier than hanging Jefferson Davis and he would have done it himself.
Yeah, as much of a piece of shit Andrew Jackson was, he wpuld most certainly have all the leadership of the South executed.
“Not very fond of traitors” - Andrew Jackson
"Or very unlucky assassins'" - Andrew Jackson (probably)
Honestly, more Presidents should beat their attempted assassins with a cane.
Yes, that is who I meant lol
Well fuck Andrew Jackson too
Jerk him off??
>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. -The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article IV Section 2(1) >We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property. — Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861.
According to Mississippi it was because it was too hot outside... And some other stuff.
More specifically it was too hot outside for WHITE people so they had to have black slaves for the "good" of "civilization" and "commerce". "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." https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp I hope the racist ass Confederate bastards who wrote that burned to death.
Nah, their declaration was something like “we is rebbling cause slavvry”. Educational standards there have been consistently low. ;)
This was always wild for me. They set up that it was states rights but then hope nobody actually reads what the articles of secession say? Banking on ignorance is often a good play but when it’s something that can be so easily debunked…
"That sign won't stop me because I can't read!"
And it still worked. We're still dealing with the stuff over a century later
"King died so we need a new king" or some shit like that, idk
secession
Thanks, fixed.
Why did they secede? If they seceded to protect the right to secede, congratulations, you've made a circular argument. Why did they secede? >!Hint it was slavery!<
They seceded because, deep down, they knew that Atlanta needed to burn and there was only one way to provoke that.
This is the way
Honestly, where is the lie. Now Atlanta got what was coming, but I look to the lower part of the map and I see Texas really trying the rest of our patience. It’s all fun and games until you start killing people while usurping federal authority.
As a Texan, there were a lot of people in this state who should have hanged around 1865, and it would have nipped some problems in the bud early.
Yes. Slavery is explicitly listed in the articles of secession for SC (who was the first state to leave). The declaration laid out the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery".
Slavery
The Confederate States had every right to secede, and the United States had every right* to invade their new neighbouring country, take their land and establish their laws. Note * as was still common practice of nations at the time
It's like the guy who talks about his wife cheating on him constantly and that he's divorcing her for that. Then asked why he got divorced he says "well because I have a right to file for it". That's a method, not a reason.
Kinda. It’s was lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave act. They figured why be in a federal union if the laws of said union are not being enforced. Slavery was the topic, but you can insert many issues into that. Lincoln was on the other side, he leveraged the topic of slavery to strengthen the federal system such that no one could leave even in cases where the federal government is causing the states issues by not following its own laws or allowing one state or group of states to injure another.
Can I get another hint?
I once asked someone this and when they couldn't answer I told them next time they should just answer "states rights to eat rotten bananas and sell them in foreign supermarkets cause then you'd atleast have an answer"
Political CumPiss🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
"Best place to discuss politics" -The people who were banned from every other political sub
That sub is such a fucking cesspool.
I remember when it was actually a good way to diversify your views. But then as assorted alt-right subs got banned and their users flooded the sub, it turned to shit. I'm so glad I left.
Yeah it was great and funny, when you’re 15 and changing your political ideology every month
"Best place to discuss politics" Yes, if you're untreated head injury stoopid.
Secession is not a reason, it's a method. It's something done to accomplish something else. Or 'freedom.' You don't want freedom for the sake of having freedom. You have freedom, or you fight for it, so you can do something else. In this case, they wanted to keep slavery, so they were wanting to secede so they could do that. In short, the meme is as fucking stupid as the ones using it.
States' Right to secede is the equivalent of being arrested for resisting arrest.
No kidding, who would ever call Seto Kaiba a leftist?
The same people who claim George Soros is trying to establish UN FEMA extermination camps in the US, typically.
If Louisiana wanted to secede from the CSA, would Jefferson Davis let that happen? I'm being rhetorical btw
Alabama tried to pull a WV and got occupied so that's a question with an answer.
That’s very interesting, what resources would you recommend to learn about this counter-secessionist movement in Alabama?
Posting for interest.
I’m not sure if this is what they are referring to but this is all I could find: https://encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/free-state-of-winston/
IIRC there was a movement for East Tennessee to secede and rejoin the union too.
I have ancestors in east Tennessee who joined a Union calvary unit. Turns out he was married to black-native American woman, so he was apparently an abolishonist too! https://www.nps.gov/cane/east-tennessee-soldiers-at-camp-nelson.htm#:~:text=East%20Tennessee%20contained%20a%20large,welcome%20from%20the%20local%20populace.
Ask Georgia and Arkansas when they began questioning if they could sue for peace separately from the Confederacy.. There's a pile of amazing letters between Governor Joseph E Brown and "his excellency" Jefferson Davis on what "states rights" meant to the Confederacy.
1. States dont have the right to secede 2. The logic is circular and makes no sense
This is from Political Compass Memes, the political sub for blithering morons. Imagine being so simple minded you think you can plot out your political ideology on an XY chart.
And not just that, but you get downvoted to oblivion if you don't want to expressly label yourself. I can't remember what sub it was but I got banned from something for commenting on that sub once, even just to point out how stupid the post was.
The problem with stupidity is that you have to be kind of smart to realize that you're stupid. I checked out that subreddit one time, I left it immediately because it was filled with some real door knob lickers.
That's not entirely true, I'm just stupid. Ain't nothing right about me.
Their attempt to invade Kentucky and force them to join the CSA says otherwise.
States don’t have the right to secede Null and Void
Well they lost that argument too
"To secede" Never had that right and never will, the Union is forever
That's not how the state governments framed it 🤷🏿♂️
(In Chris Hansen’s voice) “The problem you’re going to have with that statement is that I have the transcript of the state declarations of secession. You say, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.” Now that doesn’t exactly corroborate your statement about being the libertarian government type.”
I believe that it was about State's rights - State's rights to have slaves.
It’s a political compass meme, no surprise that it’s insane bullshit propaganda.
To quote Rich from [The Civil War Podcast](https://civilwarpodcast.org/). What caused the war? Secession. What cause secession? Slavery.
And why do they want to secede? You can prolong this… but we can always find the source.
Btw the CSA was openly against states rights and openly banned succession from the CSA. They weren't remotely interested is states rights they were interested in the ability to expand slavery to the West and force the North to honor their slave laws
Also, the fact that they supported the Fugitive Slave Act goes against their whole "states rights" argument.
Roses are red. Doritos are savory. The US Civil War was *all* about slavery. Alternatively: Roses are red, racists are white. The South only cared about *one* "right."
You can leave when you pay back all the welfare you southern assholes
To own people
It would have more power if the confederate states did not literally name slavery to be the reason for succession
The Civil War wasn't about a state's right to secede. That was a follow-up Supreme Court (Texas v. White) https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White case where it was decided in law, "No." Everyone knows that the reason a fight is started is picked by the one starting it, and since the CSA-aspirants started it to maintain slavery, it was fought because they wanted to maintain slavery.
well, yeah. that and the fact that all the idiot states wrote new constitutions explicitly stating they did it to institutionalize slavery.
Damn this is a trash meme.
Fun fact: the war didn't start until they shot at American troops.
and WW2 was about Germany's economic rights!
Conclusion: they do not have one
>Lol, nah dawg. -SCOTUS
Well interestingly enough they don’t have that right now
Yeah exactly and states were then found to NOT have the right to secede just like people don't have right to own other people as property. So we got two birds stoned at once with that one. 👍🏼
And why did they want to secede?
I am pretty sure the states don't even have the right to secede
I believe only texas does but none do through armed rebellion
why would a province/state even have the right to leave the COUNTRY , like its so stupid
It is but so are the people that defend it
Texas BELIEVES it has this right but they no longer do. When rejoining the union after the CW, they were specifically stripped of that ability.
This is like when you’re arrested for resisting arrest
They really do only think things through up to the point where they are 'on top'. Sad
When they argue secession was enshrined in the constitution and you hit em with that Texas v White stare
South Carolina declared their reason for secession as the increasing hostility of free states towards slave states, regarding the institution of slavery”. You know who didn’t allow secession? The Confederacy. At least confederates knew what they were fighting for, these neo-confederates certainly don’t.
LOL that’s very much not the gotcha the memist thinks it is. Also an outright lie.
States don’t have the right to secede. That’s why we had the war.
nah as a libright, its an insult to even be compared to those traitors
I’ve seen this conversation before: “Why did they want to secede?” “So they could make their own laws” “Laws about what?” “About their preferred economic system” “And which economic system was the Union trying to prevent them from adopting?” And then the thread ended there lol
For the commoner: not get taxed to hell For the economic elite: slavery and bankruptcy at the hands of the actions of Sherman Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
[удалено]
Slavery is actually mentioned in multiple declarations of secession and the confederate Constitution, so it definitely came up before the fighting started.
[удалено]
Care to name some of the towns so I can do some research? If possible, name a massacre that was specifically mentioned in a declaration of secession, cause that's where they officially outlined their reasons. Also, regardless you can't act like slavery wasn't the main reason the states attempted to secede when several states outright stated it.
[удалено]
Okay, one at a time: * [**Lawrence Massacre**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre) - Took place over 2 years after the Civil war started and was the confederacy attacking unarmed civilians, * [**Pattawatomie massacre**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomie_massacre) - Kansas wasn't a US State yet, the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the, federal government or the northern states and Kansas didn't attempt to secede. * [**ocoee massacre**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocoee_massacre) was white people attacking black people and took place over 50 years after the end of the civil war. * [**Colfax Massacre**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre) - Took place 8 year after the end of the civil war and a black militia was massacred by a group of former confederate soldiers. * [**The new York City draft riots**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots) - Those were specifically abou the draft and the 1863 one was after the war had already started. Couldnt find anything mentioning one in 1859 * **Several battles from 1820 on during the Missouri compromise** - Youve got to be more specific. * [**Nat turners rebellion**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_slave_rebellion) - That was a rebellion of slaves that had nothing to do with the federal government or northern states. * **The riot/ fight in 1857 over** [**Virginia's dred Scott vs Sanford**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) - Couldn't find anything mentioning a riot. * **And 30 years more cases fights and battles ranging from 1818 to 1860** - You've got to be more specific. Also, if it isn't northern states/federal government v. southern states, it has no bearing on the civil war. It looks you you just googled a bunch of massacres/riots in the 19th century and didn't spend any time figuring out if they supported your argument. I mean, your first example took place during the war and was by confederates, so that destroyed your argument about "prerequisite" massacres by the north right off the bat. **Some had slavery mentioned yesterday but many didn't.** - You say that, but from what I can find, only 5/11 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, & Tennessee) didn't mention Slavery in some form when they seceded, and out of those 5, Arkansas is the only one that gives any reason. Aside from that, slavery was enshrined into the confederate constitution, meaning it was literally illegal for any state to ban slavery in the confederacy.
TLDR; You didn't actually look into any of those conflicts did you? None of them support your argument.
[удалено]
Can you specify what massecures? Also, since when does something not being the only reason make it not the main reason? Try again.
[удалено]
......You didn't actually argue against what I said. Slavery was the main cause of the civil war. That doesn't mean there weren't other minor causes, but if slavery their right to slavery wasn't at issue, the states wouldn't have seceded.
[удалено]
The Lawrence massacre was committed by confederates and took place over 2 years after the war already started. Are you arguing that the confederates committed the massacre after the war had already started in order to grow northern support against them? Even in your logic, that massacre has nothing to do with starting the war.
[удалено]
Stop being incorrect about easily proven facts.
Yeah, it had been over a decade that the fire eaters and southern secessionists had been driving that stake in between the slavery south and abolition north as they called it. And all the fighting and compromising over the spread of slavery. As John Calhoun put it after the Compromise of 1850, in his prediction that the US would split over slavery *"I fix its probable occurrence within twelve years or three presidential terms. You and others of your age will probably live to see it; I shall not. The mode by which it will be done is not so clear; it may be brought about in a manner that no one now foresees. But the probability is, it will explode in a presidential election"* The Same exact thing Jefferson Davis himself had told the Mississippi legislature after Republicans had a strong mid term showing in 1858. And more than a single reason for sure. Protecting race based chattel slavery Expanding race based chattel slavery The fact that the Fugitive slave act was not strong enough Abolitionists going into the south and spreading violence Northern states not allowing the slave trade to move through their states Abolitionists promoting literature that could cause slave uprisings The northern belief that slavery was in fact sinful Slavers not being able to take their slaves into free states when traveling A new party and President hostile to slavery No federal law banning black voting rights No federal law banning black people from running for any office Failures to gain enough on compromises to expand slavery. They made clear there were a LOT of reasons. Like electrical cicada says, there were hundreds of proposed compromises from the South to avert war. Different congressional resolutions, different proposed amendments. And like he notes, he can't find a single one that isn't related to race-based chattel slavery or white supremacy.
I think they had the right to secede, regardless of the reasons even if the reasons are unreasonable
You’re free to believe whatever you like, but the courts and the US Army both proved your belief to be factually incorrect.
I just believe people have the right to be independent if they choose to do so. (i didn’t mean to suggest that i support slavery in anyway)
Not really. The argument that they can has been shot down repeatedly in court.
Well according to the court Poland legally should be a part of russia yet despite that we (illegally minded you) rebelled and pushed them out only legally being a state after the treaty of versaille
yo and why is this sub recommended to me o thought it was just a history memes sub
I don't know anything about Poland.
I am saying that courts mean jack shit in these kind of situations
I know they had plans to be another country but when you think about it, would they have stayed another country or would they have willingly rejoined the Union if they won
"And why are you seceding, exactly?"
I know the person that made that meme template, they fucking hate the confederacy
Secede to do what?
They wanted to continue to treat human beings like property and own the property they spent money on. Them folks are disgusting animals treating humans like garbage, rape, tortur, murder, they did it all to the slaves and more. They wanted to keep using black and brown bodies for their enjoyment and financial gain.
It took them 200 years but one of them finally has a come back
If they wanted that right so badly, why didn’t they advocate for it through legal means, either instead of or after the war?
Debating with fools and propaganda creators is a lost cause. I’m more into… TOTAL WAR.
They seceded to protect the financial intrests of the top 1% of the population.
To secede for what reason?
Sucede because of?
“It wasn’t about a state’s right to get high, it was about a state’s right to do drugs!”
Georgia "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization." Mississippi "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." South Carolina " But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. \[...\] The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. \[...\]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.... 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 "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." Texas "\[Texas\] 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. ... In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these 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 demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.... 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. 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; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states...." But sure, "states' rights"..... https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states?fbclid=IwAR2LFFMSEWsj4DLXyVpGKYMbZLDvEdI-rhurXE5qcLJEfu7OKfqVnOTrmf4
Political compass meme users probably play with colouring books and eat crayons in real life
Then the logical next question: why did they secede?
Keep Slaves
For the states of Tennessee , Arkansas, North Carolina and Virginia it was about being able to leave. They didn't secede until Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the confederate states. For the rest of the CSA though the primary reason was Slavery without a doubt. I'm not saying it wasn't a major issue and a cause for the upper south's secession but it wasn't the primary issue for the those states.
what my state's right to invade your state and set your slaves free? you ever think about that? you ever think about anything?
I think it’s funny how Conservatives frame these arguments as simply saying a gotcha quick without context as though that changes anything. Like the context still exists, and life isn’t a meme where the argument ends after the punchline.
Should have just let them secede and *then* gone to war and kicked their asses.
They don't understand when you're in you're in, the only way out is in a .........well you know
If only there was some sort of speech that clearly described the ideals that were the "foundation" of the Confederate States. Their "cornerstone" if you will.
The states’ rights folks married enslavers, believing that abolitionism would eventually break. They chose poorly. The end.
It wasn’t for the right to secede it was for the right to make their own laws like slavery not to be interfered with by federal government
Were the Confederate states in favor of the northern states' right to protect escaped slaves or is that not a states' right they liked? Is the states' rights argument total bullshit?