You missed my point entirely. The South did not want to live life according to the principles of the Constitution. The South was afraid that those principles would free the slaves, so it broke away.
In fact, the South in many ways was against “State’s Rights”. The South favored legislation that forced Northern states to hunt down and return their slaves. It favored legislation that silenced abolitionists and prevent abolitionist pamphlets from being transported by US mail. Again, read the secession declarations–one of the big problems the South had with the federal government was that it felt it was being too lenient on the Northern states. The South wanted nothing more than to create a federal ban on abolitionism. It seems rather clear that this was not a pro-state’s rights position.
July 1, 2015 at 4:11pm
You must be confused–I was never on this ship. I’d say the rats are those Conservatives who suddenly switched their sides with the wind. They should go down with all you crazies!
I fail to see how a life in which millions are enslaved without recognition of their personhood or their civil rights is the “life promised in the Constitution.”
July 1, 2015 at 6:41am
No one is saying that the North is innocent, but the North’s implication in the slave system does not excuse the Confederacy for defending the system at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives.
And, it’s not cherry picking to quote the second second in the declaration–it’s the topic sentence for that whole paragraph. This is also just one of many quotations about slavery in the document. Again, it was dishonest to suggest that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War.
 June 30, 2015 at 9:33pm
Your so called remedy just meant that rich planters who dominated state governments were able to run the entire political system. These same rich planters were able to secure their own economic self-interest, which consequently meant denying freedom and humanity to an entire race of people.
June 30, 2015 at 9:29pm
Haha. Sorry folks. No whining here. Why would I need to whine? The right folks are winning this battle (and a few others to boot!)
Nope, I’m just here to laugh at a few loonies who insist on going down with the ship.
June 30, 2015 at 8:48pm
You have yet to counter or disprove any claims I have made. On the other hand, all you have to post is a discredited rant that even Forbes magazine took off its website.
 June 30, 2015 at 8:47pm
Again, no one is claiming that the North loved black people and that the North went to war to free them.
The South seceded to protect slavery. The Confederacy was created to protect slavery. This is a matter of recorded historical fact. Do you have some way to dispute this? Feel free to read the excerpts from actual secession documents I have posted on threads above.
June 30, 2015 at 8:43pm
Haha Puddle Duck. Feel free to read my refutation of that nonsense on a thread above.
Also, it’s worth noting that this Marotta article was originally on the Forbes website, but they took it down. A notoriously left-wing organizations like Forbes, right?
This website includes secession declarations from South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi. Each declaration details these states’ greivances Now, do a Ctrl-F search for the word “tariff.” None of the declarations mention it at all. Nor do they use the word “export.” Now search for “tax” just for fun. All you can find is South Carolina complaining that slaveholders were taxed for 3/5ths of their slaves.
 June 30, 2015 at 8:32pm
That website you posted is full of inaccuracies and unsupported claims. First of all, how’s this one:
“Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation.”
Psycho-historical model? Hahahaha. The only actual statements the article cites are from the nullification crisis during Jackson’s administration. That conflict did not start the Civil War.
Additionally, the article claims that slavery was on the wane without actually citing any statistics. In fact, Bleeding Kansas (1854-1861) proved that Southern interests would fight viciously for the right to extend slavery into the West, a major issue of contention that isn’t even in the article.
The article states: “Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. ”
Hmmmm…. I wonder what the actual secession documents say?
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery” (Mississippi)
“For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.” (2nd sentence of Georgia declaration)
 June 30, 2015 at 5:36pm
“The progressives could care less about racial issue and more about rewriting history.”
There is nothing wrong with rewriting history when it’s written incorrectly. It was primarily Southern historians after the Civil War who rewrote history. Suddenly, the war was no longer about slavery–it was about “State’s Rights.” This was revisionism at it’s worst. It’s the job of real historians to correct such blatant dishonesty.
 June 30, 2015 at 5:34pm
“The Secession of the Confederate state was for the same reason and not over slavery”
Read the declarations of secession and try to make that claim. Immigration had very little to do with shifts in Congressional power. The much bigger issue was the spread of slavery in the West. Because the federal government was limiting the expansion of slavery and because Northern states were fighting to keep western states like Kansas free states, the South knew that it was only a matter of time before there were more senators from free states than slave states.
It had nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with fighting for the expansion of slavery into the West.
 June 30, 2015 at 5:30pm
1) True. But almost all Northern states had outlawed slavery and freed there slaves by the mid-19th century.
2) You’re mixing up the question. The question isn’t what each side fought for–the question is “why did the South secede in the first place?” The answer is slavery. That’s clear from each state’s declaration of secession. Read them!
3) So? Does that mean that Southern plantation owners were right to kill Americans in order to preserve their human property? Again, you are trying to confuse the issue?
And to the rest, what is your point? Yes, many in the North were implicated in slavery. That does not excuse that fact that the South fought to defend slavery, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives.
6) Most Northern states had already outlawed slavery. That’s also simple historical fact.
[-2] June 30, 2015 at 5:25pm
“This flag has nothing to do with slavery or racism or any other nonsensical epithet that these activist progressives want to apply to it. This is purely an opportunistic perversion of the truth by the left as a means for justifying the end. We must teach our children “real History” as I like to call it. If we don’t we are lost as a nation.”
Wow. Thank God you left academia, since you seem to have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, today that flag represents the Confederacy to many. It doesn’t matter in what narrow context it was used during the war. Second, the battle flag was not always an important political symbol–it only became so during the opposition to desegregation. The flag both represents a history of slavery and a more recent history of segregation.
I’m going to guess that you left academia after having quite a few tantrums because people’s wouldn’t let you tell your warped and self-serving version of history.
 June 30, 2015 at 5:21pm
“The Confederate flag like the Nazi flag is meaningless in the modern world.”
Yeah, and there is a reason that you don’t see government buildings in Berlin flying the Nazi flag.
June 30, 2015 at 5:20pm
“It’s much easier for these guys to just say that the South was evil, and Lincoln sent these nice soldiers into the South after they were attacked to free the slaves.”
You are making a straw man there. No side is pure evil or pure good. The North did not go to war to free the slaves. However, it is a matter of documented historical fact that the South went to war to protect slavery. Simple and clear.
 June 30, 2015 at 5:19pm
“Confederate Flag today….American Flag tomorrow”
Hmm.. that’s funny. Since when the Confederate Flag went down the first time, the American Flag went back up!
But really… that flag represented a war AGAINST THE UNITED STATES! Flying that flag is simply treasonous.
 June 30, 2015 at 5:15pm
Yes, the North did not go to war to free the slaves. That is true. A few of you amateur historians keep mentioning this as if it somehow disproves that the war was not about slavery.
The North did not go to war to end slavery, but it is a matter of documented fact that the South went to war to defend it. See the link regarding the secession documents I posted above. The South seceded because they resented limitations on slavery in the West, they resented the Northern states tolerated agitating Abolitionists, they were angry that some Northern communities refused to return escaped slaves, and although Lincoln did not run on a platform of stopping slavery, the South feared that the new Republican administration would inevitably threaten the institution.
Again, these are documented facts. All of you silly folks hemming and hawing about how libs don’t know history really don’t have a leg to stand on.