Nikki Haley

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

A direction that ends the nonsense of glorifying traitors and pretending the Civil War was not at all or in any way fought for slavery.

Sounds good...but. You haven't proved the South was traitor. I have proved the North was traitor. And, I have proved that slavery was not the reason the South fought. And the end of slavery is not the reason the North fought. But, you have proved nothing.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In other words, the North was unwilling to obey the Law of the Land. Who is the Rebel now? Who is traitor to the Constitution now?

Good-Ole-Rebel

They were unwilling to obey a cruel and inhumane law of the land. What they weren't traitorous to are the ideals of freedom and inherent rights of all humans the Constitution is based on.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

They were unwilling to obey a cruel and inhumane law of the land. What they weren't traitorous to are the ideals of freedom and inherent rights of all humans the Constitution is based on.

In other words, they were unwilling to obey the Constitution. Who are the traitors now?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And, I have proved that slavery was not the reason the South fought

They were fighting to protect their ways, which even according to Alexander Stephens slavery was a major part.

our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.

...
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
...
The Confederate States were established explicitly to preserve and expand the institution of slavery.
...

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

They were fighting to protect their ways, which even according to Alexander Stephens slavery was a major part.

They were fighting because the North refused to protect their ways and treat them as equals under the Constitution. This has been explained in full in posts # (42,60,62,64).

Jeff Davis the President of the Confederacy stated why we seceded. Post #(62)

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They were fighting because the North refused to protect their ways

Their ways. And they themselves were very adamant that slavery was a big part of that.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Their ways. And they themselves were very adamant that slavery was a big part of that.

I have never denied that slavery was a major issue as it was the center of the agitators, the abolitionist. But again, as the posts I showed you prove, slavery was already protected. The North was willing to guarantee that slavery would be forever protected by offering the 13th amendment.

The South didn't have to secede to obtain slavery. It was already theirs. But the North would not abide by the protections the South should have gotten under the Constitution. This is why the South seceded.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have never denied that slavery was a major issue as it was the center of the agitators, the abolitionist. But again, as the posts I showed you prove, slavery was already protected. The North was willing to guarantee that slavery would be forever protected by offering the 13th amendment.

The South didn't have to secede to obtain slavery. It was already theirs. But the North would not abide by the protections the South should have gotten under the Constitution. This is why the South seceded.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Slavery has never been Constitutionally protected. It was a point of Stephens during the Cornerstone Speech, that the old Constitution didn't, the Founders didn't understand, and the new CSA constitution did protect slavery, not just as a right bus as the "proper place of the negro." The 13th doesn't come about until after the Civil War, and it forever ended slavery as a legal institution in the USA. But, as history shows us, whiney CSA snowflakes wouldn't have it, broke many laws, became terrorists, birthed the Klan, and couldn't bear the thought of a black person walking and living free, so they found additional ways to repress and oppress.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In other words, they were unwilling to obey the Constitution. Who are the traitors now?

Good-Ole-Rebel

They upheld the ideals of the Constitution. Any law supporting slavery was an abomination.

I am not going to indulge in the "traitors vs patriots" argument because it is immaterial to the fact that the South seceded primarily due to their fear that opposition to slavery was growing. Even where states' rights were a concern, this was based on opposition to the Fugitive Slave act.

The Reasons for Secession

 

[Skreeper]

I have never denied that slavery was a major issue as it was the center of the agitators, the abolitionist. But again, as the posts I showed you prove, slavery was already protected. The North was willing to guarantee that slavery would be forever protected by offering the 13th amendment.

The South didn't have to secede to obtain slavery. It was already theirs. But the North would not abide by the protections the South should have gotten under the Constitution. This is why the South seceded.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I for one am glad that the South lost. Do not give one inch to Nazis.

It's quite an elaborate way to defend slavery you have going on here. Does it make you feel good being a white supremacists?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Slavery has never been Constitutionally protected. It was a point of Stephens during the Cornerstone Speech, that the old Constitution didn't, the Founders didn't understand, and the new CSA constitution did protect slavery, not just as a right bus as the "proper place of the negro." The 13th doesn't come about until after the Civil War, and it forever ended slavery as a legal institution in the USA. But, as history shows us, whiney CSA snowflakes wouldn't have it, broke many laws, became terrorists, birthed the Klan, and couldn't bear the thought of a black person walking and living free, so they found additional ways to repress and oppress.

I see you haven't read the posts I asked you to. If you had you wouldn't have made the mistake of saying slavery was never protected by the Constitution. Please read them as it would help. (42,56,62,64,67,69)

Slavery was protected by the Constitution in the 4th amendment. Any escaped slave was to be returned to his rightful owner. The original 13th amendment was offered to the South by Congress and endorsed by Lincoln after the first 7 states seceded. It was promised in hopes that the South would not secede. It made slavery perpetual in the U.S. with the assurance that no law could be passed against it. It was rejected by the South. Thus it never came into being.

Prior to this offer of the 13th amendment, was the Dred Scott decision. As I have pointed out in the posts I mentioned, it was a Supreme Court case. As you know, or should know, the Supreme Court deals with Constitutional Law. To be brief, the Supreme Court decision removed the division between free and slave states, doing away with the Missouri Compromise.

What did this mean? It meant the Southernor was free to take his slaves in any state or territory he wanted and was protected by the Constitution.

Your last sentence shows the shallowness of your knowledge of the War between the States. You just offer the simple buzz words based on emotion. The typical waving of the bloody flag.

Do your research on the things I have mentioned and show me where I am historically mistaken.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

They upheld the ideals of the Constitution. Any law supporting slavery was an abomination.

I am not going to indulge in the "traitors vs patriots" argument because it is immaterial to the fact that the South seceded primarily due to their fear that opposition to slavery was growing. Even where states' rights were a concern, this was based on opposition to the Fugitive Slave act.

The Reasons for Secession

Your opinion of slavery is not the point. It was protected under the Constitution. It is that Constitution that people who enter military service, and the House of Representatives, and the Senate, give oath to protect.

You don't want to 'indulge' the traitor vs patriot argument because I have showed the South was not traitor, the North was. Until I make that argument, it is all about the South being traitor and treason.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I for one am glad that the South lost. Do not give one inch to Nazis.

It's quite an elaborate way to defend slavery you have going on here. Does it make you feel good being a white supremacists?

What does Nazis have to do with it?

By 'elaborate' you mean you have nothing to refute what I have said.

Yes, I like being white, and Southern.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see you haven't read the posts I asked you to. If you had you wouldn't have made the mistake of saying slavery was never protected by the Constitution. Please read them as it would help. (42,56,62,64,67,69)

Slavery was protected by the Constitution in the 4th amendment. Any escaped slave was to be returned to his rightful owner. The original 13th amendment was offered to the South by Congress and endorsed by Lincoln after the first 7 states seceded. It was promised in hopes that the South would not secede. It made slavery perpetual in the U.S. with the assurance that no law could be passed against it. It was rejected by the South. Thus it never came into being.

Prior to this offer of the 13th amendment, was the Dred Scott decision. As I have pointed out in the posts I mentioned, it was a Supreme Court case. As you know, or should know, the Supreme Court deals with Constitutional Law. To be brief, the Supreme Court decision removed the division between free and slave states, doing away with the Missouri Compromise.

What did this mean? It meant the Southernor was free to take his slaves in any state or territory he wanted and was protected by the Constitution.

Your last sentence shows the shallowness of your knowledge of the War between the States. You just offer the simple buzz words based on emotion. The typical waving of the bloody flag.

Do your research on the things I have mentioned and show me where I am historically mistaken.

Good-Ole-Rebel

The Fourth protects use from unwarranted searches and seizures. It has no wording to protect slavery. And how nice you ignore what that the CSA made its Constitution with the goal of preserving slavery because the Constitution doesn't. And, for your information, a Supreme Court case is not the Constitution and those decisions do sometimes get overturned, just as Dredd Scott did.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Your opinion of slavery is not the point. It was protected under the Constitution. It is that Constitution that people who enter military service, and the House of Representatives, and the Senate, give oath to protect.

You don't want to 'indulge' the traitor vs patriot argument because I have showed the South was not traitor, the North was. Until I make that argument, it is all about the South being traitor and treason.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Do you disagree with my opinion that slavery was inhumane?

"Traitor" is a word that can be thrown around willy nilly and still be accurate in context. All Americans were traitors to the crown. Slaveholders who were Christian were traitors to their religious ideals.

The Constitution is wonderful and all, but protecting slavery was a black mark and if by amending it to remove those protections for slaveholders one is deemed a traitor, then so be it. It is a word used by victors to stigmatize the opposition.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The Fourth protects use from unwarranted searches and seizures. It has no wording to protect slavery. And how nice you ignore what that the CSA made its Constitution with the goal of preserving slavery because the Constitution doesn't. And, for your information, a Supreme Court case is not the Constitution and those decisions do sometimes get overturned, just as Dredd Scott did.

Sorry. My mistake. It is Article 4 of the Constitution.

A Supreme Court decision is Law based upon the Constitution.

Now, what of the Constitution that protects slavery? The Dred Scott decision that protects slavery? The offer of the 13th amendment that would forever protect slavery And Lincolns endorsement of it?

The Supreme Court that overturned the Dred Scott decision was a sectional Supreme Court that did not consider the Southern states at all. It occurred after their military victory.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Do you disagree with my opinion that slavery was inhumane?

"Traitor" is a word that can be thrown around willy nilly and still be accurate in context. All Americans were traitors to the crown. Slaveholders who were Christian were traitors to their religious ideals.

The Constitution is wonderful and all, but protecting slavery was a black mark and if by amending it to remove those protections for slaveholders one is deemed a traitor, then so be it. It is a word used by victors to stigmatize the opposition.

Yes, I disagree.

It is the North and damnyankees that throw that term around so freely.

Being owner of slaves was not traitorous. It was protected by the Constitution. Article 4.

Slave holders who were Christians were not traitor to their faith. Where do you get that?

Well, if you are against the Constitution, and the Southernor is for the Constitution, who is the traitor.....?......You.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, I disagree.

It is the North and damnyankees that throw that term around so freely.

Being owner of slaves was not traitorous. It was protected by the Constitution. Article 4.

Slave holders who were Christians were not traitor to their faith. Where do you get that?

Well, if you are against the Constitution, and the Southernor is for the Constitution, who is the traitor.....?......You.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Christianity is based around the concept of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who sent Christ to redeem humanity. ALL humanity who accept the Gospel, right? The teachings of Christ suggest compassion and love for all men. By owning slaves and treating them in a repulsive manner, they are betraying those teachings.

So you support the enslavement and mistreatment of people?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry. My mistake. It is Article 4 of the Constitution.

A Supreme Court decision is Law based upon the Constitution.

Now, what of the Constitution that protects slavery? The Dred Scott decision that protects slavery? The offer of the 13th amendment that would forever protect slavery And Lincolns endorsement of it?

The Supreme Court that overturned the Dred Scott decision was a sectional Supreme Court that did not consider the Southern states at all. It occurred after their military victory.

Good-Ole-Rebel

There was also a proposed 13 that would have stripped citizenship of anyone who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign power. But none of those even matter because they weren't ratified. Just as the intentions to abolish slavery from day one don't matter because the North caved on the issue. And the fourth article creates a conflict, as the privileges and immunities clause and fugitive slave clause are not compatible, and indeed the South didn't respect our honor other states when they abducted black people from the North (they weren't always run away slaves).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Christianity is based around the concept of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who sent Christ to redeem humanity. ALL humanity who accept the Gospel, right? The teachings of Christ suggest compassion and love for all men. By owning slaves and treating them in a repulsive manner, they are betraying those teachings.

So you support the enslavement and mistreatment of people?

That is not at all true as the Bible clearly supports and condones slavery, even establishing laws to regulate it.