Civil War Debate

The difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution was enormous, that's why many feared the latter would never get ratified they were so drastic.

The Civil War was an anticipatory step by the South in fear the North would take steps to end slavery. The South was already violating agreements that slavery was not to be extended to the West. They stated slavery was the key issue in their declarations of secession, which you can read easily.

The South threatened to secede because of the protective tariffs of 1828.
The North didn't make slavery an issue until 1862.
TWO years after SC seceded.
The Civil War was NOT about slavery.
Stop trying to convince yourself it was.
Especially since over 95% of Southerners did not own slaves.
It was about unfair tariffs and the Northern Invasion.
How many slaves do you think the Union Army were monitoring from Fort Sumter?
They weren't.
They were blocking the South from trading cotton directly with Europe.
And Fort Sumter was their guard post.

I repeat: they themselves very specifically stated in their own DECLARATIONS OF SECESSION that it WAS about slavery.

But what would they know?

True most Southerners didn't own slaves. True. But irrelevant.

"Irrelevant"?
Non Slave Owners in the South were innocent, but the North still stole their money, invaded their land, burned their homes, and lied about the reason they were there.

The Declarations Of Secession basically said:
"You want to label us "Slave States"? That's fine, but we "Slave States" are declaring our independence."
Then it goes on to discuss the way the Union has rejected the initial principles of the Constitution and waged war on the South.

Basically, it was a long-worded description of the North's actions of Piracy.

Sure, it mentioned slavery. But that was a legal practice. Slaves were Legally sold by Africa, and Legally bought by Europeans and Americans. (The North engaged in slavery for hundreds of years).

There's nothing legal about Pirates who use war ships to block the free trade of goods between sovereign nations.

You should actually read a few instead of assuming you know without reading them what they say.

They state that the issue behind the secessions is the system of slavery, period.

They also violated their pledge to confine it to their lands and not expand it west.

But I'm glad you see helping fugitive slaves as "piracy", it tells us the mindset is fundamentally unchanged.

The South was not for states rights', it was against them, because that's what allowed Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and others to refuse to hand fugitive slaves over to their Southern slave masters.

You should read this sometime:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_second_inaugural_address

Slaves did have rights:
The right to buy their own freedom. (And later buy slaves themselves).
People who killed or maimed slaves were punished by law.
An 1809 law prohibited the forced breakup of slave families and allowed slaves to legally marry.
A 1785 law guaranteed blacks a jury trial if charged with capital crimes.
Slaves paid no taxes.

But we're not here to talk about slavery.
We're talking about the Articles of Confederation.

If you can't stay focused on the topic, then don't respond to my posts.

See, you're so desperate to rationalize the evil that you cite aberrations as if they were universal, which of course they were not. Families were broken up and "sold down the river" all the time. And when such laws existed, they were usually ignored, you think a local judge was statistically more likely to favor a local dignitary over the paper rights of some "nigra"? Just look at corruption in your local government every day and apply the principle.

"Song of the South" is a myth. You should read a book of actual slave interviews taken by historians during the WPA years called "Bullwhip Days". Yeah some of them talk about the rare silver linings or feeling for their owners, but you didn't ever hear one of them wish for them back.

We're talking slavery because you introduced the topic; therefore you should expect replies.

And my old points regarding the original Articles of Confederation and Constitution stand.

"Uncle Tom's Cabin" was fiction.
Northern political propaganda depicted Southerners as cruel men who whipped slaves with bull whips for any reason they drummed up.
Just like the Nazis depicted Jews as greedy perverts.

It seems like the evil ones make up excuses to invade and commit horrible crimes on the innocent people.

By the way, when you give someone your family name, you're no so inclined to tie them to a tree and beat them.
Once again, that is largely political propaganda.
Had it not worked, there were French and British ships ready to defend the South against the Northern aggressors.

One final note:

I take full responsibility for the conclusions and claims I'm making, because I use logic and reasoning to put together facts as I research them.
Unlike those who spew forth the same rhetoric they've read without even thinking of the validity of their claims.

If I'm wrong, no one else gets blamed.
But if you're wrong, you run and hide behind "I read it in my 8th grade history book, so it's not my fault!"

Nice dodge from any accountability, or willingness to use that blob of grey matter between your ears.

I obviously didn't dodge anything, that's your imagination.

Bullwhip days - in their own words, and you can see them being careful to balance and tell the truth - was not fiction.

Every slavery apologist should read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation