Now they control both Houses, so they're gonna try, try again.

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,757
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟653,103.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Right. calling for defunding is too “feminine”....Conservatives would rather just beat cops to a bloody pulp with the flag poles and fire extinguishers.

As long as you guys focus on what a few people did on Jan 6th while ignoring what BLM and Antifa did for almost all of 2020, you show a lack of priority.

And make no mistake it is absolutely in the best interest of gun manufacturers to not be able to keep up with orders. It’s their golden goose.
You’d be a fool to think otherwise.

Not to be able to fill orders? Mmmmkay!

And the dems in congress who are passing gun legislation with no votes from the Republicans are all fools too, right? They're just falling for the evil plan that conservatives tricked them into, right? Or are you going to tell me that the dems are somehow in bed with the gun companies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,757
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟653,103.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
There is no better deterrant to a home invasion, rape, assault, or murder than a nuke in the home.

Victim and property crime would be non existent if everyone was armed with nuclear weapons.

Are you ok?
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No, I am saying that said officials were misled. I am saying that they (and we) are the victims of a very well-planned, well-executed, and well-camouflaged conspiracy to make absolutely sure that Donald Trump lost the election. A conspiracy so well executed that any evidence in conflict with the "official" version of events that the Democrats wanted disseminated was immediately squelched, and squelched hard. In the wake of the 2016 election, they recovered from their shock and had four years to plan their coup, and to make sure that they would win in 2020, by any means necessary. That's what I'm saying.
Do you also believe that the moon is hollowed out space ship? There's about as much proof for that as the election being stolen.

Look, he lost. I'm a card-carrying NRA member myself. I carry concealed. I have an AR-15. Trump lost. If folks want politicians who are not anti-gun, they had better focus on finding good candidates who can win, instead whining about conspiracies and supporting candidates who blew it like Trump did.

Delusion doesn't win elections.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: cow451
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Site Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Some of these militias are organizations that people don't want to join. We'll need them all if SHTF but not everyone believes in everything that they believe in officially or unofficially, nor should they. Meanwhile, self-defense is a natural right, which means that keeping and bearing ample weaponry for that purpose also is a natural right.
SHTF? I guess the F is for fan.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The gun stores are already emptied of guns and ammo because of what went on during 2020, and I guarantee you it wasn't conservatives who were calling for police to be defunded. It's also not conservatives who are pushing for more gun restrictions and just passed 2 major bills in congress. So your theory that it's conservatives doing this to push up gun sales is flawed. The manufacturers can't keep up with the orders as it is.
I suspect that a lot of the new gun owners were those who voted democrat all their lives, but changed their minds about gun ownership when BLM was tearing up their own neighborhoods.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,757
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟653,103.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I suspect that a lot of the new gun owners were those who voted democrat all their lives, but changed their minds about gun ownership when BLM was tearing up their own neighborhoods.

That's part of what I had heard, with figures being around 6 million new gun owners coming out of all this. I wonder what they'll think when those they voted for start trying to restrict their newly-discovered rights.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,984
9,401
✟380,259.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
There is no better deterrant to a home invasion, rape, assault, or murder than a nuke in the home.

Victim and property crime would be non existent if everyone was armed with nuclear weapons.

the first time someone vaporized a city because a thug broke in and attacked his wife would be all it would take.
Crime would be eliminated overnight.
Nukes have nothing to do with this.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Good old Dianne Feinstein, the octogenarian who never gives up. This bill is virtually identical to every other one she has ever submitted, to-wit: she wants to ban all firearms with removable magazines and which have "one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.”

Because, you know, a semi-automatic or single-shot rifle is just a rifle, until it's all tricked out with all sorts of fancy cosmetics---then it magically turns into a rapid-cycle machine gun, which can shoot farther, faster, and with bigger ammo---probably 70, or even 80 caliber! :eek:

These people know absolutely nothing about firearms except what the likes of David Hogg has told them; and on top of that, they know very, very little about the Constitution they allegedly swore an oath to uphold and protect. Obviously they have no idea what "shall not be infringed" means.
1f620.png


Senate Dems introduce 'assault weapons' ban bill on 205 gun models, incl. shotguns, hunting rifles | American Military News
Europe and Canada have strict gun control laws and a much lower homicide rate.

Weapons manufacturers are greedy not wanting universal background checks. All they care about is money.
 
Upvote 0

Oompa Loompa

Against both police brutality and cop killing.
Jun 4, 2020
5,460
2,418
41
Louisiana
✟150,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good old Dianne Feinstein, the octogenarian who never gives up. This bill is virtually identical to every other one she has ever submitted, to-wit: she wants to ban all firearms with removable magazines and which have "one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.”

Because, you know, a semi-automatic or single-shot rifle is just a rifle, until it's all tricked out with all sorts of fancy cosmetics---then it magically turns into a rapid-cycle machine gun, which can shoot farther, faster, and with bigger ammo---probably 70, or even 80 caliber! :eek:

These people know absolutely nothing about firearms except what the likes of David Hogg has told them; and on top of that, they know very, very little about the Constitution they allegedly swore an oath to uphold and protect. Obviously they have no idea what "shall not be infringed" means.
1f620.png


Senate Dems introduce 'assault weapons' ban bill on 205 gun models, incl. shotguns, hunting rifles | American Military News
Note that this is the model of the rifle used to assinate JFK. This would be legal under that bill.
 

Attachments

  • Carcano_M1891.jpg
    Carcano_M1891.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 3
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
854
61
South East
✟66,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Not all rifles that look like the plinger are exactly the same weapon. One holds 5 or 6 rounds while the other holds clips with up to approx. 30 rounds. Both can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

I think there is also a psychological component to using an AR or AK because of the way it looks, not for everyone but for many. What do militia members, prefer and why? Is it because they look like a military-style weapon?

The one with the wood stock will accept the same magazines as the one with the polymer stock. In the last bill, sponsored last year, the Ruger Mini 14 was on the good list as long as it didn't ave the ATI Tactical Stock. The wood version that can accept all Mini 14 compatible magazines was OK, so was the M1 Garand, if you want to see death, let a nutcase loose in a crowded school with an M1.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
854
61
South East
✟66,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The people who wrote the Second Amendment lived in the time when single-shot flintlocks were the most prevalent weapon. They had no conception of modern weaponry, including AR and AK weapons.

BTW, have you read the first part of the 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." People running around taking the law into their own hands violates this clause: 1) they're not a well-regulated militia and 2) they don't have the security of the country as their goal.

If you are going to use the argument that when the constitution was written flint lock rifles were in use, then you would have to accept that no microphones can be used because shouting was the the only method available to address a crowd in the 18th century. And going along with this, only printing presses using movable type operated by hand could be used in printing the newspaper. The advancement of technology does not change the intent of the founding fathers.

As far as the first portion of the 2nd Amendment that referenced the militia, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Heller vs DC 2008, upheld the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self defense without having to be in a militia, or any other military organization. Heller was reaffirmed by the SCOTUS in McDonald vs Chicago 2010, and was incorporated to the States as a fundamental right of the people under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment...you should read these opinions.

Nothing in either opinion prevents reasonable restrictions, placed on firearms.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not to be able to fill orders? Mmmmkay!

According to you, they were apparently able to fill 6 MILLION orders just fine:
That's part of what I had heard, with figures being around 6 million new gun owners coming out of "all this."

Not sure what you do for a living, but I sell Commercial Dishwashers.
Any socio/political "event" that resulted in 6 million NEW Dishwasher owners, not only would I be a HUGE fan of, I would leave no stone unturned to find out how I could participate in orchestrating another event just like it...

Again, you'd be a fool to think the Gun manufacturers aren't jumping for joy about "all of this", and looking to influence the manifestation of more events that would trigger (pardon the pun) a further mad rush.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: cow451
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, the civil war was the start of it since it was the death of states rights.

Yes, the death of States rights to own Slaves.
It is telling that you see the end of slavery as the beginning of the end of our republic.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the death of States rights to own Slaves.
It is telling that you see the end of slavery as the beginning of the end of our republic.
You think the civil war was about slavery? Then how come it wasn't until the middle of it, when the north was looking like they were going to lose, that Lincoln declared the emancipation proclamation as a desperate attempt to get the southern blacks to defect? There were far more issues at hand than slavery. It's amazing how quick you lot are to try to paint someone as racist rather than engaging with arguments. Nothing more than an ad hominem.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As long as you guys focus on what a few people did on Jan 6th while ignoring what BLM and Antifa did for almost all of 2020, you show a lack of priority.

As long as you see the protesting of systemic, racist police brutality as a bigger threat to our society than the violent armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing our federal government and executing our elected leaders, I submit it is you who show a lack of priority.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You think the civil war was about slavery?

Without Question.
The Confederacy that declared war against America in 1861 was all about using violence to enforce white supremacy. They promoted their “lost cause” fantasy for over 150 years to keep white rule in place in America, particularly across the South.

Let’s let the Southern states and their Civil War leaders speak for themselves.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

South Carolina Secession Statement:

"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. 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.

Mississippi Secession Statement:

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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Texas Secession Statement:

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.


By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.


Georgia Secession Statement:

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said the Southern states would fight to keep “the negro” in “his place” in a hard-to-misread statement on the day the Civil War began:

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material — the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory. The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.

Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, cited slavery as the reason for going to war in 1861 and rallied in its defense until his death in 1889. His take on the Emancipation Proclamation, reiterated in his memoirs, is quite telling:

A proclamation, dated on January 1, 1863, signed and issued by the President of the United States, orders and declares all slaves within ten of the States of the Confederacy to be free, except such as are found in certain districts now occupied in part by the armed forces of the enemy. We may well leave it to the instinct of that common humanity, which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries, to pass judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race — peaceful, contented laborers in their sphere — are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation “to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense.”

The Confederate leaders couldn’t have been clearer about what they were fighting for.

There were far more issues at hand than slavery. It's amazing how quick you lot are to try to paint someone as racist rather than engaging with arguments. Nothing more than an ad hominem.

See Above.

And now, to circle right back to the OP topic, The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8, of the newly proposed Constitution—which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia—could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

Patrick Henry even argued that southerners’ “property” (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be a disaster for them: “In this situation,” Henry said to Madison, “I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.”

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson’s insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft to one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

But Henry, Mason, and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word “country” to the word “state” and redrafted the Second Amendment into today’s form:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Little did Madison, Jefferson, or Henry realize that one day in the future, weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as “persons” by a dysfunctional Supreme Court, would use his slave-patrol militia amendment to protect their “right” to manufacture and sell guns to individuals who would use them to murder schoolchildren.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Without Question.
The Confederacy that declared war against America in 1861 was all about using violence to enforce white supremacy. They promoted their “lost cause” fantasy for over 150 years to keep white rule in place in America, particularly across the South.

Let’s let the Southern states and their Civil War leaders speak for themselves.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

South Carolina Secession Statement:

"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. 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.

Mississippi Secession Statement:

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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Texas Secession Statement:

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.


By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.


Georgia Secession Statement:

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said the Southern states would fight to keep “the negro” in “his place” in a hard-to-misread statement on the day the Civil War began:

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material — the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory. The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.

Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, cited slavery as the reason for going to war in 1861 and rallied in its defense until his death in 1889. His take on the Emancipation Proclamation, reiterated in his memoirs, is quite telling:

A proclamation, dated on January 1, 1863, signed and issued by the President of the United States, orders and declares all slaves within ten of the States of the Confederacy to be free, except such as are found in certain districts now occupied in part by the armed forces of the enemy. We may well leave it to the instinct of that common humanity, which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries, to pass judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race — peaceful, contented laborers in their sphere — are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation “to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense.”

The Confederate leaders couldn’t have been clearer about what they were fighting for.



See Above.
The confederacy didn't declare war, they seceded and the union declared war to keep them in the union. Slavery was an issue, and the lynchpin, but it was not the issue. The issue was that the north had industrialized while the south remained agrarian and the federal government reflected the norths interests while ignoring the souths. Slavery would have been supplanted as technology and economies changed but the south still had an economy that was intricately dependent on it. The end of slavery wasn't some great moral revolution, it was an economic decision because it was cheaper to pay factory workers than to take care of families of slaves. So while slavery was important to the civil war the ultimate question was whether the states have a right to voluntarily leave the union when it no longer serves their interests, or if the federal government can force the states to remain.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How do you reconcile THIS:
You think the civil war was about slavery?

With THIS:
Slavery was an issue, and the lynchpin

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to to deflect away from slavery/racism when someone calls their position out on it.

If advocating for your your position on any issue EVER requires you deflect away, attempt to diminish, minimize or sweep slavery & racism under the rug, I submit your position is the wrong one.

Same with Nazis.... If your Side of an issue has the Full, unbridled support of Nazis, then it's a very safe bet that you're on the wrong side of the issue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How do you reconcile THIS:


With THIS:


It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to to deflect away from slavery/racism when someone calls their position out on it.

If advocating for your your position on any issue EVER requires you deflect away, attempt to diminish, minimize or sweep slavery & racism under the rug, I submit your position is the wrong one.

Same with Nazis.... If your Side of an issue has the Full, unbridled support of Nazis, then it's a very safe bet that you're on the wrong side of the issue.
My position doesn't require any of that, it requires looking at the situation without the modern glasses of "slavery is the worst evil ever" and examining the issues at hand. The south didn't have the luxury of moral objection to slavery because their economy, their lives, were so heavily dependent upon it. The north completely ignored the real concerns of the south to try to force their sense of moral superiority(of course, their abuses of the poor in the factories wasn't being examined) regardless of the harm it would inflict on southern lives. The racial aspects of slavery have nothing to do with the question, and it is only modern sensibilities that cannot comprehend the economic realities that were the real issue. There's no sweeping under the rug, and racism doesn't really enter the picture because the racial aspects of slavery in the south are ancilliary to the questions presented with the civil war. And simply because slavery is morally reprehensible does not mean that what happened during the civil war is immediately correct, especially in so far as the political theory is involved. The sovereignty of states need not be directly tied to slavery and the accidental circumstances of the civil war tying the two together doesn't mean they necessarily have to follow. That you cannot separate underlying political threads from accidental historical circumstances, and instead hold a guilt by association ad hominem demonstrates nothing but your inability to critically consider issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0