The South was right- the "Civil War" war not over slavery !

[Smitty]

On Amazon.com...

A Southern View of the Invasion of the Southern States and War of 1861-65 Paperback – April 28, 2015
by Samuel A'Court Ashe (Author)

Samuel A'Court Ashe was a Confederate infantry captain in the War Between the States and celebrated editor, historian, and North Carolina legislator. Prior to his death in 1938, he was the last surviving commissioned officer of the Confederate States Army. In this little book, he gives a helpful overview of such subjects as the slave trade and Southern slavery, State sovereignty, the causes of secession, Abraham Lincoln's violations of the Constitution and usurpation of power, and more.

That would be an interesting read. I've always liked the South and had a sympathy for it on the secession question. Lately, I've come to understand the Unionist position more, in that they saw Americans as brothers who had embarked on an experiment together and should continue together. But secession still seems like a natural outflowing of the Revolution and an obvious right to me.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

That would be an interesting read. I've always liked the South and had a sympathy for it on the secession question. Lately, I've come to understand the Unionist position more, in that they saw Americans as brothers who had embarked on an experiment together and should continue together. But secession still seems like a natural outflowing of the Revolution and an obvious right to me.

It sounds like one brother wanted to take the other hostage, lol.

I find it amusing when some people say the Confederates were traitors for secession. I point out under that logic the Founding Fathers are traitors for ending their relationship with the British crown. They never address that point.

You're not a traitor if you're all like, "Look, man, this relationship ain't working out. We're too different. You're a cat person and I'm a dog person. Let's just part ways." If the other side places an embargo on your cities and sends an army to keep you by force, then naturally you're going to fight.

[Andullero]

It sounds like one brother wanted to take the other hostage, lol.

I find it amusing when some people say the Confederates were traitors for secession. I point out under that logic the Founding Fathers are traitors for ending their relationship with the British crown. They never address that point.

You're not a traitor if you're all like, "Look, man, this relationship ain't working out. We're too different. You're a cat person and I'm a dog person. Let's just part ways." If the other side places an embargo on your cities and sends an army to keep you by force, then naturally you're going to fight.

Does that mean you wouldn't raise a stink if California or Texas (or both in tandem) wanted to go their separate ways from the Union nowadays?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Does that mean you wouldn't raise a stink if California or Texas (or both in tandem) wanted to go their separate ways from the Union nowadays?

I would say they're within their right.

[Smitty]

Does that mean you wouldn't raise a stink if California or Texas (or both in tandem) wanted to go their separate ways from the Union nowadays?

I know that was addressed to Frank, but I would love to see a division. Either far-left states seceding or conservative states seceding. Ultra-red states ought to secede, especially if [when] Trump "loses" again.

[Anglo-Celtic]

It appears I offended you, and for that I apologize. For a lot of people, especially on a largely right-wing website, being a Christian is just another part of growing up in a Christian culture. I guess it's more serious than that with you, which is great.

But I maintain my position. A moral system has to have a source. Otherwise, it carries no weight. Christians typically point to the Bible, being the written Word of God, as their authority. It is untenable to hold to one part while rejecting another. Your argument is flawed for several reasons:

1. The Bible doesn't command slavery anywhere. It merely permits it.

2. Nearly all Christians agree, with good reason, that we are no longer in the Israelite kingdom, which is why biblical commands to kill the Canaanites do not apply today.

3. A moral permission (i.e., the moral right to hold chattel slaves) is absolute. What is wrong in one era must be wrong in another, unless God has changed His requirements of us, as with incest, for example. He never rescinded His permission to own slaves.

4. But point #3 is unnecessary to make because the New Testament is in agreement with the Old on this point. Paul also tacitly permits slavery when he commands slaveowners to be good to their slaves. If it were morally wrong and a jeopardy to the Christian's eternal reward, surely Paul, speaking for God, would have told us. And how can we believe Paul when he tells us how to receive the salvation of our souls, if what he says on the subject of slavery is evil and abhorrent? And to what authority do we appeal in contradicting him?

Lastly, I will deign to defend myself, although it chafes me to soothe people's modern sensibilities. I do not "support" slavery, nor do I care to bring it back. The West decided for good enough reasons to do away with it. Also, if you knew me, you would know that I would be among the last to enslave, buy, or hold another person. So everybody can calm down.

I'm done with this discussion. You can reply if you want to, but I am stepping out.

It takes much more than that to offend me, and I don't hold grudges over disagreements. It just reminded me that organized religion is both the best *and* the worst thing that has impacted humankind, and *I* will leave it at that.

[Tooting Carmen]

One thing partially related to this I will say is this: contrary to received wisdom (whether on the Right or the Left), nowadays studies show that, in countries like USA and also South Africa, the people most opposed to mixed-race relationships are Blacks (more specifically, Black women). What's more, compared to the 1960's, while White attitudes have liberalised on this issue considerably, Black attitudes have remained static or even gone in the opposite direction.

[Andullero]

Black attitudes have remained static or even gone in the opposite direction.

Not enough to raise the bloody flag of separatism and carve their own "Wakanda in America", methinks.

[Anglo-Celtic]

They should slip that into the middle of a woke movie about White man bad. The exploding SJW heads would sound like a nuclear blast.

[Tooting Carmen]

Not enough to raise the bloody flag of separatism and carve their own "Wakanda in America", methinks.

Not on the whole, but there is still the Nation of Islam and the various Afrocentric movements.