(04-06-2011 07:55 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 07:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Articles of Confederation weren't ratified, and 6 of the 7 Iriquois nations friendly to the colonists promptly sided with the British along with Benedict Arnold...

So, why didn't the Declaration ban slavery? Why didn't the Articles of Confederation? Why didn't the Constitution?

What was the problem? What was the hold up?

A bunch of wealthy white men decided that all wealthy white men should be free, and the rest didn't count...

(04-06-2011 08:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 07:55 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 07:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Articles of Confederation weren't ratified, and 6 of the 7 Iriquois nations friendly to the colonists promptly sided with the British along with Benedict Arnold...

So, why didn't the Declaration ban slavery? Why didn't the Articles of Confederation? Why didn't the Constitution?

What was the problem? What was the hold up?

A bunch of wealthy white men decided that all wealthy white men should be free, and the rest didn't count...

Of which rich white men was this especially true?

Don't be afraid. You're almost there.

I was watching the PBS Civil War and it stated that the Democrats wanted to end the War; with or without victory. The irony couldn't have been any more understated.

The overwhelming majority of those fighting for the South didn't own slaves.

(04-06-2011 08:55 PM)Cletus Wrote:  The overwhelming majority of those fighting for the South didn't own slaves.

Those also weren't the people making policy in the state houses.

Those'd by the money guys, yes? And how was their money made?

(04-06-2011 08:55 PM)Cletus Wrote:  I was watching the PBS Civil War and it stated that the Democrats wanted to end the War; with or without victory. The irony couldn't have been any more understated.

The overwhelming majority of those fighting for the South didn't own slaves.

I doubt you could've come up with a more irrelevant post.

But I'm sure you'll try to top it in the future.

I looked up irrelevant in the dictionary Greg.

It said "See TOGC" and your picture was there.

Not sure why this is such a huge disagreement here. The slavery issue and states rights issue pretty much intertwined. Its like putting a hand in a glove. You can't have one issue without the other. I'm just surprised at how people totally missed on Europe's influence on causing the war. European banks wanted a strong private bank controlling the US's monetary system at the time. Which is why England had troops in Canada, and France had troops in Mexico. Europe couldn't stand how strong the young nation was getting and felt that America was better off having 2 separate weaker nations with Europe colonizing the west. Lincolns best decision of the war was telling those banks to eff off and printed "green-backs" to fund the war.

(04-06-2011 10:30 PM)Cletus Wrote:  I looked up irrelevant in the dictionary Greg.

It said "See Cletus" and my picture was there.

FIFY

(04-06-2011 08:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 08:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 07:55 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 07:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Articles of Confederation weren't ratified, and 6 of the 7 Iriquois nations friendly to the colonists promptly sided with the British along with Benedict Arnold...

So, why didn't the Declaration ban slavery? Why didn't the Articles of Confederation? Why didn't the Constitution?

What was the problem? What was the hold up?

A bunch of wealthy white men decided that all wealthy white men should be free, and the rest didn't count...

Of which rich white men was this especially true?

Don't be afraid. You're almost there.

You mean the ones that wrote the Constitution? They're the only ones that come to mind...

(04-07-2011 09:40 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 08:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 08:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 07:55 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-06-2011 07:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Articles of Confederation weren't ratified, and 6 of the 7 Iriquois nations friendly to the colonists promptly sided with the British along with Benedict Arnold...

So, why didn't the Declaration ban slavery? Why didn't the Articles of Confederation? Why didn't the Constitution?

What was the problem? What was the hold up?

A bunch of wealthy white men decided that all wealthy white men should be free, and the rest didn't count...

Of which rich white men was this especially true?

Don't be afraid. You're almost there.

You mean the ones that wrote the Constitution? They're the only ones that come to mind...

Specifically the ones hellbent to keep slavery legal, when it was adopted.

The ones that wouldn't sign off on it, otherwise?

Come on. You're not stupid. Why do you ignore the obvious? Why do you ignore the words of Stephens? Would he not be in a position to know better than either of us?