OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[carolinablue34]

try to grasp this, seriously. The Constitution contains no impediment to the withdrawal of any State from the Union. Regardless of any motivation in acting to secede, secession was not 'rebellious' and there was no 'insurrection', because legally, those States had every right to leave. The war was not fought over slavery...it was fought because Lincoln decided, improperly, that he wouldn't allow those States to disrupt the Union. And again, the issue of slavery had no bearing on his POV in that regard, and he is on record as saying so.

When South Carolina seceded, they logically made the assumption that land that was part of their State belonged to them. Contractual obligations to the Union were made as a State belonging to the Union, which they were no longer part of. They fired on Fort Sumter because the Union command there refused to vacate. Whether that was an act of war to fire on them is no better an argument than whether refusing to vacate was. But had Lincoln not commanded that a presence at Sumpter be maintained, no shots would have been necessary.

So, as far as 'The War of Northern Aggression' is concerned, when one considers that no shots at all would have been fired save the North's stated determination to dictate the South's destiny, there's really nothing else it could be logically called.

If one wants to argue the elements of secession, no doubt slavery has to be recognized. But if one wants to logically and intelligently discuss the reason the Civil War was fought, look only to action by the Union President that remains illegal and improper to this day.

There's only one problem with your proclamation. Legally, the South was never a nation and never recognized as such by anyone. So legally speaking the South attacked Union property at Fort Sumter. And anyone who joined the Confederacy by definition, Lee included, was a traitor.

What on earth did you expect? That Lincoln would just pack up and leave and let the South do as they please? That the onus is on him? Bullshit. Fort Sumter was American property. Not Confederate property. An illegitimate government has no rights to anything,

I am thrilled you recognize that slavery is one of the drivers of the Civil War, because at its heart, that was really the only driver. To suggest otherwise, is to be in complete and utter denial.

There would have been no war were it not for slavery. And why on earth do this last contingent of Southerners cling so tightly to it? You LOST. The Confederacy lost. You are American first and foremost. Not Confederates. It is done, over, kaput, etc. Why hang onto people that at the end of the day ended up on the wrong side of history?

What the f**k is with this stupid, asinine, obsession?

 

[uncboy10]

It is astounding that anyone could still find anything about the confederacy worthy of defending.

 

[bluetoe]

There's only one problem with your proclamation. Legally, the South was never a nation and never recognized as such by anyone. So legally speaking the South attacked Union property at Fort Sumter. And anyone who joined the Confederacy by definition, Lee included, was a traitor.

What on earth did you expect? That Lincoln would just pack up and leave and let the South do as they please? That the onus is on him? Bullshit. Fort Sumter was American property. Not Confederate property. An illegitimate government has no rights to anything,

I am thrilled you recognize that slavery is one of the drivers of the Civil War, because at its heart, that was really the only driver. To suggest otherwise, is to be in complete and utter denial.

There would have been no war were it not for slavery. And why on earth do this last contingent of Southerners cling so tightly to it? You LOST. The Confederacy lost. You are American first and foremost. Not Confederates. It is done, over, kaput, etc. Why hang onto people that at the end of the day ended up on the wrong side of history?

What the f**k is with this stupid, asinine, obsession?

in terms of the Confederacy engaging the Union, to who did the South need to qualify or be recognized as a state or country, other than the country which had illegally decided that it could not be one? In terms of other countries, the Confederacy wasn't officially recognized only because those countries that mattered chose a position of neutrality. If they considered the Confederacy to be merely an insurrection or rebellion, what were they being neutral toward? Your entire argument is built on nothing other than the usual simplistic need to lay the cause of the war on slavery. The war was NOT fought because of slavery, and in order to believe that it was, one has to be voluntarily ignorant of the facts as well as common sense.

To say that there would be no war if not for slavery is like saying if not for black people in Africa there would have been no war. That's probably true also, but because there were black people is not why the war was fought. The war was fought because the Union would not allow the Confederate States to secede. Had the Union allowed the South to secede and form the Confederacy, there would have been no war, and the Union did NOT disallow the Confederacy on the basis of slavery. It's really that simple.

The legality or propriety of the engagement at Sumpter is a gray area for sure, but even that being the case changes nothing about the fact that the war was fought because the Union determined to disallow the Confederacy.


"What the f**k is with this stupid, asinine, obsession?"

you tell me, you brought it up.

 

[bluetoe]

I completely agree that societal norms 100, 150-250 years ago should be viewed in that context. I don't judge them for who they were THEN. But, I also don't think it's "right" to honor them in any way NOW for what they did to preserve those norms which most of us consider completely unacceptable societal norms in the present. Their place in history is permanently-associated with trying to preserve a way of life that is counter to a free society. They rebelled against the United States of America. If you are pro-USA, then I dunno how you can be pro-Confederacy. The Confederacy was trying to subvert the United States! You can hate Lincoln if you want, but without him, the USA would not even be a country as we know it now.

you are consistently guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To cherish a part of history and the history of a specific place is not to cherish everything about it. If you condemn noted figures of the Civil War because they fought to preserve the South as it was, you are condemning the South as well. It's sheer stupidity.

Our country as a whole has undertaken many very questionable if not downright wrongful endeavors. Should we sink the battleship North Carolina because of the way it represents a defense of the place where these things occurred? Or should we use common sense and understand that everything we deal with has elements of good and bad?

 

[bluetoe]

LOL... careful. That's almost capitulating that they sorta liked being wealthy due to the profits of chattel slavery. "Generally pro-slavery!" That's like saying: The German SS was generally pro-Aryan. Wahhabist Muslims are generally pro-Quran.

one can only wish that there was a way to make you smart enough to see how stupid you are. No one, including me, has ever suggested that the South wasn't happy to be economically successful, and the idea that they were happy about this is neither here nor there in this discussion.

That being said, 'generally pro-slavery' is meaningful because there were areas and numbers of people who didn't happen to be crazy about slavery. Our own State was very hesitant to join the secession, and it was decidedly less pro-slavery than most of the other Southern States. 90 % of your sarcasm is off-base and is usually derived from your ignorance..

 

[bluetoe]

Ahhh, so some vague notion that some old white guy loves. I think you might wanna check with your one black friend.

and there's the famous strum drivel, offered out of ignorance and in lieu of any serious response to something he has no answer for.

 

[strummingram]

It is astounding that anyone could still find anything about the confederacy worthy of defending.

Look at the last five posts, of you have a few hours to kill. Lost Cause BS, and some other random BS for kicks. A Johnny Reb for all occasions.

 

[Archer2]

So Strum’s family we’re slave owners. That must mean he’s a racist, right? At least he can take solace from the fact that Stuart’s ill advised actions in gallivanting around instead of watching the Union Army as ordered, caused Lee to be “blind“ to the Union troops movement and allowed them to capture the high ground at Gettysburg, effectively signaling defeat for Lee. This effectively ended the war. So he can be proud that his ancestor played a very significant part in ending the war.

J.E.B. Stuart was known to be vain(he cultivated a cavalier image (red-lined gray cape, the yellow waist sash of a regular cavalry officer, hat cocked to the side with an ostrich plume, red flower in his lapel, often sporting cologne), as well as arrogant. Strum inherited those traits from him. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

 

[blazers]

So Strum’s family we’re slave owners. That must mean he’s a racist, right? ..........The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

lessons on genetic inheritance AND history up in here.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Oh, I see your point. I should have clarified actually. We all honor people we don't have a direct connection with. But honoring Confederate generals and leaders is controversial and not without good reason.

You may not like Strum's stance on statues but a vast majority were absolutely created for the purpose of perpetuating the legacy of the Lost Cause and as a middle finger to black people. Consider many of them weren't even built until well after the Civil War ended in the heart of Jim Crow/segregation or at the time of the Civil Rights movement.

How do you prove your assertion? I’m not talking about you and strum trying to connect some dots. I want to see a link to govt officials saying it, or better yet, tell the statue makers to give me a call.

 

[gunslingerdick]

So Strum’s family we’re slave owners. That must mean he’s a racist, right? At least he can take solace from the fact that Stuart’s ill advised actions in gallivanting around instead of watching the Union Army as ordered, caused Lee to be “blind“ to the Union troops movement and allowed them to capture the high ground at Gettysburg, effectively signaling defeat for Lee. This effectively ended the war. So he can be proud that his ancestor played a very significant part in ending the war.

J.E.B. Stuart was known to be vain(he cultivated a cavalier image (red-lined gray cape, the yellow waist sash of a regular cavalry officer, hat cocked to the side with an ostrich plume, red flower in his lapel, often sporting cologne), as well as arrogant. Strum inherited those traits from him. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

I don’t believe any of the shit that moron poasts. I’ve exposed him time and again as a fraud. Don’t fall for it.

 

[nctransplant]

Good reference. It feels weird, actually. I've had the Confederate lineage pounded into me from as far back as I can remember. Most of my family are Trump-loving Republicans. They all live in Prince George County, south of Richmond, and Chesterfield, Petersburg. My cousins' FB pages are littered with Rebel crap about the statues coming down. My mother is even pissed about it.

Good thing you dated a black girl once to atone for all the racism in your lineage.

 

[strummingram]

Good thing you dated a black girl once to atone for all the racism in your lineage.

Three.

 

[nctransplant]

Three.

You can't count the trannies.

 

[strummingram]

You can't count the trannies.

Why not?

 

[gunslingerdick]

Three.

So I guess if those three black people were coming down the sidewalk you wouldn't feel the need to cross the street?

 

[Archer2]

Three.

Were they “mainstream African-Americans that were articulate and bright and clean and good looking?” I mean, that’s a storybook, man!

 

[strummingram]

Were they “mainstream African-Americans that were articulate and bright and clean and good looking?” I mean, that’s a storybook, man!

Is that a quote from a movie or something?

 

[bluetoe]

Is that a quote from a movie or something?

nope. From real life, unfortunately.

 

[strummingram]

nope. From real life, unfortunately.

Oh, so he was coming on to me. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than that.

 

[bluetoe]

Oh, so he was coming on to me. Well I don't roll that way. I've told you the same thing.

calm down, Juliet. The quote is Biden referring to your boyfriend barack o.

So which way do you roll? Over?

 

[strummingram]

calm down, Juliet. The quote is Biden referring to your boyfriend barack o.

So which way do you roll? Over?

Juliet??? My boyfriend barack o.? I never voted for Obama.



Ohhh, you're trying to feminize me. Got it. Misogyny-mixed-with-homophobia! Yay! That was a super-cool burn! I'll never recover.

 

[Archer2]

calm down, Juliet. The quote is Biden referring to your boyfriend barack o.

So which way do you roll? Over?

He is so out of touch with reality. He and blazer should get a room. BTW, if I were gay, I certainly wouldn’t be attracted to someone with a mug like that, even if I could get past his arrogance.

 

[Archer2]

An obviously racist statement by our fearless leader.

The village idiot

 

[carolinablue34]

in terms of the Confederacy engaging the Union, to who did the South need to qualify or be recognized as a state or country, other than the country which had illegally decided that it could not be one? In terms of other countries, the Confederacy wasn't officially recognized only because those countries that mattered chose a position of neutrality. If they considered the Confederacy to be merely an insurrection or rebellion, what were they being neutral toward? Your entire argument is built on nothing other than the usual simplistic need to lay the cause of the war on slavery. The war was NOT fought because of slavery, and in order to believe that it was, one has to be voluntarily ignorant of the facts as well as common sense.

To say that there would be no war if not for slavery is like saying if not for black people in Africa there would have been no war. That's probably true also, but because there were black people is not why the war was fought. The war was fought because the Union would not allow the Confederate States to secede. Had the Union allowed the South to secede and form the Confederacy, there would have been no war, and the Union did NOT disallow the Confederacy on the basis of slavery. It's really that simple.

The legality or propriety of the engagement at Sumpter is a gray area for sure, but even that being the case changes nothing about the fact that the war was fought because the Union determined to disallow the Confederacy.


"What the f**k is with this stupid, asinine, obsession?"

you tell me, you brought it up.

International recognition for one thing. Britain and France almost did. But in the end, they didn't. You just answered your own question. If they considered the war an insurrection rather than a separate nation attempting to break away that says it all. Lincoln also maintained the South wasn't a nation and that holds true today. Legally, it never happened. The question was already settled.

This is Lost Cause, Neo Confederate excuse making 101. If every person in this nation had been free instead of under the yoke of slavery, the catalyst for the war isn't there. Why would the South try to break away in the first place? Because they thought Lincoln would take away their slaves. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, said himself that was the basis for it. It was for the sole purpose of keeping a pseudo medieval, racial hierarchal state that placed a small percentage at the top and everyone else at the bottom, including poor whites and free blacks.

The war was indeed fought because the Union would not allow the South to secede. But what incentive was there to allow the South to do so? Why does it sound you believe they should have just let that happen? Lincoln wanted to keep the Union at all costs, this is true. However, the war was equally inevitable. He knew this. As the conflict drew on longer, it became apparent that abolition, not the broad term of 'states rights' motivated each side more than anything else. That the 13th amendment was passed before Lee surrendered is also a testament to the cause at stake: ending slavery before the rejoined Southern states could vote against it.

John Adams, my favorite Founder, famously said that the American Revolution would never be complete until all slaves were free. I challenge you to disagree with that notion. Or that the war's main driving issue was slavery.

I also challenge again, why you seem so ready to defend the Confederacy at every turning point and why too many Southerners to this day, people who claim to be 'true Americans' at every opportunity, vocally dislike Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Philip Sheridan, etc. when those very people are responsible for keeping and shaping the United States into what it is today.

 

[strummingram]

International recognition for one thing. Britain and France almost did. But in the end, they didn't. You just answered your own question. If they considered the war an insurrection rather than a separate nation attempting to break away that says it all. Lincoln also maintained the South wasn't a nation and that holds true today. Legally, it never happened. The question was already settled.

This is Lost Cause, Neo Confederate excuse making 101. If every person in this nation had been free instead of under the yoke of slavery, the catalyst for the war isn't there. Why would the South try to break away in the first place? Because they thought Lincoln would take away their slaves. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, said himself that was the basis for it. It was for the sole purpose of keeping a pseudo medieval, racial hierarchal state that placed a small percentage at the top and everyone else at the bottom, including poor whites and free blacks.

The war was indeed fought because the Union would not allow the South to secede. But what incentive was there to allow the South to do so? Why does it sound you believe they should have just let that happen? Lincoln wanted to keep the Union at all costs, this is true. However, the war was equally inevitable. He knew this. As the conflict drew on longer, it became apparent that abolition, not the broad term of 'states rights' motivated each side more than anything else. That the 13th amendment was passed before Lee surrendered is also a testament to the cause at stake: ending slavery before the rejoined Southern states could vote against it.

John Adams, my favorite Founder, famously said that the American Revolution would never be complete until all slaves were free. I challenge you to disagree with that notion. Or that the war's main driving issue was slavery.

I also challenge again, why you seem so ready to defend the Confederacy at every turning point and why too many Southerners to this day, people who claim to be 'true Americans' at every opportunity, vocally dislike Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Philip Sheridan, etc. when those very people are responsible for keeping and shaping the United States into what it is today.

They have such reverence for the white people that organized a military rebellion to destroy the USA, 150 years ago. And, they have endless contempt for black people who kneel during the national anthem, now!

 

[blazers]

He is so out of touch with reality. He and blazer should get a room. BTW, if I were gay, I certainly wouldn’t be attracted to someone with a mug like that, even if I could get past his arrogance.

Wrong forum? I don't think the political thread of ootb is the right type of place for you to discuss what type of men you don't find attractive.

 

[strummingram]

He is so out of touch with reality. He and blazer should get a room. BTW, if I were gay, I certainly wouldn’t be attracted to someone with a mug like that, even if I could get past his arrogance.

 

[uncboy10]

BTW, if I were gay, I certainly wouldn’t be attracted to someone with a mug like that, even if I could get past his arrogance.

 

[strummingram]

Just when I was thinking about dialing-back on my arrogance, too.

 

[Archer2]

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[strummingram]

 

[bluetoe]

International recognition for one thing. Britain and France almost did. But in the end, they didn't. You just answered your own question. If they considered the war an insurrection rather than a separate nation attempting to break away that says it all. Lincoln also maintained the South wasn't a nation and that holds true today. Legally, it never happened. The question was already settled.

This is Lost Cause, Neo Confederate excuse making 101. If every person in this nation had been free instead of under the yoke of slavery, the catalyst for the war isn't there. Why would the South try to break away in the first place? Because they thought Lincoln would take away their slaves. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, said himself that was the basis for it. It was for the sole purpose of keeping a pseudo medieval, racial hierarchal state that placed a small percentage at the top and everyone else at the bottom, including poor whites and free blacks.

The war was indeed fought because the Union would not allow the South to secede. But what incentive was there to allow the South to do so? Why does it sound you believe they should have just let that happen? Lincoln wanted to keep the Union at all costs, this is true. However, the war was equally inevitable. He knew this. As the conflict drew on longer, it became apparent that abolition, not the broad term of 'states rights' motivated each side more than anything else. That the 13th amendment was passed before Lee surrendered is also a testament to the cause at stake: ending slavery before the rejoined Southern states could vote against it.

John Adams, my favorite Founder, famously said that the American Revolution would never be complete until all slaves were free. I challenge you to disagree with that notion. Or that the war's main driving issue was slavery.

I also challenge again, why you seem so ready to defend the Confederacy at every turning point and why too many Southerners to this day, people who claim to be 'true Americans' at every opportunity, vocally dislike Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Philip Sheridan, etc. when those very people are responsible for keeping and shaping the United States into what it is today.

I didn't read past the false narrative of your first paragraph. Basically, you just rejected my contention with nothing factual or even logical to back it up, You didn't answer the question. The Confederacy needed no foreign recognition at that point in time in order to be a legitimate entity, and the Union's denial of its legitimacy was not founded in law. If you believe it was, please point to the verbiage in the Constitution that verifies that

Official recognition by France and England was a non-factor in determining the legitimacy of the Confederacy. France and England took a position of neutrality toward both sides. If the secession was merely an insurrection or a rebellion, there would have been no reason to take any position other than a continued stance of recognition of the Union. They were waiting to see the outcome without tripping over their own dicks in the meantime. Had the war gone in the Confederacy's favor, official recognition by France and England would have happened in the blink of an eye.

OK, so I read a little more, and I find you slipping simple-mindedly into the same old simpleminded POV that most people take......North against slavery, South for slavery, bingo bongo, Civil War. Your argument turns toward reasons for the secession, and not for the war itself. You are making my argument for me but you aren't smart enough to see it.

I already answered your suggested explanation that the war was over slavery because if not for slavery, there would have been no war. That is very likely true that without the institution of slavery, there would have been no war...but that doesn't mean that the war was because of slavery. As I said, if there weren't black Africans to enslave, there would have been no war but that doesn't mean there was war because black Africans existed.

It is a fallacy that the wat was fought over and in support of slavery. It was fought because Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and that is one completely irrefutable fact. Had Lincoln decided to allow secession, there would have been no war. Again, I refer to the situation with our own State. North Carolina was greatly in favor of staying with the Union, but there was a strong faction in favor of secession. The argument went back and forth until the incident at Fort Sumter. At that point, the sentiment immediately become not one of slavery/no slavery or anything else but plain old us against them, and we decided to secede for that reason...defense of the Southern homeland, which was the motivation for the vast majority of Southern soldiers.. Or maybe you think North Carolinians suddenly woke up one morning and said 'shit, boys, we got to go to war to save slavery' . Don't be that idiot, there are already far too many of them.

 

[bluetoe]

Juliet??? My boyfriend barack o.? I never voted for Obama.



Ohhh, you're trying to feminize me. Got it. Misogyny-mixed-with-homophobia! Yay! That was a super-cool burn! I'll never recover.

relax, Karen. Barack probably doesn't care whether you voted for him or not. Your romance is safe.

 

[bluetoe]

He is so out of touch with reality. He and blazer should get a room. BTW, if I were gay, I certainly wouldn’t be attracted to someone with a mug like that, even if I could get past his arrogance.

I could deal with his arrogance, it's his ignorance that keeps me from loving him long time.

 

[bluetoe]

An obviously racist statement by our fearless leader.

The village idiot

and this is my answer to those who claim that the media and the dems didn't perform an effective, massive character assassination on Trump, as being a racist among other things, when you have to shovel aside a mountain of the dem guy being racist just to hear that unfounded false narrative about Trump

 

[heelmanwilm]

and this is my answer to those who claim that the media and the dems didn't perform an effective, massive character assassination on Trump, as being a racist among other things, when you have to shovel aside a mountain of the dem guy being racist just to hear that unfounded false narrative about Trump

i don’t think trump is racist. But anyone that doesn’t realize he knowingly capitalized on the racism in his base isn’t paying attention. And that’s not a media ploy. That’s looking around you and seeing for yourself what manner of people are supporting him and how trump pandered to them. The white supremacy groups felt like they had a friend in trump. Absolutely No denying that.

 

[blazers]

Sorry fiscal conservatives, your options suck donkey.

 

[bluetoe]

i don’t think trump is racist. But anyone that doesn’t realize he knowingly capitalized on the racism in his base isn’t paying attention. And that’s not a media ploy. That’s looking around you and seeing for yourself what manner of people are supporting him and how trump pandered to them. The white supremacy groups felt like they had a friend in trump. Absolutely No denying that.

what I absolutely can deny is that Trump did ANYthing to support either the notion of white supremacy or white supremacist groups in particular. What was taking place could be exemplified by the Charlottesville incident. A rightist gathering was planned and properly permitted for, and among those rightists were some unsavory groups...but there were also some very decent people there in the mix. In other words, it was not principally a white supremacy demonstration, but the dem/media coalition did everything they could to paint it that way.

Trump properly refrained from condemning what was clearly a legitimate exercise of free speech. He had no business doing otherwise. But that of course wasn't going to escape the purposeful distortions of the media and liberal banshees. They took Trump's silence on the matter to constitute approval and encouragement of white supremacist ideals. They called for him to condemn white supremacists and when he didn't, they said 'there's your proof'; even though he HAD ALREADY RECENTLY done exactly that. OOPS, the media forgot to mention that, didn't they?

Additionally, when he pointed out that the gathering was not just of white supremacists but also contained many right-minded individuals (fine people or some such verbiage), his words were purposely conflated into claiming that white supremacists were fine people.

So basically what I'm saying to you is, don't hand me that happy horseshit. If you want to convince me of something I might believe, you're better off telling me you hate him because he was a mean tweeter.

 

[strummingram]

I could deal with his arrogance, it's his ignorance that keeps me from loving him long time.

LOL... nothing matches the Lost Cause ignorance that you've been littering the last few pages. Don't mistake recognizing that fact as being a proposition, however.

I didn't read past the false narrative of your first paragraph. Basically, you just rejected my contention with nothing factual or even logical to back it up, You didn't answer the question. The Confederacy needed no foreign recognition at that point in time in order to be a legitimate entity, and the Union's denial of its legitimacy was not founded in law. If you believe it was, please point to the verbiage in the Constitution that verifies that

Official recognition by France and England was a non-factor in determining the legitimacy of the Confederacy. France and England took a position of neutrality toward both sides. If the secession was merely an insurrection or a rebellion, there would have been no reason to take any position other than a continued stance of recognition of the Union. They were waiting to see the outcome without tripping over their own dicks in the meantime. Had the war gone in the Confederacy's favor, official recognition by France and England would have happened in the blink of an eye.

OK, so I read a little more, and I find you slipping simple-mindedly into the same old simpleminded POV that most people take......North against slavery, South for slavery, bingo bongo, Civil War. Your argument turns toward reasons for the secession, and not for the war itself. You are making my argument for me but you aren't smart enough to see it.

I already answered your suggested explanation that the war was over slavery because if not for slavery, there would have been no war. That is very likely true that without the institution of slavery, there would have been no war...but that doesn't mean that the war was because of slavery. As I said, if there weren't black Africans to enslave, there would have been no war but that doesn't mean there was war because black Africans existed.

It is a fallacy that the wat was fought over and in support of slavery. It was fought because Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and that is one completely irrefutable fact. Had Lincoln decided to allow secession, there would have been no war. Again, I refer to the situation with our own State. North Carolina was greatly in favor of staying with the Union, but there was a strong faction in favor of secession. The argument went back and forth until the incident at Fort Sumter. At that point, the sentiment immediately become not one of slavery/no slavery or anything else but plain old us against them, and we decided to secede for that reason...defense of the Southern homeland, which was the motivation for the vast majority of Southern soldiers.. Or maybe you think North Carolinians suddenly woke up one morning and said 'shit, boys, we got to go to war to save slavery' . Don't be that idiot, there are already far too many of them.