Skip to comments.Confederate history month proclamation causes massive outbreak of Offendeditis
Posted on 05/17/2010 7:04:35 PM PDT by Idabilly
I would also remind any Conservative that America is in the hole it is today because we have forgotten so much of our history. We are right to demand that our representatives remember the founding documents, we are right to demand these documents be taught in school. Again, how is studying the Confederacy any less important? Is not the essential question right now, on so many issues, NOT States rights? And what was the fight from 1861-65 over again? Yes, States rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Heritage and history, I don't care much if you don't like it!
Had something to do with that Constitution-usurping war criminal Lincoln getting elected, as well. (now the lincoln-lovers’ll come out of the woodwork with their erroneous views of the scoundrel)
The Confederate Territory of Arizona!
Like this quote,,,thanks for the link ,,,, outta get good when the d. yankees show up
Correct, if you are speaking only of the rather narrow view that states have the right to secede. But presumably the author is in this case speaking of the rights of states under the Constitution. And of course seceded states have no rights under the Constitution as secession removes them from the Constitution.
In actual fact the discord leading up to secession was largely based on southern demands for an expansion of federal power to override the claimed rights of northern states to resist the return of fugitive slaves. They also demanded that federal law and if necessary federal troops enforce toleration of slavery in the territories.
None of the southern Declarations of Secession pointed to any actual violation of their states' rights by the federal government, although there was much and possibly justified concern that such might occur. IOW, secession was a pre-emptive response to possible future violations of states' rights.
That Sir, is well said
Well, at least no one will challenge you on facts...
“Had something to do with that Constitution-usurping war criminal Lincoln getting elected, as well.”
Like seven states seceding from the Union before Lincoln was inaugurated (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) So it happened on President Buchanan’s watch. Oh, snap. Just pretend, then.
Then, when the South fired on Sumter and Licoln called up troops four more states joined in their complaint of... fishing rights (After all, what rights were they arguing over? HMMMM? Couldn’t be SLAVERY, could it? Must have been fishing rights, or Federal Highway dollars. Yea, that’s the ticket.)
I do love the state’s rights revisionism from junior Klansmen though. It is always a giggle to point out the Confederate Constitution (along with the suspension of Habeus Corpus: Article 1 Section 9-3.The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.) is pretty much the same as the United States Constitution in structure except for the whole fishing rights parts.
Here they are. Just insert “fishing rights” where you find “negro slavery.” It’s probably just a typo:
Article 1 Section 9
1.The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2.Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
(This protected domestic slave breeding and was made to appease the international community and gain recognition for the Confederacy.)
Article 4 Section 2
1.The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
3.No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
There you go. History unvarnished. Enshrined in the utopia of revisionism is the ugly spector of real history.
Imagine how cheap goods would be if the South had succeeded and Lincoln, twisted war criminal that he was, had failed. You think Chinese stuff was cheap. Imagine if you didn’t have to pay anything. Course, now you could just micro chip your labor force. No underground railroad for you, no sir.
Yea, those Lincoln lovers. Man, their views were just so erroneous. Good thing we got real thinkers like you that compares conservatism, the TEA Party, and the CSA. They go together like oil and water.
The great unremembered Truth about State’s Rights is NOT that southern state’s were objecting to the federal government trying to free the slaves, because that was not happening.
The TRUTH is that the Civil War was directly caused by the violation of the NORTHERN STATES’ RIGHT - NOT to have slavery in their territories when the Supreme Court nullified northern laws against slavery with the Dred Scot decision and then the Democrat-dominated Congress’s passage of the Fugitive Slave Act forced northern states to enforce southern property rights over escaped slaves by returning them. These blatant violations of NORTHERN STATE SOVEREIGNTIES so enflamed the North that many people began taking the direct action of going to southern plantations and taking the slaves north to Canada in the Underground Railroad. The Northern Republicans were united by these laws to throw out the norhern Democrats and elect an anti-slavery President. In the documents proclaiming secession, the southern states did not complain that the federal government was violating their rights, only that the Democrat-controlled federal government was unable to stop the stealing of their slaves, the killing of slave owners and the burning of plantations by bands of northern abolitionist which had exploded after Dred Scot, and the likelihood that it would be much worse under Lincoln.
An analogous situation today would have been if the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision had prompted an ongoing nationwide wave of destruction of abortion clinics and deaths and injuries of abortionists. Since it did not, abortion remains legal and the Roe decision, like Dred Scot, a continuing violation of state’s rights. They don’t want you to know that the meaning of state’s rights at the time of the Civil War was the EXACT OPPOSITE of the propaganda then and what is taught now because you might get the wrong idea and take matters into your own hands on current issues like the people of the Underground Railroad did. As long as you only talk, blog and complain, you can safely be ignored.
“Had something to do with that Constitution-usurping war criminal Lincoln getting elected, as well.”
Then history repeats itself nearly a century and a half, later.
Then why did he only free the slaves in Confederate states?
The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply. Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy” under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.
The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.
The Emancipation Proclamation was criticized at the time for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception). In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves were freed at once on January 1, 1863.
Additionally, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census) were freed by July 1865.
Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.
Sounds like he was real tore up about *all* those poor slaves.
[sounds mighty “fishy” to me]
true history is so important and yet the left with the NEA do not want to teach it.
We all know why and there needs to be a big push back over this from the next president, providing we get a president who will actually have some guts and not be afraid of being called a name by the NY Times
And if there’s another war and the right loses, then illegal immigration will be remembered as slavery.
Maybe it was Lincoln's double talkin' lawyer mouth they didn't like. Every speech given would make the vote pandering Obama envious. Furthermore, both Union presidents bamboozled the South. Whether it was provoking hostilities, or invading a Sovereign State. Neither is an action of friendly neighbors.
I. W. Hayne, to President Buchanan
You say that the fort was garrisoned for our protection, and is held for the same purposes for which it has ever been held since its construction. Are you not aware, that to hold, in the territory of a foreign power, a fortress against her will, avowedly for the purpose of protecting her citizens, is perhaps the highest insult which one government can offer to another? But Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. This garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent fort, which was then abandoned. South Carolina had not taken Fort Sumter into her own possession, only because of her misplaced confidence in a government which deceived her.
War criminal? I must have missed that trial...
Not too steady in his grasp of constitutional law, President Buchanan signed the joint resolution the day the Senate approved it: an unnecessary step, given the fact that Congressional power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not subject to presidential approval or veto. Two days later, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the sixteenth president of the United States and the proposed amendment was largely forgotten, although two states, Ohio and Maryland, actually ratified it! An Illinois state constitutional convention that met in 1862 purported to ratify the amendment, but had no legal authority to do so. Interestingly, Lincoln alluded to the Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural Address (paragraph 29). Although he stopped short of endorsing it, he said, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln's detractors portrayed him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis.
States Rights refers to powers retained by the states under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. These retained powers do not include powers delegated to the central government, assigned elsewhere in the Constitution, or prohibited to the states.
The Constitution required of all states that "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." [Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.] Northern states agreed to to this clause when they ratified the Constitution. This part of the Constitution was the basis of the federal fugitive slave laws. Northern state laws that violated the Constitution with regard to the return of fugitive slaves were not valid laws at the time and cannot be legitimately claimed as States Rights.
By the way, your timing appears mixed up. The two Fugitive Slave Laws were passed into law years before the Dred Scott decision, not afterward. Both laws were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Lincoln's two secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, in Volume 3 of their book Abraham Lincoln, A History noted that a careful 1860 study of the personal liberty laws by the National Intelligencer found that the personal liberty laws of Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin were clearly unconstitutional.
About the same time, three distinguished jurists in Massachusetts led a host of other lawyers in declaring that the Massachusetts laws were unconstitutional and saying that these laws could lead to secession (which they did). The three were the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, a former member of the US Supreme Court who had resigned in protest of the Dred Scott decision, and a Harvard constitutional law professor who had been Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Once states started seceding, a number of Northern states started amending and repealing their personal liberty laws, but it was too late to stop secession.
Gentleman: I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes in inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.
You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.
We don't want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.
You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, bu the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.
But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.
Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Atlanta. Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding
And thus—the war between the Americans and Yankees continue...(LOL—that’s what my 2nd grade teacher called it!)
So, you sound like an admirer of Lincoln. Good for you.
While agreeing with much of what you say, I'd point out that the Texas Declaration did include a very specific item, sore to Texans, about the failure of the federal government to honor its Article IV obligations to defend the States (which had delegated the power to keep troops, in Article I) against Invasion (Mexican irruptions) and domestic violence (Kiowas, Comanches). Congress refused to appropriate adequate funds for frontier and border defense (n/w/s Col. Lee's posting in San Antonio).
The sophistry was pretty workaday -- of course, he was being lazy, since he knew that if anyone argued, he could just pull his sidearm and shoot them.
For Union, of course, and the preservation of liberty.
What part of your post is not a Clintonista ad hominem?
Come on, show us.
Yeah...it was SO much “about slavery” that he did nothing for 18 months...and then it was only half-assed and tailored to suit his megalomaniac, unconstitutional agenda.
When he finally decided to “free” them, he fully intended to ship them ALL out of the US because he himself said the two races were incapable of coexisting.
As far as “admiring” him, hell no.
I do not admire ~any~ tyrant who subverts the US constitution, especially one who violates state’s rights by force.
>>...the failure of the federal government to honor its Article IV obligations to defend the States (which had delegated the power to keep troops, in Article I) against Invasion (Mexican irruptions) and domestic violence (Kiowas, Comanches). Congress refused to appropriate adequate funds for frontier and border defense (n/w/s Col. Lee’s posting in San Antonio).<<
Some things never change. The Yankee government had/has no interest in the Constitution - except when it suits them.
Unfortunately, Reconstruction included re-writing history....
No need. You're doing a much better job of presenting an erroneous view than we ever could.
Because ending slavery in those states not in rebellion required a Constitutional amendment, which Lincoln also got.
It's amazing how little Lost Causers know about the Constitution.
It was not “State Rights” that lead a SC Congressmen to beat a Massachusetts Senator to the edge of death on the Senate floor.
It was not “State Rights” that brought Abraham Lincoln back into politics in the 1850
It was not “State Rights” that caused men to butcher each other in “Bleeding Kansas”.
It was not “State Rights” that lead John Brown to raid Harper's Ferry.
No issue but Slavery lead men to political violence in the antebellum period. Without Slavery all other issues between the North and South could be dealt with in the normal political progress. Only Slavery is the "irreconcilable difference" that makes it impossible to forge a political solution.
To ignore the facts of that period to create a faux history in order to justify current political dogmas is not only utterly stupid from a public relations stand point, it is also intellectually dishonest and serious damages the movements credibility with the voting public.
We on the Right routinely decry the attempt by the Left to rewrite history to justify their current political dogmas. We should not do it either.
That Slavery was fundamental issue that split the North and the South in the Civil War is just plain fact. That it was the issue in no way is relevant to the current arguments about the 10th Amendment and State Sovereignty.
Conservatives should give up this foolish attempt to rewrite Civil War history to justify current political arguments
Good point. However, I’m sure you see the difference between a federal government that fails to properly fulfill its responsibilities and one that tramples on the rights of the states.
I didn’t say 1 thing about slavery, but Lincoln did-! And guess what he said-! I didn’t use the word ‘scoundrel’ lightly.
It’s only fair to point out that Davis and Stephens weree not ardent advocates of secession. Davis believed secession was inevitable at some point, but counseled delay while the South prepared itself for war. Stephens fought against secession right up to the point where GA seceded, when he remained loyal to his state.
Ruffin, of course, was one of the Fire-Eaters, and thus a member of the group most directly responsible for the war.
I’d also like to point out that almost every other national institution, including almost all the Churches, had split in the decade or so before the war, and in every case specifically over the issue of slavery. It destroyed the Whig Party.
One of the very last institutions to split was the Democratic Party, in the summer of 1860, followed by the nation itself in the fall and winter of 1860/61.
A true strawman if ever there was one. Prior to the rebellion, in every election during the period Texas had been a state a Southerner had been elected either president or vice president. Half the time a southerner had been Speaker of the House. Southerners occupied the office of Secretary of War for the 10 years prior to the rebellion, and for 13 of the 15 years Texas had been a state. If Texas was left undefended against Indian attacks then it was Southerners who left her in that condition.
A foolish attempt to rewrite history to validate current political dogmas merely hurts the causes intellectual credibility. Conservative need to learn falling into the Leftists trap of debating the issues on their terms.
Instead of trying to defend the indefensible, Defenders of the 10th Amendment should simply response in this fashion
For example, when they try to discredit your support for the 10th Amendment by making the US Civil War about Slavery
"To argue, as you do, that because the US Civil War was fought over Slavery the US Government now has the power to impose a health care mandate on individual citizens is intellectually absurd"
Your ignoring Northern slavery, and hypocritical positions of the North.
Let's say slavery was the whole story, and only Southern States practiced slavery. Then it was a bad marriage. What would you call me if - I married my wife, and she had this horrendous mole upon her nose. During our marriage, I'd sneak around trying to cut that mole off. Despite me having several moles myself - I continued with my demerits. Hypocrite? Spouse abuser? S.O.B?
Wife leaves. Then, I hire 'bob and rick' to force her back home.
As Louis T. Wigfall said:
Let my neighbor believe that his wife is an angel and his children cherubs, I care not, though I may know he is mistaken; but when he comes impertinently poking his nose into my door every morning, and telling me that my wife is a shrew and my children brats, then the neighborhood becomes uncomfortable, and if I cannot remove him, I will remove myself; and if he says to me, you shall not move, but you shall stay here, and you shall, day after day, hear the demerits of your wife and children discussed, then I begin to feel a little restive, and possibly might assert that great original right of pursuing whatever may conduce to my happiness, though it might be kicking him out of my door.
Read post 38 this thread
I’d say your wrong.
Your habit of screaming bile back in response to any facts contrary to your emotion based opinions merely makes you look like a ignorant, childish ass.
Such behavior does not help advance your agenda with anyone except those who all ready agree with you. What a complete waste of time and band-with your postings are!
So much time is wasted debating this issue when there is one glaring truth that the Nationalists can not refute.
None of the former colonies — not one — would have joined a union that they could not “un-join”, especially given the fact that they had just fought a war with England to establish that very point. Any argument that these new states would do so is absurd and demonstrates their inability to separate THEIR cause from reality.
If we are the Lost Causers they must be Delusionalists.
What will it be next time? Firearms? We all know they kill people s/..
How many of the states would have joined if they had been told that a minority of states could used the Constition to justify taking actions that had a negative impact on them, and that there was nothing they could do about it?
Your usual response, full of hysteria and bile with not a thoughtful factual notion to be found anywhere.
""I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln didn't care about the slaves in the least. He "freed" the slaves over political expediency; to attract support for his tyranny. It all amounted to control.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."Abraham Lincoln
Further, contrary what you may have read in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (written by a woman who had never been on a plantation, let alone the South), slave owners weren't just a bunch of malicious monsters whipping their slaves into submission for sadistic pleasure.
Another little piece of history revisionist yankees leave out......BLACKS OWNED SLAVES. During the War Between the States, the third largest slavholder in South Carolina was a BLACK FORMER SLAVE. He mortgaged alll of his property to invest in Confederate War Bonds and went bankrupt afterwards.
Further, the first known instance of slavery in the colonies was when a black man stated that he OWNED his black indentured servant. After a year's deliberation, the jury agreed. Massachusettes formally legalized slavery afterwards. Lastly, even after new slave imports were banned by Congress, it WAS NORTHERN SHIPPING COMPANIES THAT BROKE TH BAN. Yankee traders and seamen imported illegal slaves to the South right up to the War and ran blockades.
Imagine how cheap goods would be if the South had succeeded and Lincoln, twisted war criminal that he was, had failed. You think Chinese stuff was cheap. Imagine if you didnt have to pay anything.
Patently false. Slave holders viewed their slaves as investments. While I'm sure some abuses did happen, the Southern slaves were well treated. In fact Blacksin the South were on average 2 inches taller and better built than northern blacks. In fact the skeletal remains found in the African Burial Grounds in Manhattan, show that the northern blacks wre misshapen from being literally worked to death.
Contrast that with Jeff Davis that taught his slaves to read, referred to them as "his people," allowed them to hold their own court (he allowed himself to only decrease punishment.
Slavery was tertiary a political issue. The issue was over State's Rights. The South had originally wanted to remain under the Articles of Confederation; the north wanted to change/scrap it because they were in debt wtih no way to raise taxes on the Nation. The compromise was the Bill of Rights. The northern states banded together and had tarriffs levied that benefited them and harmed the South. South Carolina nullified federal law and ignored the repressive tarriffs. The north sent a naval flotilla to blockade the the South in an attempt to enforce the tarriff. (wow, where have we heard of the north expecting the South to pay "their fair share" in a manner harmful to them and beneficial to the north?).
Then, when the South fired on Sumter and Licoln called up troops four more states joined in their complaint of... fishing rights (After all, what rights were they arguing over? HMMMM? Couldnt be SLAVERY, could it? Must have been fishing rights, or Federal Highway dollars. Yea, thats the ticket.) Eventually South Carolina felt it had no choice other than to secede in December of 1860. Lincoln was inaugarated in Jan 1861. SC learned (through newspapers) that the northern navy had bent south toward Charleston. They would not have been able to fend off the navy without first taking the FT Sumter.
And "snap, oh snap, it was Lincoln that orderd troops into the South. It was Lncoln that demanded troops from Virginia and other Southern States to attack their neighbors. It was Lincoln that suspended habeous corpus. It was Lincoln that was sending the navy to Charleston. You yourself admit that the staes left the union and Buchanan did nothing. for 4 months nobody did anything until the navy was sent en-route to Charleston. Were the citizens of South Carolina supposed to await their slaughter? No. Instead thy removed the northern encroachment of a southern state and used the fort as defense against the northern navy.
The Constitution was not a death pact to allow some states to band together and force their will on others for economic gain. The Souther States had every right to leave the union.
I guess with your logic then the reluctant terriory joiners would have been made "a deal they can't refuse".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.