Replies

It was not “State Rights” that motivated Davis, Stephens, Ruffin, et al.

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

I didn’t say 1 thing about slavery, but Lincoln did-! And guess what he said-! I didn’t use the word ‘scoundrel’ lightly.

Excellent points.

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.

That Slavery was fundamental issue that split the North and the South in the Civil War is just plain fact

------------------------------------------------

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.

I think you missed my point. The left will use immigration to villify the right.