Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jefferson Davis' First Inaguaral Address, Feb. 18, 1861
ConfederateVets.com ^

Posted on 12/14/2010 4:53:34 PM PST by unixman9627

Called to the difficult and responsible station of Chief Executive of the Provisional Government which you have instituted, I approach the discharge of the duties assigned to me with an humble distrust of my abilities, but with a sustaining confidence in the wisdom of those who are to guide and to aid me in the administration of public affairs, and an abiding faith in the virtue and patriotism of the people.

(Excerpt) Read more at confederatevets.com ...


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: confederacy; history; itsaboutslaverydummy; kukluxklan; partyofsecession; partyofslavery; proslaveryfreepers; secession; whitehoodscaucus; whitesupremacists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

1 posted on 12/14/2010 4:53:38 PM PST by unixman9627
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: unixman9627

Did a search on the word “slave” and “slavery” an found no occurrences. This probably disappoints the Neo Yankee statist found in the deep recesses of Free Republic.


2 posted on 12/14/2010 5:07:26 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixman9627
Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.

Right on, President Davis!

(PS: Welcome to FR!)

3 posted on 12/14/2010 5:27:13 PM PST by Fast Moving Angel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Deep recesses? The Lincoln-loving statists are pretty overt on this site. Damn them all.

Jeff Davis was a True American Hero. I am especially fond of these lines from Davis' second inaugural:

The experiment instituted by our revolutionary fathers, of a voluntary Union of sovereign States for the purposes specified in a solemn compact, and been perverted by those who, feeling power and forgetting right, were determined to respect no law but their own will. The Government had ceased to answer the ends for which it was ordained and established. To save ourselves from a revolution which, in its silent but rapid progress, was about to place us under the despotism of numbers, and to preserve in spirit, as well as in form, a system of government we believed to be peculiarly fitted to our condition, and full of promise for mankind, we determined to make a new association, composed of States homogenous in interest, in policy, and in feeling.

This makes me shiver. "To save ourselves from a revolution... we determined to make a new association." Nothing more American than that.

4 posted on 12/14/2010 5:48:36 PM PST by upstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fast Moving Angel

Thanks, love this site, figured it was time to jump in.


5 posted on 12/14/2010 5:51:06 PM PST by unixman9627
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: unixman9627

A patriot to his people.....didn’t give a fig about his government.

Good attitude to have...


6 posted on 12/14/2010 5:53:04 PM PST by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upstanding

Before you “shiver” too much, you might want to that the chief example of the “solemn compact” being violated according to Davis was the failure of the Northern states to enforc the fugitive slave clause.


7 posted on 12/14/2010 5:55:22 PM PST by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: upstanding

Before you “shiver” too much, you might want to know that the chief example of the “solemn compact” being violated according to Davis was the failure of the Northern states to enforce the fugitive slave clause.


8 posted on 12/14/2010 5:56:43 PM PST by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: unixman9627

Won’t this get you banned here? Establishment conservatives have pretty much surrendered to or even embraced the leftwing view that there was nothing good about the Confederacy and the attempt to resist northern aggression.


9 posted on 12/14/2010 6:05:25 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Secession Timeline
various sources

[Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that. In any case, Lee was definitely not fighting to end slavery, instead writing that black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.]

Robert E. Lee letter -- "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..."
December 27, 1856

Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories. January 1860

Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party May 18, 1860

Abraham Lincoln elected November 6, 1860

Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death." November 13, 1860

Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution." November 14, 1860

South Carolina December 20, 1860

Mississippi January 9, 1861

Florida January 10, 1861

Alabama January 11, 1861

Georgia January 19, 1861

Louisiana January 26, 1861

Texas February 23, 1861

Abraham Lincoln sworn in as
President of the United States
March 4, 1861

Arizona territory March 16, 1861

CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." March 21, 1861

Virginia adopted April 17,1861
ratified by voters May 23, 1861

Arkansas May 6, 1861

North Carolina May 20, 1861

Tennessee adopted May 6, 1861
ratified June 8, 1861

West Virginia declares for the Union June 19, 1861

Missouri October 31, 1861

"Convention of the People of Kentucky" November 20, 1861

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html

[Alabama] "...Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and manacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security... And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States, Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security." [Jan 11, 1861]

[Texas] "...The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression..." [Feb 1, 1861]

[Virginia] "...the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States..." [Feb 23, 1861]

http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AZ/index.html

[Arizona Territory] "...a sectional party of the North has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people... That we will not recognize the present Black Republican Administration, and that we will resist any officers appointed to this Territory by said Administration with whatever means in our power." [16 March 1861 -- Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States on March 4, 1861. The pretext for Arizona's secession was interruption of U.S. postal service.]

10 posted on 12/14/2010 6:06:05 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade

Jeff Davis ping.

Still hope you are well, stony.


11 posted on 12/14/2010 6:52:33 PM PST by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I think your timeline doesn’t quite represent what really happened...it needs to go back to the recession of 1837 when the union labor decimated the northern manufacturers and priced them out of business (just like they’ve done today)...and the south started importing cheaper goods than buying from the north. Therefore the federal government established high tariffs on imported goods from the southern ports trying to FORCE the south to buy the north’s high priced goods...the south put up with that KRAP for OVER 20 YEARS before they got a gutful of the north’s and the federal government’s manipulation of the free market system. Not to mention that Texas was already pissed off because they’d been paying taxes to Washington DC for 20 years and not gotten one whit of help protecting the southern borders (JUST LIKE TODAY).


12 posted on 12/14/2010 6:55:11 PM PST by RowdyFFC (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Did a search on the word “slave” and “slavery” an found no occurrences. This probably disappoints the Neo Yankee statist found in the deep recesses of Free Republic.

Read his farewell to the Senate and his first message to the confederate congress. Jeff's back on the slave track with both of those.

13 posted on 12/14/2010 6:55:11 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC
I think your timeline doesn’t quite represent what really happened...

Neither does your post. Union labor? In 1837?

14 posted on 12/14/2010 6:57:46 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: unixman9627; central_va

You can’t go wrong with these guys. 2nd South Carolin String Band. Live at 145th anniverary of Gettysburg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sB0McDpAjM


15 posted on 12/14/2010 6:57:55 PM PST by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC

The war was about slavery, and that’s it. All other rationalizations and revisionism means nothing.


16 posted on 12/14/2010 7:03:21 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yes, dear, union labor...read up sometime.


17 posted on 12/14/2010 7:14:26 PM PST by RowdyFFC (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

No, sir, it wasn’t JUST about slave labor and your revisionist version of it just doesn’t quite reveal what really happened.


18 posted on 12/14/2010 7:16:16 PM PST by RowdyFFC (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC
Yes, dear, union labor...read up sometime.

How about enlightening us?

19 posted on 12/14/2010 7:18:19 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I just did...


20 posted on 12/14/2010 7:20:28 PM PST by RowdyFFC (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC
I just did...

Of course you did.

21 posted on 12/14/2010 7:30:30 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Thanks...nice of you to oblige...


22 posted on 12/14/2010 7:36:49 PM PST by RowdyFFC (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: unixman9627
Cool! What jeff davis thread is complete without pictures?!


23 posted on 12/14/2010 7:46:24 PM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
The documentary evidence that the Confederacy was based on slavery and racism is both voluminous and undeniable. It's unfortunate that the Southern States chose to hang their "State's Rights" hat on such an issue.

Being born in the South, I grew up with my measure of Southern pride.

But it's quite difficult to reason away the fact that the Confederacy's primary basis was a belief in the legitimacy of Slavery and the imagined superiority of the white race. This sentiment is supported by speeches, founding documents, statements, and the like by numerous Democrats at the time, both from the North and South.

The Democratic Party (and its Confederacy) were defenders of Slavery.

The Republican Party was founded on a belief in its Abolition.

I'm not particularly interested in hearing apologists for the bigoted Democratic Party which dominated the South during this period, and for so long afterward.

Southern Heritage is a fine thing to be proud of, but it should also be an opportunity to face some ugly facts.

If Lincoln was a Tyrant, he was made so by the insane adherence of Democrats to the Tyrannical concept of Slavery, which was fundamentally incompatible with Liberty.

Congress kept cowardly punting the issue for 70 years, and the result was a Civil War which ended slavery at an enormous cost in Blood.

Any diligent research will reveal many harsh truths, and it's not particularly pretty, whether one is a fan of the Union OR the Confederacy.

For reference and extensive, documented evidence that the Democratic Party's Confederacy was based on racism, I would suggest American History in Black & White by David Barton...

24 posted on 12/14/2010 7:47:24 PM PST by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sargon

Some of us don’t feel forced to choose between tyrants. Both Lincoln and Davis were tyrants and enemies of liberty. Lincoln should have been impeached and Davis should have been strung up by his slaves.


25 posted on 12/14/2010 7:51:13 PM PST by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: central_va

neo yankee = American


26 posted on 12/14/2010 8:01:14 PM PST by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Both Lincoln and Davis were tyrants and enemies of liberty.

I guess I can agree with that, although I'd like to know what you think Lincoln should have or could have done differently. He was put in the most difficult position which any American President has ever been in...

27 posted on 12/14/2010 8:01:27 PM PST by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sargon

First of all, there were some things about Lincoln I respect. He didn’t buy into the notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on all Constitutional questions, and that is an attitude and belief that I wish Presidents today would take. But overall, yeah, I admit that I don’t think it was absolutely necessary to wage the bloodiest war in our history.

As to the Confederacy and the South; my major bone of contention in all of this is how it has become (in the last 20 yrs or so) almost verboten to have any sort of respect for not just the Confederacy, but for all of the men who fought for it. Respect and admiration for Lee and Jackson, et al, and the thousands who served under them is treated as a sign of being a neo-nazi or something. Republicans like George Allen and Bob McDonnell run away from and apologize for past remarks displaying admiration for these former heroes. Whatever your thoughts on this specific matter, surely you see that it is not just pointless for such groveling, but also counterproductive. Such surrender to pc sensibilities will not win one black vote, and it cedes to the Left the ability to set the parameters for debate and discourse. You might be okay with the attempt to equate the old South with Nazis in the modern popular consciousness, but you might not like the next target.

Otherwise, of course slavery was a huge part of the Confederacy and a major cause of the Civil War. But most Southern whites did not own slaves. Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves. They might not have held the highest opinion of black people (but neither did Northern whites), but they certainly weren’t fighting and dying so that a wealthy few could own slaves. To them, it was a fight to resist northern aggression. Are we not to consider this? Should they all be damned?

Finally, while your understanding of the history of the Democratic and Republican parties is admirable, I hope you don’t think it has any relevance today. It brings to mind how some conservative like Sean Hannity will engage in pathetic and hopeless attempts to get blacks to consider the GOP by giving us similar history lessons. They point out that Lincoln the emancipator was a Republican; the pro-slavery party was the Democrats, a higher % of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, Senator Byrd was in the KKK...as if any of that matters today. It doesn’t. Today all that matters is that the Democrats are the party of big government, redistribution of wealth, and racial preferences in all things public. It has become clear that in order to win more than 15 or 20% of the black vote, the GOP would have to adopt the same positions.

Well, wait a minute, Republicans haven’t exactly shrunk govt even when in charge. They have completely surrendered on racial preferences. About the only politician speaking out against preferences is Democrat James Webb, though his statements are largely empthy rhetoric since he votes for one bill after another that either contains preferences (like Obamacare) or that will lead to more preferences (like the DREAM amnesty), and he in fact supports preferences for native born black Americans.

Still, the point remains that to really have a chance with black voters the unfortunate truth is that the GOP would have to as anti-white as the Democrats, and be just as proud of it.

I’m straying here. Sorry. Anyway, I agree that ugly parts of history can’t and shouldn’t be ignored. But it’s gotten to the point now that only the ugly things can be considered. One can’t respect the men who fought for the South or even consider the idea that states had a right to secede without it absurdly being equated to being a white supremacist.

Few things are black and white. The Civil War led to the end of slavery and that was obviously a good thing. But it also put us on the way to a federal government bigger and more powerful than anything the Founders intended.


28 posted on 12/14/2010 9:08:10 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
But overall, yeah, I admit that I don’t think it was absolutely necessary to wage the bloodiest war in our history.

That's a quaint notion, but I'm not sure there were any other solutions which would have both preserved the union and freed the slaves. I'd be interested in hearing some. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.

As to the Confederacy and the South; my major bone of contention in all of this is how it has become (in the last 20 yrs or so) almost verboten to have any sort of respect for not just the Confederacy, but for all of the men who fought for it.

I totally agree, and do not want to be incorrectly associated with those elements.

Finally, while your understanding of the history of the Democratic and Republican parties is admirable, I hope you don’t think it has any relevance today.

Indeed I do think it has relevance, because the Democratic Party persisted in its racism, disenfranchising, oppressing and murdering blacks for many many many decades after the Civil War, through at least the WWII period.

I have little respect in general for Hannity's shallow analyses, but I totally disagree regarding relevance. If more blacks knew the history of the Democratic and Republican parties from the Civil War era through the Civil Rights era, they would begin to see that they are still being kept on the Democratic plantation of poverty, dependence and malaise.

Maybe then they could understand why MLK was a Republican, and why a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats, flawed as it may have been.

How the Democrats have been able to sweep 100+ years of their racist history under the rug, and then garner the undying support of the majority of the black community, is beyond me. I can only suppose that it has to do with the enticing Welfare State which many blacks (and many non-blacks) have become willingly dependent on.

Therefore, IMHO, the history I have referenced is relevant, especially if it is studied in detail over a large expanse of time, and not merely based on one frozen snapshot from long ago.

I have found David Barton's American History in Black and White to be highly informative in exposing the racist core of the Democratic party, which exhibited murderous Tyranny against blacks continuously for a good 100 years after the Civil War.

29 posted on 12/14/2010 11:04:52 PM PST by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sargon

Ah, but slavery was the law of the land and we are a nation of laws. It was morally wrong and so was the perversion of the Constitution that argued that the North had a right to secede, but the South did not.

http://www.answers.com/topic/on-northern-secession

http://www.answers.com/topic/william-lloyd-garrison

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo42.html

And another 300+ comments about “The South Was Wrong” vs. “The South Was Right” starts.


30 posted on 12/15/2010 3:00:04 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: unixman9627

He expresses no hope in avoiding war, three months before the firing on Ft. Sumter. “War of Nothern Aggression,” my ass. This is a declaration of war. And no, there is no mention of slavery, because he knew damned well that to mention it was to make laughable his appeals to “justice,” “tranqility,” etc. What slave could not read the Declaration of Independence and see within it his own compulsion to lift his bonds?

Lincoln desired nether slavery, nor war to end it. His desired course of action was the truly conservative one: to contain it, until it withers like a vine. While Jeff Davis is expressing that “we may not hope to avoid war,” Lincoln was profusely denying any intent to combat.

Yet I do not claim that Lincoln imagined the South peacefully seceding. He knew full well that secession would inevitably bring war; even if the North had immediately surrendered all its holdings in the South, ordered all Southern-based armies to surrender (and what would become of them?), war would still come: the slave-based economy had already begun to wither. Don’t forget that the present crisis was triggered by the North’s attempts to contain slavery to the confederacy. Certainly, the South would claim the entire Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican cession, and California, and with the Oregon territory 1000 miles isolated from the Union, it too. This is why once the belligerence of the South was demonstrated by their attack on Ft. Sumter, Lincoln knew an invasion was necessary. But all sane men know that the Union did not strike first, but allowed the South to first demonstrate its bloodlust.


31 posted on 12/15/2010 5:31:04 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Yet I do not claim that Lincoln imagined the South peacefully seceding. He knew full well that secession would inevitably bring war; even if the North had immediately surrendered all its holdings in the South, ordered all Southern-based armies to surrender (and what would become of them?), war would still come:

This is crazy talk. You prove LSD is a dangerous drug.

Yet I do not claim that Lincoln imagined the South peacefully seceding.

Double talk mumbo jumbo.

He knew full well that secession would inevitably bring war;

Secession means leaving, not war.

even if the North had immediately surrendered all its holdings in the South, ordered all Southern-based armies to surrender (and what would become of them?), war would still come:

This is almost funny.

32 posted on 12/15/2010 5:50:46 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Criticism without argumentation.


33 posted on 12/15/2010 6:09:05 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dangus
What slave could not read the Declaration of Independence and see within it his own compulsion to lift his bonds?

One of the reasons why southern states, execising their 'rights', passed laws prohibiting the education of their chattel.

34 posted on 12/15/2010 6:15:03 AM PST by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Creative insanity needs no criticism.


35 posted on 12/15/2010 7:26:17 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sargon
He should have let the South go and abandon Fort Sumter. Had he done so, Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennesse woudl have stayed in the Union (they only left because of Sumter). He should have then opened the borders to runaway slaves. The end result would have been a weak, heavily black, Gulf Coast confederacy which would have been highly vulnerable to slave rebellions and slave escapes. As it did in Brazil, slavery would have probably collapsed from its own weight within a couple of decades.

Instead, as we know, he did the following: sent over a million men to their deaths (millions of others were crippled and maimed), suspended the ancient right of habeus corpus, debased the currency, created the first income tax (thus leaving a dangerous precedent), and imposed the first national conscription in American history (another dangerous precedents). While the war did lead to the abolition of slavery, the same folks who seceded were back in the driver's seat in the South by the 1870s and blacks were confined to second-class citizenship for nearly a centruy.

36 posted on 12/15/2010 7:35:15 AM PST by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; manc; GOP_Raider; TenthAmendmentChampion; snuffy smiff; slow5poh; EdReform; TheZMan; ...

Jeff Davis ping


37 posted on 12/15/2010 7:39:05 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome
That's a really nice group.

I have a couple of recordings by the 12th Louisiana String Band & Benevolent Society. I couldn't find them on YouTube, so I looked them up on Google and found the Southern Heritage Music Awards which gives the names of a number of other groups I'd never heard of that sing of the war and the South. Here's a link to the SHMA site: Link

38 posted on 12/15/2010 8:34:22 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Still living in 1865 aren’t you? You lost, remember?


39 posted on 12/15/2010 3:44:12 PM PST by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
Establishment conservatives have pretty much surrendered to or even embraced the leftwing view that there was nothing good about the Confederacy and the attempt to resist northern aggression.

The ball's in your court. Just what was good about the Confederacy?

I'll grant that once the Davis regime started shooting and the Union responded militarily a lot of Southerners felt bound to "defend" their home soil, but what good did or would secession and the creation of the Confederacy have served?

Would a slave state rebellion really have made the world any freer?

40 posted on 12/15/2010 4:18:49 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: x

What was good about it? The men who fought for it, both the soldiers and the officers. The idea that people have a right to form a new government when they conclude their current one no longer serves them.

What good would a Confederacy that survived have done? Well obviously the persistence of slavery would have been bad (just want to make that clear in case you’re a Michael Gerson type of conservative), and who knows, maybe later results would have been disastrous. Maybe there wouldn’t have been a united American nation strong enough to wage WW2. Then again maybe slavery would have ended by other means sooner than expected, and maybe North and South would have reunited peacefully. Maybe we’d have a much smaller federal government.

Who knows how history would have turned out. What if there had been no slavery in the US? Then most black Americans would either not exist, or they’d have come to be in Africa.

I don’t know why you felt compelled to put quotation marks around “defend.” That is no doubt how they saw it, and back then one thought of themself as much a Virginian, or North Carolinian, or Tennessean as they did an American.

I’m not saying I wish the South had won. Considering how many lost opportunities there were for the South, it almost makes me believe they were simply destined or meant to lose. My major point in all of this is that having admiration for the Confederates/Southerners/Rebels doesn’t make one a bad person. Statues of Confederate war heroes should not come down. Lee and Jackson were admirable and honorable. The hundreds of thousands who fought were doing what they felt to be right. One shouldn’t have to apologize for any of these sentiments for beliefs.

You may disagree totally about the Confederacy, but as a conservative I would hope that you recoil at how people are attacked for harmless sentiments like those I just mentioned, and at how they give in and apologize, which only emboldens those on the Left who seek to restrict public discourse to such a point that nothing but their views are deemed proper.


41 posted on 12/15/2010 5:11:37 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sargon

Well, let’s say for arguments sake that slavery would have persisted for 2 or 3 more decades. Sure, that would have been terrible, but do you think it would have been worse than the hundreds of thousands who died, and that many more who were maimed?

I’m glad we at least seem to agree on Hannity. Even though I agree with him on most issues, I find him to be a very unimaginative thinker.

As to the relevance of the Democrats and Republicans ancient (politically speaking) history; I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye here. The Democrats today are the party of big government, racial preferences, and wealth redistribution. Unfortunately that obviously appeals to most black voters. I’d agree that these things aren’t good for them as a community, but it is what it is, and I don’t think that it would make any difference if every black American knew the history of the Democrats. What does that have to do with today when the Republicans are out to starve their children and keep them out of jobs and college?

And MLK is another interesting what-if? What if he had lived? Where would his politics have gone? I think he would have ended up firmly on the Left, and would have supported policies of racial preferences and generous welfare.


42 posted on 12/15/2010 5:24:32 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
Thanks for the response.

What was good about it? The men who fought for it, both the soldiers and the officers.

We're talking about a political or policy idea. Even bad policies and bad political systems can be supported by good people. That doesn't make those policies or systems good. Indeed, it could be argued that the way bad institutions and policies can get decent people of good will to support them makes those institutions or policies worse than they would otherwise be. The attractiveness of unworthy political systems distract people from worthy goals and wastes their virtues on the wrong objects.

The idea that people have a right to form a new government when they conclude their current one no longer serves them.

That people have the right to reject or overthrow a tyrannical government was established by the Declaration of Independence and by our Revolution and others. But how did the Confederacy advance the idea of self-determination and the independence of peoples? I'd argue that this idea that you can simply throw away a political union because it doesn't "serve" you in some sense was probably a mistaken one. You can undertake to change things by working within the system. If that doesn't work you can try to make a new start. But to say you don't need dialogue, consent, negotiation, that you can simply say "I'm out" and expect the rest of the country to cope as best it can, isn't really a good or workable idea or an improvement over what came earlier.

Well obviously the persistence of slavery would have been bad (just want to make that clear in case you’re a Michael Gerson type of conservative), and who knows, maybe later results would have been disastrous. Maybe there wouldn’t have been a united American nation strong enough to wage WW2.

True and true.

Then again maybe slavery would have ended by other means sooner than expected, and maybe North and South would have reunited peacefully. Maybe we’d have a much smaller federal government.

Possibly. The Southern leadership would have wanted to maintain racial segregation (that wasn't just a Southern thing, but it certainly went further in the South than elsewhere) and to keep their labor force in subjugation (as they did for a century after emancipation). They wouldn't reunite with the North without keeping much power over their subjugated population, if even then. They'd have wanted a federal government so weak that it couldn't accomplish anything.

But even if a theoretical agreement could have been reached, the idea that an independent Southern (or Northern) governing elite would submit to a new unified government may be overly optimistic. Do you really think governments and elites surrender power that easily? Wasn't that what the war was about? We don't know what would have happened, but it's at least possible, that like other governments around the world, the CSA would have done what it could to shore up its power. It wouldn't have behaved differently from other governments and wouldn't have given up its power to reestablish the union.

I don’t know why you felt compelled to put quotation marks around “defend.” That is no doubt how they saw it, and back then one thought of themself as much a Virginian, or North Carolinian, or Tennessean as they did an American.

But there were Virginians and Tennesseans who saw the federal government as their defenders. There were those who thought of themselves as Americans first and worried more about their fanatical neighbors. That's why I put "defend" in quotation marks. Maybe I shouldn't have, but we do have to remember that not every Southerner welcomed secession.

Also, I wonder about the rapidity with which everything proceeded. All of a sudden, Virginians and Tennesseans were expected to fall in line with people they disagreed with and feared a few weeks earlier -- the extremists of the lower South. I suspect some people got whiplash trying to figure out just who were their friends and who were their enemies, who was defending and who was attacking.

I’m not saying I wish the South had won. Considering how many lost opportunities there were for the South, it almost makes me believe they were simply destined or meant to lose.

Interesting. I get the same feeling looking at some of the choices rebel Southern politicians made at the time. It was almost as if they were choosing a path that they could have known wouldn't have worked. They just couldn't help it.

My major point in all of this is that having admiration for the Confederates/Southerners/Rebels doesn’t make one a bad person. Statues of Confederate war heroes should not come down. Lee and Jackson were admirable and honorable. The hundreds of thousands who fought were doing what they felt to be right. One shouldn’t have to apologize for any of these sentiments for beliefs.

Okay, but I'd distinguish between heritage and politics. Both are a part of history, but if you're talking about political ideas, and policies, and institutions, you may come up with different questions and answers than if you're talking about cultural heritage, and identity, and belonging.

You may disagree totally about the Confederacy, but as a conservative I would hope that you recoil at how people are attacked for harmless sentiments like those I just mentioned, and at how they give in and apologize, which only emboldens those on the Left who seek to restrict public discourse to such a point that nothing but their views are deemed proper.

Okay. You're right about that. There's another side to that, though. George Washington or James Madison could see the danger in too much government and in too centralized government. They could also see that a government so weak that it couldn't defend the country and enforce the laws was also a danger. Sometimes people get in a "federal government bad" or "federal government good" groove and ignore that there are dangers in too weak a country as well as in too strong a central government.

43 posted on 12/15/2010 5:54:37 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC

Of course it was. It was in the speeches and editorials of the secessionists, and it’s revisionism to continue to deny it.


44 posted on 12/15/2010 6:55:51 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Of course it was. It was in the speeches and editorials of the secessionists, and it’s revisionism to continue to deny it.

The republic of our founders died in 1865. Glad you approve, by the way out Federal Government just voted to allow buggery in the barracks. Viva la Union. Zieg Hiel! Zieg Hiel !

I guess yo can join now, its safe for you.

45 posted on 12/15/2010 9:46:55 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

How many source documents are you reading? Ken Burns movies don’t count


46 posted on 12/15/2010 9:56:49 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

No it wasn’t, the issue of slavery didn’t even enter the picture until the third year of Lincoln’s war when he couldn’t get anybody to sign up to fight it, so he duped the north with the great emancipation proclamation that didn’t free one slave, AND exempted the five slave holding states in the north.

The secession was caused by over reach of federal government from issues stemming back before 1837...if you’d cracked a book and studied the history of it instead of just reading the secessionist documents, you would get the whole picture...but your mindset to blame the south won’t let you do that.

If the north had been serious about abolition, why did they elect a racist president? Why were five of their states still slave holders? Why was Massachusetts dependent on the Cabots who were slave shippers even up until 1900! You see the slaves only entered the problem when the south told them to take a hike and left their arse dangling with no money to fund their government coffers from all the tariffs from the ports that the south held. The north crashed their manufacturing when the unions (YES, UNIONS)priced themselves out of business and the south wouldn’t buy their products when they could import them cheaper.

In fact the north was full of nothing but hypocrites who decided since they couldn’t make it to strip the south of their slaves.


47 posted on 12/16/2010 5:51:09 AM PST by RowdyFFC (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC
According to the secessionists of the state of Mississippi:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world."

By their own words, the secession was all about slavery.

48 posted on 12/16/2010 11:45:42 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
Establishment conservatives have pretty much surrendered to or even embraced the leftwing view that there was nothing good about the Confederacy and the attempt to resist northern aggression.

And we came to that conclusion about 150 years ago.

49 posted on 12/16/2010 11:49:20 AM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC
I think your timeline doesn’t quite represent what really happened...it needs to go back to the recession of 1837 when the union labor decimated the northern manufacturers and priced them out of business (just like they’ve done today)...and the south started importing cheaper goods than buying from the north. Therefore the federal government established high tariffs on imported goods from the southern ports trying to FORCE the south to buy the north’s high priced goods...the south put up with that KRAP for OVER 20 YEARS before they got a gutful of the north’s and the federal government’s manipulation of the free market system. Not to mention that Texas was already pissed off because they’d been paying taxes to Washington DC for 20 years and not gotten one whit of help protecting the southern borders (JUST LIKE TODAY).

Did you get all those myths from some Cracker Jack box, or did you just make them up off the top of your head? Overpriced union labor in 1837? High tariffs on goods "from" southern ports? Just --- WOW?

Do you know that the tariff rate in 1860 was the lowest in our history at that point in time? Did you know that both Massachusetts and South Carolina representatives in congress voted for those rates? Do you even understand what a tariff is?

The tariff excuse of secession is a myth my friend. Read some history. Read what they said at the time, not what some Libertarian nutbag at Lou Rockwell.com says.

50 posted on 12/16/2010 12:03:48 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson