Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alabama Governor's Slavery Blunder
CBS News ^ | 4/5/05

Posted on 04/05/2005 11:27:48 AM PDT by Crackingham

Confederate heritage groups got excited when Gov. Bob Riley's annual proclamation designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month dropped a paragraph saying slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The groups were pleased because they consider that description of slavery historically inaccurate. Their excitement, however, was short lived.

"It was a mistake," said Jeff Emerson, the governor's communications director, on Monday. He said he did not know how the mistake was made.

Emerson said the governor was unaware of the deletion until The Associated Press contacted his office. The governor quickly reissued the proclamation with the paragraph on slavery restored, and posted it on his Web site.

"That makes Bob Riley look very inconsistent and inept," said Roger Broxton, president of the Confederate Heritage Fund.

State Rep. Oliver Robinson, House chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, was pleased that Riley withdrew the version of the proclamation that makes no mention of slavery.

"To me, the members of the Black Caucus, and the majority of black citizens of Alabama that would be a disgrace," he said.

For many years, Alabama governors have signed proclamations designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. When Riley became governor in January 2003, he used the same proclamation as his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman.

It contained a paragraph that says "Our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; alabamabimbos; alabamaeatsit; alabamalost; beattherebs; carolinacrap; confederacy; confederate; confederatecreeps; confederatecriminals; confederatecrooks; confederatecrumbs; confederateklan; confederateneos; crapoconfederates; damnyankee; defeated; demoralizeddixie; depresseddixie; derelictdixies; disillusioned; dixie; dixiedefeat; dixiedimwits; dixienuts; dixiesruined; dixiesucks; dixietraitors; dixietwits; downondixie; mississippimudheads; neoconfederates; neonutty; northernaggression; oldredneck; onlyunion; rebelrebellion; rebelsrot; rebs; reckneckcity; redneck; slavery; southernscumbags; starsandbarsbarf; swampmasters; unionalltheway; unionisbest; wheresalabama; whoneedsdixie; yankeeswon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-302 next last

1 posted on 04/05/2005 11:27:48 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Aww come one.

Except that it doesn't say slavery was "the cause" of the war.

It says "slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "

Presumably even the Confederate apologists won't argue with that statement.


2 posted on 04/05/2005 11:43:53 AM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

Make that "come on."

Beware spell check.


3 posted on 04/05/2005 11:44:38 AM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I am not a historian. But I was taught that slavery was brought into the dispute between the North and South simply as a matter of political opportunism.
The real cause of the Civil War was the South selling raw materials to England, (where they got a better price). This had the result of depriving the North of much needed raw material for manufacturing. The North moved to create tariffs in their favor, and the South moved to suceed.


4 posted on 04/05/2005 11:48:24 AM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Presumably even the Confederate apologists won't argue with that statement.

Some of the more moonbat variety will.

5 posted on 04/05/2005 11:49:05 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
It says "slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "

Presumably even the Confederate apologists won't argue with that statement.

Not this one. It was not THE cause for war, but it was certainly an important issue in the day.

6 posted on 04/05/2005 11:52:16 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Nations do not survive by setting examples for others. Nations survive by making examples of others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
"The real cause of the Civil War was the South selling raw materials to England, (where they got a better price). This had the result of depriving the North of much needed raw material for manufacturing. The North moved to create tariffs in their favor, and the South moved to suceed."

Who ever "taught" you that, did you a major disservice, not just in American history, but in Economics 101.

7 posted on 04/05/2005 11:52:46 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
simply as a matter of political opportunism.

Have you studied much about the abolitionists? They were people of true and passionate faith in God who were doing His work on Earth.
8 posted on 04/05/2005 11:54:03 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

"Who ever "taught" you that, did you a major disservice, not just in American history, but in Economics 101."

Care to illuminate?


9 posted on 04/05/2005 11:55:40 AM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Well, when are they going to get their history straight. Slavery wasn't a cause for the war. If it were, the North would have been at war with the South far sooner. True, abolitionist groups were gaining more influence in many circles but most were apathetic in their attitude to the Negro in bondage. The Democrat party in the northern cities had too much invested in the immigrant vote (esp Irish) to be concerned about black people. Please educate me! Were black folks allowed to vote in the free states before 1863?
Even if they were, they were not living the life of Reilly just because they were not enslaved.


10 posted on 04/05/2005 11:55:49 AM PDT by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smug; TexConfederate1861; peacebaby; DixieOklahoma; kalee; dljordan; Da Bilge Troll; nolu chan; ...

b-u-m-p


11 posted on 04/05/2005 11:57:14 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

I thought that Lincoln and others thought that the whole idea of states wanting to separate from the Union was unthinkable. True the south was getting a better price on cotton from the Brits but I doubt that would have been reason alone to go to war.


12 posted on 04/05/2005 12:00:17 PM PDT by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

"Have you studied much about the abolitionists? They were people of true and passionate faith in God who were doing His work on Earth."

Not an expert, but I know that there was a movement. I know of the underground railroad. I know John Brown lived in this area. I know slavery was obscene.

I also know it was economically beneficial to the South, and that caused many to turn a blind eye. I am pretty sure that the movement was not strong enough on it's own to create a conflict as big as the Civil War in 1860.

We all know that what is right, and what is economically efficient isn't always the same thing. And those in power tend to choose efficiency.


13 posted on 04/05/2005 12:00:38 PM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

I'd like to hear this history lesson as well.


14 posted on 04/05/2005 12:02:23 PM PDT by A Cyrenian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
Slavery wasn't a cause for the war. If it were, the North would have been at war with the South far sooner.

Tariffs weren't a cause for the war. If they were, the South would have seceded much sooner.

Nope, doesn't work.

Slavery isn't why the North went to war. It is why the South seceded, and it is why no peace was possible until unconditional surrender, because Jefferson Davis insisted on the right to own slaves until the very end.
15 posted on 04/05/2005 12:02:56 PM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

"True the south was getting a better price on cotton from the Brits but I doubt that would have been reason alone to go to war."

I think the key is tariffs. The North tried to legislate economics. The South would have none of it. The South saw sucession as a legitimate, viable option.
That would be enough to generate a war.


16 posted on 04/05/2005 12:03:01 PM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Go to the local library (you may need to hold your nose!) and check out "The Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson. While this book will give you the impression that slavery was the root cause of the war, it makes up for that in going into the social/economical aspects of the war. Make no mistake about it, the author has a DEFINITE bias against the South. If you take the economic/social issues part of it and factor out the author's obvious bias AGAINST the South, then you will have a better understanding of the other factors for the war.

I read this not knowing about the author's biases, but since I was somewhat of a Civil War buff, I was able to look past that and found his analysis of the economic factors and political issues to be pretty good.

Let me reitterate: DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK as it would give money to an atni-Southern college professor. Check it out form the library and ignore the anti-South bias.


17 posted on 04/05/2005 12:10:51 PM PDT by Littlejon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
At the time secession began, tariffs in the United States were governed by the Walker Tariff Act of 1846, a law championed by the South and pushed through by pro-slavery President James Polk of Tennessee. The Walker Act led to an economic boom in the South which lasted until the country broke apart. Revisionist neo-Confederate "historians" would bizarrely have you believe that Southern states seceded over tariffs and did so at a time when the nation's tariff policy was one which the South supported. How these people can believe their own revisionist drivel is beyond me.
18 posted on 04/05/2005 12:11:01 PM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
I think the key is tariffs. The North tried to legislate economics. The South would have none of it. The South saw sucession as a legitimate, viable option.

We can speculate, but it might be better to let the historical figures speak for themselves. Here is what the political leaders of Mississippi wrote in their Declaration of Secession:

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

19 posted on 04/05/2005 12:11:24 PM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
"The real cause of the Civil War was the South selling raw materials to England, (where they got a better price). This had the result of depriving the North of much needed raw material for manufacturing. The North moved to create tariffs in their favor, and the South moved to suceed."

Surely.

Aside for the recommending that you familiarize yourself with the forty years of escalating sectional tensions arising from slavery beginning with the Missouri Compromise, followed by Texas Admission, The Wilmont Proviso, The Compromise of 1850, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, The Dred Scott Decision, the Fugitive Slave Act, "Bloody Kansas," Harpers Ferry, and culminating in the election of a president representing the "Free Soil Movement", you need to understand that tariffs, under the US Constitution, can not be and have never been applied to exports, from the South or anywhere else. They are only applied to imports, and had existed since the first days of the Republic, and were at their lowest levels ever in 1860 when secession began. You also need to understand that one of the first acts of the Confederate Congress was to enact a set of tarrifs nearly identical to the set that applied before secession.

20 posted on 04/05/2005 12:13:16 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan; brooklyn dave

Here's how it worked. "King Cotton" was the largest revenue-generator for the ante-bellum Federal government of a primarily agrarian society. Since the Revolution, Federal revenue was raised through taxation (tariffs) on American goods sold to foreign markets (exports) and on foreign goods sold to Americans (imports). This practice aided northeastern industrialists (price supports for manufactured goods made and sold within the US) at the expense of southern farmers (slaveholders who needed field hands for growing and processing cotton sold to European mills). Over time, the population of the northeastern states overtook the southern states, setting up an imbalance in Congressional representation. Since the southern farmers paid most of the taxes, they were appalled at the direction governmental policy took (heavy tariffs and abolitionism)in opposition to their economic interests. After many attempts to reconcile these conflicting positions, the southerners simply gave up and left the United States compact, creating their own Confederate States in the interests of preserving their freedom. The institution of slavery was only one item in the list of grievances the southerners had with the Federal government.


21 posted on 04/05/2005 12:20:17 PM PDT by bowzer313
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Well, I think that listing it as ONE of the causes is accurate......hopefully you don't include me in your "moonbat" group :)


22 posted on 04/05/2005 12:20:46 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Still Free........Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Littlejon

I consider McPherson and Catton in the same category.

Idiots.


23 posted on 04/05/2005 12:22:21 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Still Free........Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

"Surely."

You know, it's entirely possible you're correct. It's also entirely possible that my college professors "processed" the information for a general studies class. (I am an engineer, not a historian). It's also possible my memory is faulty, but at least I'm willing to listen and be educated. This information isn't essential for my work, nor my daily life, but I am curious, and like to know facts, not someone's version of the truth.

What seems certain is that you have a very arrogant and condescending way about you.

I can be educated on this topic. As for you, well, you have a much steeper hill to climb.


24 posted on 04/05/2005 12:22:59 PM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Ditto, I'm impressed with your knowledge of this. Do you have any suggestions if I wanted to research this on my own at a later time?


25 posted on 04/05/2005 12:24:42 PM PDT by A Cyrenian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
I think the key is tariffs. The North tried to legislate economics.

Without slavery, there would not have been product of significant quantity to tax. It's true that a tariff alone, in a "pro-slavery" environment, MIGHT have been enough to cause the south to bolt. We don't know, and won't know, if it would have. We DO know that the prospect of losing slavery, as was clear with the election of Lincoln, did cause them to secede.
26 posted on 04/05/2005 12:25:02 PM PDT by self_evident (#47 and #60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ditto; brownsfan

"...you need to understand that tariffs, under the US Constitution, can not be and have never been applied to exports, from the South or anywhere else."

Simply wrong.


27 posted on 04/05/2005 12:25:04 PM PDT by bowzer313
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bowzer313
Since the southern farmers paid most of the taxes, they were appalled at the direction governmental policy took (heavy tariffs and abolitionism)in opposition to their economic interests.

Which all goes to show that you don't know your history. As already stated on this thread, American tariff rates at the time secession began were at an all-time low and had gotten there thanks in large part to Southern political support. So you'd have us believe that the South started breaking away from the rest of the nation at a time when the tariffs they wanted were the law of the land. I'm constantly baffled that people get these oddball notions that tariffs led to the Civil War. Apparently, these are the people who don't read their history. Instead, they prefer to just make up nonsense out of thin air.

28 posted on 04/05/2005 12:27:17 PM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bowzer313; Ditto

From ditto:
"...you need to understand that tariffs, under the US Constitution, can not be and have never been applied to exports, from the South or anywhere else. They are only applied to imports..."

From bowzer313:
"...Federal revenue was raised through taxation (tariffs) on American goods sold to foreign markets (exports)..."

Ok, I'm confused.


29 posted on 04/05/2005 12:28:38 PM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bowzer313; Ditto

"...you need to understand that tariffs, under the US Constitution, can not be and have never been applied to exports, from the South or anywhere else."

Simply wrong.


I just asked about this! Thanks. So, if you are correct, even though I didn't study 40 years of conflict and legislation, I was more correct on this point than fellow freeper ditto?


30 posted on 04/05/2005 12:30:59 PM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - "

Wow, thanks for the research. It certainly casts a different light on what I thought I knew.
One thing I do know, now: The Civil War is misunderstood, and not taught very well in our schools and universities.


31 posted on 04/05/2005 12:34:15 PM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan; bowzer313; Ditto
Export taxes are unconstitutional. See the following:

US Constitution

Article I, Section 9:
Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

32 posted on 04/05/2005 12:44:23 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: A Cyrenian
The American Civil War is probably the most written about event in the history of the world. It's a subject of study with virtually no end from the purely military aspects, the the social and political causes and repercussions. On the latter, there are a range of interpretations, but no sane interpretation discounts slavery as the primary contributer.

I couldn't tell you where to begin, but another poster recommended McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" as a start --- One volume, easy read, that touches on the political, social and economic dynamics that lead to war, followed by a good overview of the war itself, and the tragedies the war visited on both sides. (Just as a note, McPhearson is literally hated by the more "passionate" Neo-confederates. They will tell you he is a Communist, and it is true that he is a particularly far-out lefty academic, but I considered this book to be very "fair and balanced" and in fact devoid of sectional favoritism as far as I can see. From there, if you are still interested, go the Shelby Foote for greater detail.

33 posted on 04/05/2005 12:45:36 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!; bowzer313; Ditto

"Export taxes are unconstitutional. See the following:
US Constitution

Article I, Section 9:
Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."


Excellent! And that is what I like most about this place. I learn stuff here.

Thank you.


34 posted on 04/05/2005 12:49:43 PM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
Here's an informative little passage from the official proclamation of the state of Texas declaring the reasons for the their secession. There is no mention at all of tariffs. The only motive given for secession is the preservation of slavery.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

35 posted on 04/05/2005 12:49:47 PM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bowzer313; brownsfan
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9.

bowzer,

Please tell brownsfan and myself where exports are or have been taxed.

36 posted on 04/05/2005 12:52:35 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bowzer313; brownsfan
Since the Revolution, Federal revenue was raised through taxation (tariffs) on American goods sold to foreign markets (exports)...

Again, see the US Constitution, Article I, Section 9. EXPORTS ARE NOT TAXED!!!!!

37 posted on 04/05/2005 12:55:09 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
I am not a historian.

And you go on to prove it. Sorry, slavery was the issue which caused the Civil War. Northerners, BTW, feared competition from slave labor about as much as they felt compassion for slaves.

The Republican Party was founded as the antislavery party and as soon as Lincoln was elected, Secession was assured.

38 posted on 04/05/2005 12:55:47 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Deadcheck the embeds first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

Very informative. It strikes me how offensive this is to read, and yet, it was an official, legal document. We don't always progress as fast as we'd like to, but it seems to me we've progressed beyond the point of putting together official documents of this type. Maybe there is hope for us?


39 posted on 04/05/2005 1:00:25 PM PDT by brownsfan (Post No Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bowzer313; Ditto; brownsfan

"tariffs, under the US Constitution, can not be and have never been applied to exports, from the South or anywhere else"



While it is true that tariffs (properly understood) cannot be applied to exports, the federal government has always had the ability to levy *excise taxes* upon goods produced domestically. So maybe you all are talking past each other because of semantics.


40 posted on 04/05/2005 1:01:16 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
This passage is from the text of the so-called "Cornerstone Speech" in which Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens gave his view of the virtues of the Confederate Constitution. He asserts that slavery was the driving force for secession and was also the cornerstone upon which the Confederacy is built.

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. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

41 posted on 04/05/2005 1:11:37 PM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

You might want to read this: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
South Carolina was the first State to secede, and in that declaration she gave her reasons:

"...We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slave holding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction..."

"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States..."

Slavery, northern opposition to it, and possible future interference with each State's power to decide the issue for herself led South Carolina to secede. Other slave states followed. Lincoln did not recognize the secession as lawful, and in his first inaugural address had promised to "...hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts.." South Carolina fired on one of those places: Fort Sumter, and the war was on.

The issues were federalism, slavery, the legality of secession, and the tariff ("duties and imposts").


42 posted on 04/05/2005 1:18:17 PM PDT by Ruadh (Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end. LORD ACTON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: LightCrusader

I have tremendous respect for the people of faith who were at the forefront of abolitionism.


44 posted on 04/05/2005 1:50:37 PM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

I don't. They were a large part of the reason that sectional hatred began. Slavery might have very well ended peacefully, if not for William Lloyd Garrison, and his abolitionist friends. The lives of 600,000 men were sacrificed to achieve something that could have been done without the bloodshed.


45 posted on 04/05/2005 2:11:12 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Still Free........Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ruadh

In Texas, we had an even longer list. It is interesting reading.


46 posted on 04/05/2005 2:12:22 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Still Free........Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Don't believe everything Ditto, and his buddies are spewing. Slavery was one of the causes, but only one. Read the Texas Articles of Secession:

A declaration of the causes
which impel the State of Texas to secede
from the Federal Union
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A. D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal States thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquillity and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they hare placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons - We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freeman of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feb., in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.


47 posted on 04/05/2005 2:19:44 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Still Free........Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
because Jefferson Davis insisted on the right to own slaves until the very end.

Yea, but so did General Grant, and he also wanted to end the war, but he never actually set his free, the end of the war did that.

48 posted on 04/05/2005 2:24:48 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
One of the greatest ironies of all, is that it was the confederacy that left the union.

Before Lincoln, most folks ( if you could have polled them) would have probably assumed it was going to be New England, since they always were threatening to secede.

A big part of the irony, is that one of the main reasons New England talked about seceding, had to do with the issue of slavery, and a flip side interpretation of states rights.

49 posted on 04/05/2005 2:28:34 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Slavery might have very well ended peacefully, if not for William Lloyd Garrison, and his abolitionist friends.

In fairness, that generalization doesn't fit Garrison (or a lot of the religious based anti-slavery zealots.) Garrison was opposed to war and was willing to allow the South to leave the Union. He simply didn't want to be part of a nation that tolerated slavery. He didn't give a damn about the Constitution, and said so. But when Jeff Davis was arrested at the end of the war, it was Garrison who posted his bond and paid for his lawyers. He was driven by religion, not politics.

The feel I get from my readings is that the impact of the "pure" abolitionists and "underground railway" types has been overstated in history, and it was definitely exxegarated by the pro-secession side in the years leading up to the war as a way to create fear among Southerners who were not hot for secession but who dreaded the idea of slave insurrections.

Kind of like the left today using some nut-case who blows up abortion clinics as a caricature for anyone who opposes abortion.

IMHO, Garrison had more "influence" in the South than he did in the North, if you follow my drift.

50 posted on 04/05/2005 2:52:19 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-302 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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