Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
I'm stating the facts, which are:
The rest of the states had as much time as the five that did pass it.
There were the issues of secession and the threat of civil war pushing its passage.
With all of that, the states did not ratify it.
The only thing that has to be assumed is that they would have ratified that amendment.
Repeats snipped.
We have statements from the leaders and the newspapers at the time on both sides plainly saying it was not about slavery.
You posted comments from Democrat leaders from both the South and North who supported slavery while trying to say it wasn't about slavery, and some op-eds, many of which refute the points you're trying to make as we'll discuss shortly.
Are we to believe some PC Revisionists 150+ years later know what the real motivations of both sides were rather than the people themselves?
Hitler said in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939. He knew what his motovations were too, but that doesn't prove he wasn't lying.
I know you're going to cry to your mommy about how I called you Hitler again, but the point here is that we don't have to believe them when we can see from their actions what their real motivations were.
After you're done maoning and groaning about how I called you Hitler, you'll reply with some nonsense about how JD gave someone plenty of potent power to abolish slavery, which they never made good on, and which would have been unconstitutional according to the Constitution THEY had written anyway.
So what were the Democrat's intentions when they weren't trying to garner sympathy from others? Let's find out, shall we?
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
So forget what everyone said, because the Democrats never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so. It's the revisionists who are the ones who say secession and the CW weren't about slavery.
Waste of bandwidth repeats snipped.
Yes they were op eds but they are reflective of what many were thinking.
Ignoring the fact that the op-ed writers were speaking for themselves, as we saw by actually reading the entire op-ed rather than the snippets you posted, the writer himself was admitting the exact opposite.
Lincoln made similar comments such as when he told a Pennsylvania audience on the campaign trail that the tariff was THE most important thing or when he told Southern peace commissioners "what about my tariff" and that without all the money the northern states were squeezing out of the South, he'd have to shut down his "housekeeping" (ie federal expenditures) at once.
Those of us who opposed our free trade deals with the communists made many of the the same comments on tarriffs on foreign made goods, but were overruled by the free traitors who wanted the cheaper goods. How has that worked out?
Coincidentally or maybe not coincidentally, the Democrats running the Confederacy and the free traitors both relied on cheaper slave labor to lower the prices. The only difference is the Democrats imported the slaves while the free traitors exported the plantations.
There wasn't unanimity of opinion on either side. There were those in the North who said they should let the Southern states go in peace. Remember, there was a reason Lincoln imposed censorship - unconstitutionally - and seized printing presses and shut down newspapers.
Funny how you've managed to find plenty to sources from the North that you think support your position during this censorship.
From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?" "That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states..." LOL! This directly proves my point. Thanks for bringing it up.
Everyone used tarriffs on imported goods, including the Confederacy. There is no gotcha here.
Once again, you posted cherry picked excerpts to prove your point, which is a common tactic among the Confederacy Amen Corner and other Democrats. Here is the link so the readers can see everything rather than just what you want them to see.
Manchester Union Democrat, February 19, 1861 "Let Them Go"
Oh well, if you can't find it then it therefore must be fake. LOL! There are plenty more.
It is completely reasonable to expect you to provide the sources of the op-eds so we can read the entire op-ed, rather than just the excerpts you want us to see. For all we know you could be making them up. The fact that you won't post any links proves more about your motives than the Union's.
It came as no surprise to me that you posted even more snippets of op-eds rather than links to the op-eds themselve so we could see the entire context. Once again, I had to do your job for you.
The Great Question. New York Times March 30, 1861
Called for tarriffs.
March 18, 1861 Boston Transcript If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy...
I couldn't find this op-ed anywhere, so I'll leave it to you to prove it was really written. A link to the full op-ed will do. That shouldn't be a problem for you if it's real, should it?
or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860
Ditto, I couldn't find the full op-ed anywhere, so I'll leave it to you to prove it was really written.
On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."
Yes, the Confederacy also relied on tarriffs on imports and taxes on exports to raise revenue. They were doing the same thing you accuse the Union of doing. So much for your claim they were for free trade.
"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually." - Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860
This op-ed called for tarriffs, not war.
Democrat, slave owning Robert Barnwell Rhett said...
Who cares?
Democrat, slave owning Senator Robert Toombs said...
Who cares?
Its amazing you act as though carrying everything except the things that really concerned them over from the US Constitution means they "specifically designed it from the ground up" to support slavery.
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Once again you evade my point which is that no country is going to impose wrenching economic change on itself right in the middle of a war of national survival.
Your point is that they were offering to do that exactly that, yet now you want to defend them for not doing it. If they couldn't abolish slavery then their offer was a lie. If they could, then they had nothing to lose by following through because they were losing anyway. They never followed through because, as England and France knew, they seceeded and were fighting to preserve slavery. No amount of phony offers could change that.
They had the reading comprehension to understand the Confederate Ambassador had been granted plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery? We would have to assume they could read and did understand this.
Either they could have abolished slavery ot they couldn't. If they couldn't then this offer meant nothing. If they could, they they could have done it to prove their intentions to the other countries. You can't have it both ways.
In their own states but that does not mean they supported abolishing it in other states.
Nope, they only did abolish slavery after trying but being blocked by Democrats while the war was still going on
But they didn't mean to. It just happened.
The Republicans were not abolitionists until very late in the war.
They were founded by abolitionists.
Yes some Northern states certainly did violate the constitution.
Comments like this are what make me believe you're a Democrat plant posing as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look bad. No real Conservative would condemn freeing slaves.
JD, who in 1858 asserted that secession was a justifiable response to the election of abolitionists, said...
Who cares?
Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne of the CSA said...
In all fairness, Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne was no fan of slavery, but he was still toeing the company line when it came to what the Democrats were or weren't fighting for.
Why do I need care what a bunch of lying corporate fatcat backed Northern Republicans said?
Because they followed through and voted to abolish slavery twice, once while the war was still going on.
The whole country was complicit in slavery and profiteering off of slavery.
This country also has the history of having abolished slavery, which the Republicans accomplished and which the Democrats tried to prevent for "states' rights", their words. You choose to associate with the latter, or more likely you're associating Conservatives with the latter.
LOL! You wanna try to compare fighting in the Western territories between warriors to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of entire tribes - not to mention the only mass execution in American history after ridiculous show trials - conducted by the US federal government against the Lakota Sioux and even the peaceful Winnebago in Minnesota? What a joke.
No, I only PROVED that you were wrong when you said "The Southern states did not." They did.
By the way, the Confederacy actually had a native American general, Stand Watie. The Union certainly didn't.
General Ely S. Parker.
the position of the Cherokee as well as most of the tribes in Oklahoma was quite clear. Declaration by the people of the Cherokee nation of the causes which have impelled them to unite their fortunes with those of the Confederate States of America
Once again you cherry pick what you think will support what you want to believe, but as usual there's more to this than you're posting.
The Cherokee Nation was involved in its own civil war. While many joined with the Confederacy, some as well as many other tribes sided with the Union.
In other words, the provisions of the Confederate constitution in this were exactly the same as the US Constitution.
Yes, but there's a difference. The US Constitution's protections were implicit and were inherited and later abolished by the Republicans, while the explicit protections in the Democrat written Confederate's constitution were written by the contemporary leaders of the time. They could have left the explicit protections out, which would not have required them to abolish slavery, but would have given them that option if they needed military help and wanted to give their diplomats plenty of potent power to abolish slavery. They didn't because it was their intention to protect slavery.
LOL! Laughable BS. The CSA did not order a mass execution of Indians after show trials. Nor did it commit ethnic cleansing and genocide of native peoples. Nor did government officials line their own pockets in the process.
We've already established that isn't true. I'll repost the link.
False! From Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War, "In the fall of 1861, Colonel Douglas H. Cooper, commanding the department of Indian operations under authority from the Confederate Government, made several ineffectual efforts to have a conference with the old chief of for the purpose of effecting a peaceful settlement of the difficulties that were dividing the nation into two hostile camps. Finding Hopoeithleyhola unwavering in his loyalty to the United States, Colonel Cooper determined to force him into submission, destroy his power, or drive him out of the country, and at once commenced collecting forces, composed mostly of white troops, to attack him. In November and December, 1861, the battles of Chusto Talasah and Chustenhlah were fought, and the loyal Indians finally were defeated and forced to retire to Kansas in midwinter....In the spring of 1862 the United States Government sent an expedition of five thousand men under Colonel William Weer, 10th Kansas Infantry, into the Indian Territory to drive out the Confederate forces of Pike and Cooper, and to restore the refugee Indians to their homes."
This is what the Confederacy managed to find time to do while they were fighting for their existence, yet you want me to believe the couldn't just free their slaves.
All of those things are true of the Lincoln administration during the war.
And your proof is an author and a blogger who say what you want to hear.
Not that I'll deny the point that atrocities occurred were committed against Native Americans by this nation, but your claim that the South "didn't" is clearly false. They were in on it before the war, during the war, and after, and their own constitution reserved the right to allow for slavery in the territories that would be grabbed later. I'll post it again so you can stop pretending the South was innocent on this.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
WOW! He "Only" allowed 38 Indians to be executed in "trials" that lasted on average TEN MINUTES EACH. Clearly he's a great humanitarian for that.
I was quoting your source. I don't know what the full story is.
Its also typical of you that you refuse to read anything that is contrary to the dogma you so desperately want to believe.
Maybe it's because I'm sick of your sources with their cherry picked quotes that ignore the entire context. We also saw this with your op-eds earlier. We aren't under any obligation to accept your sources when you're not prepared to substantiate them.
But let me repeat what I said before you got us started on another roller coaster ride. "No one denies what this country did to the native tribes. The Confederacy reserved the same right to take land and make them slave holding states. Everyone who chooses to live in this country and take advantage of its freedoms benefits from that. If that sounds horrible, then I made my point."
Its a British perspective on this...
Why do I need to care what the British perspective, when they have their own history of conquest, ethnic cleansing, and everything else? In fact, they were in on stealing the land from the Native Americans long before the Republicans were even formed.
rather than the PC Revisionist dogma you were spoonfed in the government schools.
The "government schools" I went to made it clear this country did commit atrocities against Native Americans, so I don't know where you're getting that from.
It contains several inconvenient facts. I can see why you run in terror from it.
All of your sources contain cherry picked facts that are usually posted out of context, and I'm sick of having to parse through your lies of omission. My sources are the full documents and speeches, which I have posted links to so you can examine the whole thing. I only asked the same of you with those op-eds.
If your point is that the South is not guilty of atrocities against Native Americans, I have already refuted that.
Not even close....not that you'd know because you refuse to read or watch anything that is inconvenient for the propaganda you want to cling to.
You said "The Southern states did not." That has been refuted.
So he didn't end slavery as you claimed.
He didn't get to finish the job, because a Confederate sympathizer who couldn't stand the thought of blacks having the same rights as whites assassinated him. I guess FDR really didn't win WWII because he didn't live to see it through either, according to your "logic".
You Leftists are going to try to push this "all about slavery" myth and are going to try to smear the South because you know the South is the heart of the modern conservative movement.
Now that coming from you is almost laughable, considering you just referred to a book bashing Republicans from a book seller that blocked Conservatives throughout 2020 to help Biden get elected.
Besides, you're the one who is smearing the South by associating it with the Confederacy and in effect slavery. What's worse, it diminishes the abolitionists from the South who opposed slavery. Funny how you are willing to defend slave owners who paid to have others kill and capture blacks for slavery, but you won't defend the abolitionists who fought back. But then again, being a lefty yourself, that's what you're trying to make Conservatives look like.
The only thing that associates the modern South with the Confederacy is by choice.
At bare minimum you claimed there were extremely few.
So I see you're moving on from your error that I said there were none, and now saying there were very few. "Very few" is relative anyway.
Here again is what I said.
441
489
I proved form Union army accounts the number of Black Confederates ran well into 5 figures.
You proved no such thing. You substantiated about 6,000, and that is if we give your sources the benefit of the doubt that they were able to count them and get accurate numbers, something even the South can't do.
If we throw in the 9,000 which we could rightfully refuse to do since it only said they "talked of having 9,000 men" and only said "but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes" and assumed the talk was correct and all but a few were black, you still only made it to less than 15,000, five figures but still far less than who fought for the Union.
Of course you neglect to mention many Blacks were literally forced to join the Union army. Many others were effectively conscripted by hunger.
Your post is an insult to blacks like those reported on in 6 Black Heroes of the Civil War
And I suppose those escaped slaves were forced to escape the comforts of the Democrat run Confederacy and join the Union forces.
But your claim does ring a bell, so let me check.
Oh yes, here it is. From Black Confederates: Truth and Legend, "Some black Southerners aided the Confederacy. Most of these were forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines. Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army--they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers."
Projection, another leftist tactic.
They didn't have to do anything.
You're right. Once they were defeated and enough Democrats were replaced with Republicans, the Republicans abolished slavery for them.
The North offered nothing. It was never ratified, and it's only an assumption that it would have been.
Everybody could see the North was not fighting to abolish slavery.
They only did it, a year after being blocked by the Democrats in 1864.
The British Empire said...
Who cares?
Fiction writer Charles Dickens said...
Who cares?
Thanks for showing once again that you were wrong and are now lying. You haven't provided a single example of slaves being bred as livestock. I've provided lots of evidence of slaves being married. Yet you continue to lie and claim there was some kind of "breeding program" despite your continuing failure to provide any evidence for it.
These 22 Unbelievable Ads For American Slaves From The 19th Century Will Infuriate You
I know you're going to point to the first image and say "gotcha", but I never claimed everyone in the North was innocent even as late as 1861, this was a warning to fugitive slaves to keep them from being captured, and this was BEFORE the Republican party was even formed.
No its not. How is stating the historical FACTS in this case some kind of attack on conservatives?
Because he wasn't stating historical facts as far as I'm concerned. He was tying slavery to Conservatives, as you're trying to do.
Look at elections going back decades and decades. Without the South, Republicans hardly win anything since Ronald Reagan. With all those electoral votes, both Bushes (yes I'm sickened by them too) and Trump won. The South is the absolute heart of the modern conservative movement. The South has always been conservative. It has always stuck to the values of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, they were overwhelmingly Southerners themselves.
A lot of votes for Trump came from the North and Midwest. Driving a wedge between them and the South will only hurt the Conservative movement, but that's what you're trying to do anyway, isn't it?
You obviously haven't read about it. They didn't sneak away in the middle of the night. They crept into people's homes and murdered them - including the little kids.
Maybe the slave owners should have thought of what could happen to their children if they bought people who were sold into slavery against their will, just like the Germans and Japanese should have thought about their children getting killed before starting WWII.
The modern South IS absolutely tied to the South of 160 years ago.
No one in the South today would agree with the following:
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
and this (How many children died as a direct result of slavery, or lived their entire lives in slavery) excuses deliberately murdering little children how?
They were collateral damage that resulted from the actions of the slave owners who participated in forcing people into slavery against their will, and those deaths were entirely their fault.
I know you're going to post your outrage in reply to "They were collateral damage" part, so I'll reply now. If you attempt to kidnap someone and your kids are killed as a result, that was your fault.
I know you're also going to come back with "The Founding Fathers". As you and I have agreed, while they had their flaws, they also created the government that would abolish those flaws.
The Northern states gave it up slowly with some still having slaves in 1860. The Southern states weren't far behind as Western countries go. Several European countries only abolished slavery during the war or soon thereafter. Multiple countries in the Americas did not abolish slavery until years later. Russia did not abolish serfdom until 1861.
What does any of this have to do with the fact that the South didn't give up slavery until forced by defeat to do so?
Yep. I mean that. They acted maliciously and supported terrorism in the Southern States. Had they been actually trying to solve the problem in a civilized fashion as was done in other Western countries, they would have sat down and agreed to a compensated emancipation scheme.
Why should anyone who bought slaves knowing they were enslaved against their will be entitled to any compensation? Is this your idea of a justification?
What I'm showing
I don't care what you're showing, because the KKK attacking blacks had nothing to do with any of the reasons you gave.
So what? That does not mean they wouldn't have had it been clear that passing it would mean the original 7 seceding states would come back in.
You posted comments from Democrat leaders from both the South and North who supported slavery while trying to say it wasn't about slavery, and some op-eds, many of which refute the points you're trying to make as we'll discuss shortly.
No I did not. I posted the editorial opinions of several of the leading newspapers. Several of those Northern Newspapers were Republican. Feel free to look them up.
Hitler said in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939. He knew what his motovations were too, but that doesn't prove he wasn't lying.
Here we go again with the childish Hitler references. :rolleyes: Plenty of the leading politicians and newspapers at the time said it was not about slavery and that was true of the North, the South and the Foreign observers. Are we to suppose they were all just lying?
I know you're going to cry to your mommy about how I called you Hitler again, but the point here is that we don't have to believe them when we can see from their actions what their real motivations were.
Correct! They real motivations as demonstrated by their actions make it clear slavery was not their big concern.
After you're done maoning and groaning about how I called you Hitler, you'll reply with some nonsense about how JD gave someone plenty of potent power to abolish slavery, which they never made good on, and which would have been unconstitutional according to the Constitution THEY had written anyway.
No it wouldn't have been unconstitutional. The original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Northern dominated Congress and President both ratified/endorsed slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Northern dominated Congress passed a resolution stating clearly that they were not fighting over slavery. President Davis empowered an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery. Obviously slavery was not the primary concern of either side.
repeats snipped
Yes, let's see what they were saying:
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions." Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
the Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.
"The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated……
To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.”
Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
So forget what everyone said, because the Democrats never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so. It's the revisionists who are the ones who say secession and the CW weren't about slavery.
Exactly backwards. The North explicitly stated they were not fighting over slavery and offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. It is the revisionists who are the ones who say secession and the War of Northern Aggression were about slavery.
Ignoring the fact that the op-ed writers were speaking for themselves, as we saw by actually reading the entire op-ed rather than the snippets you posted, the writer himself was admitting the exact opposite.
You're clearly living in fantasyland. Firstly the op ed writers were not just individuals with their own opinions. They and their newspapers represented powerful interests....interests which were very influential both on the people and directly on politicians themselves. Secondly any claim that they somehow did not mean exactly what they clearly stated are laughable.
Those of us who opposed our free trade deals with the communists made many of the the same comments on tarriffs on foreign made goods, but were overruled by the free traitors who wanted the cheaper goods. How has that worked out?
Two different times and totally different issues. Industry is not concentrated in one part of the country and agriculture in another now as it was then.
Coincidentally or maybe not coincidentally, the Democrats running the Confederacy and the free traitors both relied on cheaper slave labor to lower the prices. The only difference is the Democrats imported the slaves while the free traitors exported the plantations.
It was New England which imported the slaves....and which imported a lot of cheap labor from Europe to fill their factories.
Funny how you've managed to find plenty to sources from the North that you think support your position during this censorship.
You mean editorials in Northern newspapers which urged waging a war of aggression on the Southern states? That was Lincoln's position. That would hardly have been censored.
From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?" "That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states..." LOL! This directly proves my point. Thanks for bringing it up.
This directly proves MY point. LOL! You're welcome for bringing it up. Northern industrialists and corporate fatcats wanted war. (this was before censorship was imposed anyway...and of course Lincoln adopted the policy they advocated so they would hardly have been censored anyway).
Everyone used tarriffs on imported goods, including the Confederacy. There is no gotcha here.
The North wanted to jack them sky high in order to line their own industry's pockets at the expense of the South.
Once again, you posted cherry picked excerpts to prove your point, which is a common tactic among the Confederacy Amen Corner and other Democrats. Here is the link so the readers can see everything rather than just what you want them to see.
LOL! Its "cherry picked" when it doesn't say something YOU happen to like - old tactic of the Court Historians/PC Revisionists.
Manchester Union Democrat, February 19, 1861 "Let Them Go"
Yes, there were papers in the North that advocated letting the Southern states go in peace. That's when....feeling threatened by the certain loss of money, the Northern Establishment stepped in and started advocating for war.
It is completely reasonable to expect you to provide the sources of the op-eds so we can read the entire op-ed, rather than just the excerpts you want us to see. For all we know you could be making them up. The fact that you won't post any links proves more about your motives than the Union's.
I've posted the sources they came from and the dates. You can look it up for yourself. Insisting that I also hunt down a link (which may or may not even exist) for each quote is a classic example of trolling 101 - send your opponent on wild goose chases and no matter what he brings back, claim its not good enough and he needs to waste more of his time. The key is no matter what, no evidence he produces can ever be deemed good enough. Hopefully he's dense enough to think there is any evidence you would ever accept.
It came as no surprise to me that you posted even more snippets of op-eds rather than links to the op-eds themselve so we could see the entire context. Once again, I had to do your job for you.
LOL! See above answer. Your effort at trolling has failed.
The Great Question. New York Times March 30, 1861 Called for tarriffs. March 18, 1861 Boston Transcript If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy... I couldn't find this op-ed anywhere, so I'll leave it to you to prove it was really written. A link to the full op-ed will do. That shouldn't be a problem for you if it's real, should it?
Your trolling effort still fails.
or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860 Ditto, I couldn't find the full op-ed anywhere, so I'll leave it to you to prove it was really written.
Looks like you've got a lot of searching to do. Snap to it.
On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."
Yes, the Confederacy also relied on tarriffs on imports and taxes on exports to raise revenue. They were doing the same thing you accuse the Union of doing. So much for your claim they were for free trade.
Uhh....what? The Southern states wanted lower tariffs. They were not getting nearly as much from the federal government in terms of corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects anyway. The fact that they would have allowed for some tariffs however small they were does not mean they were perfectly fine with sky high tariffs. Get a clue.
"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually." - Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860 This op-ed called for tarriffs, not war.
Read the date. Secession hadn't happened yet. The paper was making it clear the economic losses the North would suffer if the South did declare independence.
Robert Barnwell Rhett said... Who cares?
A lot of Southerners cared. He was a very influential political leader who is often called "The father of secession".
Senator Robert Toombs said... Who cares?,/P>
A lot of Southerners cared. He was a leading Southern Senator and he authored much of the Georgia declaration of causes - especially those parts laying out their economic grievances.
repeats snipped
Your point is that they were offering to do that exactly that, yet now you want to defend them for not doing it. If they couldn't abolish slavery then their offer was a lie. If they could, then they had nothing to lose by following through because they were losing anyway. They never followed through because, as England and France knew, they seceeded and were fighting to preserve slavery. No amount of phony offers could change that.
My point is nobody is going to do that unless they are getting some major tangible benefit like oh....I dunno....foreign military aid. I'm not surprised you were incapable of grasping that point. Acting like disrupting their economy during a major was was "nothing to lose" is laughable. England and France knew both sides were not fighting over slavery as numerous English editorials and commentators made quite clear.
Either they could have abolished slavery ot they couldn't. If they couldn't then this offer meant nothing. If they could, they they could have done it to prove their intentions to the other countries. You can't have it both ways.So your position is that they could have given something away at great cost to themselves during a war of national survival and then therefore they could have offered....what exactly? in exchange for British and French recognition and military aid. Your claims make zero sense and are just laughable on their face.
Nope, they only did abolish slavery after trying but being blocked by Democrats while the war was still going on
Nope. They didn't even consider much less attempt to get rid of slavery until very late in the war. In fact, the Republicans including Lincoln were opposed to it.
They were founded by abolitionists.,/P>
No they weren't.
Comments like this are what make me believe you're a Democrat plant posing as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look bad. No real Conservative would condemn freeing slaves.,/P>
The denial of this makes me believe you're a Democrat PC Revisionist posing as a conservative. Nobody who actually studied the real history would claim that they went to war to put down slavery. By the way....nobody condemned freeing the slaves. Pitiful try.
In all fairness, Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne was no fan of slavery, but he was still toeing the company line when it came to what the Democrats were or weren't fighting for.
He could clearly see what both sides were fighting for - and it wasn't slavery.
Because they followed through and voted to abolish slavery twice, once while the war was still going on.
they were perfectly clear that they were willing to protect slavery forever and that they were not fighting to get rid of slavery.
This country also has the history of having abolished slavery, which the Republicans accomplished and which the Democrats tried to prevent for "states' rights", their words. You choose to associate with the latter, or more likely you're associating Conservatives with the latter.
Every Western country has a history of having abolished slavery. The Republicans eventually decided to do so late in the war in order to try to give the blood bath they started a fig leaf of morality when it was really just a war for money and empire. The same people committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians for the same reasons - money and empire - shortly afterward.
No, I only PROVED that you were wrong when you said "The Southern states did not." They did.
No you did not. The Southern states had nothing to do with Lincoln's ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Lakota and Winnebago in Minnesota. Nor were Southerners running the show when the same generals acting on behalf of the same Northern corporate interest committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians shortly after the war. As for the Trail of Tears, you tried to blame that on Southerners and failed yet again given that it was the US federal government which did it.
Once again you cherry pick what you think will support what you want to believe, but as usual there's more to this than you're posting. The Cherokee Nation was involved in its own civil war. While many joined with the Confederacy, some as well as many other tribes sided with the Union.
You call "cherry picking" anything that disagrees with your dogma. Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy.
Yes, but there's a difference. The US Constitution's protections were implicit and were inherited and later abolished by the Republicans, while the explicit protections in the Democrat written Confederate's constitution were written by the contemporary leaders of the time. They could have left the explicit protections out, which would not have required them to abolish slavery, but would have given them that option if they needed military help and wanted to give their diplomats plenty of potent power to abolish slavery. They didn't because it was their intention to protect slavery.
you are wrong on every count. The protections of slavery in the US constitution were explicit. The Confederate Constitution did not preclude abolishing slavery and in fact, the Confederate government took steps to do so. Finally, Confederate political leaders did not "design their constitution from the ground up". They simply carried over the vast majority of it unchanged from the US constitution.
We've already established that isn't true. I'll repost the link.,/P>
We've already established this is true. Its just inconvenient for you.
False! From Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War, "In the fall of 1861, Colonel Douglas H. Cooper, commanding the department of Indian operations under authority from the Confederate Government, made several ineffectual efforts to have a conference with the old chief of for the purpose of effecting a peaceful settlement of the difficulties that were dividing the nation into two hostile camps. Finding Hopoeithleyhola unwavering in his loyalty to the United States, Colonel Cooper determined to force him into submission, destroy his power, or drive him out of the country, and at once commenced collecting forces, composed mostly of white troops, to attack him. In November and December, 1861, the battles of Chusto Talasah and Chustenhlah were fought, and the loyal Indians finally were defeated and forced to retire to Kansas in midwinter....In the spring of 1862 the United States Government sent an expedition of five thousand men under Colonel William Weer, 10th Kansas Infantry, into the Indian Territory to drive out the Confederate forces of Pike and Cooper, and to restore the refugee Indians to their homes." This is what the Confederacy managed to find time to do while they were fighting for their existence, yet you want me to believe the couldn't just free their slaves.,/P>
Oh my gosh! There was fighting on the frontier and in the Western territories! Say it ain't so! Duh. It was war at that point after Lincoln started it. Of course there was fighting all over the place.
Not that I'll deny the point that atrocities occurred were committed against Native Americans by this nation, but your claim that the South "didn't" is clearly false. They were in on it before the war, during the war, and after, and their own constitution reserved the right to allow for slavery in the territories that would be grabbed later. I'll post it again so you can stop pretending the South was innocent on this.
Your claims here are false - as usual. The South didn't commit the atrocities against the Indians the Lincoln administration did. They didn't do anything of the kind Lincoln did during the war. Obviously after the war Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were running things. They were the ones responsible for the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Plains Indians. As for before the war, the most you can claim is that the Southern states were part of the US when the US federal government committed ethnic cleansing against several tribes in the Southeast.
repeats snipped
These provisions were no different than what the US constitution allowed and they did not bar states that had already abolished slavery from joining the CSA nor did they prevent any state from abolishing slavery in the future if they wished.
I was quoting your source. I don't know what the full story is.,/p>
clearly
Maybe it's because I'm sick of your sources with their cherry picked quotes that ignore the entire context. We also saw this with your op-eds earlier. We aren't under any obligation to accept your sources when you're not prepared to substantiate them.
I have substantiated my sources and furthermore I've done so numerous times. I see you cling to your ridiculous claims that anything you don't like is somehow "cherry picked".
Why do I need to care what the British perspective, when they have their own history of conquest, ethnic cleansing, and everything else? In fact, they were in on stealing the land from the Native Americans long before the Republicans were even formed.
its an outside point of view. There were points of view that were neither Northern nor Southern. It gives us more perspective to read them.,/P>
All of your sources contain cherry picked facts that are usually posted out of context, and I'm sick of having to parse through your lies of omission. My sources are the full documents and speeches, which I have posted links to so you can examine the whole thing. I only asked the same of you with those op-eds.
I'm sick of your disingenuous claims that the op eds, quotes, etc I posted are "cherry picked" when its quite clear what they are saying. I'm also sick of your dishonest claims that I haven't substantiated my sources when I've done so voluminously.
You said "The Southern states did not." That has been refuted.,/P>
No it hasn't.
He didn't get to finish the job, because a Confederate sympathizer who couldn't stand the thought of blacks having the same rights as whites assassinated him. I guess FDR really didn't win WWII because he didn't live to see it through either, according to your "logic".
My "logic" is the factual reality. He didn't. He was already dead. Therefore claims that he did are factually false.
Now that coming from you is almost laughable, considering you just referred to a book bashing Republicans from a book seller that blocked Conservatives throughout 2020 to help Biden get elected.
There's nothing laughable about noting your fellow PC Revisionists are LEFTISTS in Academia. Its obvious why they and their fellow travelers push this LEFTIST anti Southern dogma.
Besides, you're the one who is smearing the South by associating it with the Confederacy and in effect slavery.
No I'm not. The South was of course associated with the Confederacy. The Confederacy did not form to protect slavery and did not fight for its independence to protect slavery which was not threatened in the first place.
What's worse, it diminishes the abolitionists from the South who opposed slavery. Funny how you are willing to defend slave owners who paid to have others kill and capture blacks for slavery, but you won't defend the abolitionists who fought back. But then again, being a lefty yourself, that's what you're trying to make Conservatives look like.
It in no way diminishes those in the South who wanted to get rid of slavery to point out the accurate fact that the Southern states did not secede over slavery and were not fighting over slavery. "Won't defend abolitionists"??? More of your made up BS.
The only thing that associates the modern South with the Confederacy is by choice.,/P>
More than choice. History and Heritage as well.
You proved no such thing. You substantiated about 6,000, and that is if we give your sources the benefit of the doubt that they were able to count them and get accurate numbers, something even the South can't do.
I substantiated many thousands from Union eyewitness accounts. Why would Union sources lie about it? Exact counts are of course impossible. Nineteenth century record keeping is not up to modern standards.
If we throw in the 9,000 which we could rightfully refuse to do since it only said they "talked of having 9,000 men" and only said "but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes" and assumed the talk was correct and all but a few were black, you still only made it to less than 15,000, five figures but still far less than who fought for the Union.
I proved my case. I demonstrated that there were many thousands of Black Confederates from Union sources alone.
Your post is an insult to blacks like those reported on in 6 Black Heroes of the Civil War
No its not. Its historical reality.
Oh yes, here it is. From Black Confederates: Truth and Legend, "Some black Southerners aided the Confederacy. Most of these were forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines. Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army--they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers."
As always, the truth is much more complex. Some were forced. Some volunteered. Some Blacks were freedmen and worked for the Confederate Army for wages (in wartime there are often not many other jobs to go around). Some of them were childhood playmates and lifelong friends of the White Southerners they accompanied. Some were literally family. And while the Confederate Congress did not want Blacks serving in the Confederate Army, they had no choice. They had to accept the regiments from each state and if a state chose to admit Blacks then they were part of the regiment and that was it. Multiple Southern states did exactly that. Furthermore, Confederate officers in the field often simply ignored the Confederate Congress back in Richmond and employed any Blacks freedman or slave, who would join them. The Confederate Army had plenty of Blacks from the start.
The North offered nothing. It was never ratified, and it's only an assumption that it would have been.
The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
They only did it, a year after being blocked by the Democrats in 1864.
The Northern dominated Congress passed a resolution early on explicitly stating that they were not fighting to abolish slavery. They had several slave states still in the union for goodness sake.
Writer Charles Dickens said... Who cares?
Anybody interested in gaining some perspective.
Because he wasn't stating historical facts as far as I'm concerned. He was tying slavery to Conservatives, as you're trying to do.
But it is stating historical facts.
A lot of votes for Trump came from the North and Midwest. Driving a wedge between them and the South will only hurt the Conservative movement, but that's what you're trying to do anyway, isn't it?
Without the South, the modern conservative movement is simply dead. The South is the heart of it. I'm not trying to drive a wedge into the conservative movement. You are by constantly demonizing the South and its culture and history.
Maybe the slave owners should have thought of what could happen to their children if they bought people who were sold into slavery against their will, just like the Germans and Japanese should have thought about their children getting killed before starting WWII.
Nobody is saying slavery is good. What I've said is these people do not have my sympathy because instead of simply trying to run away and gain their freedom they instead chose to murder completely innocent people.
No one in the South today would agree with the following: repeats snipped
Yeah and nobody in the US would agree with slavery being allowed, women not having the vote, ethnic minorities not having the vote, gays being severely punished, Indians murdered and ethnically cleansed, etc etc. What's your point? Its a different world now but our history and heritage is still what it is. Most of it is good but there are parts that are awful.
They were collateral damage that resulted from the actions of the slave owners who participated in forcing people into slavery against their will, and those deaths were entirely their fault.
"collateral damage". Disgusting. I reject that out of hand. It is not morally defensible to deliberate slaughter defenseless little kids. It wasn't remotely necessary and didn't help anyone.
I know you're going to post your outrage in reply to "They were collateral damage" part, so I'll reply now. If you attempt to kidnap someone and your kids are killed as a result, that was your fault.
that doesn't make the deliberate cold blooded murder of children excusable. Especially when it was unnecessary and didn't help anybody.
What does any of this have to do with the fact that the South didn't give up slavery until forced by defeat to do so?
they weren't so "backwards" as the PCers like to claim. That was the world at that time.
Why should anyone who bought slaves knowing they were enslaved against their will be entitled to any compensation? Is this your idea of a justification?
Why should anyone who sold slaves or who profited from the labor of slaves be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains? Yet there are a lot of slave profits that formed the basis of the Ivy League and many large Northern corporations.
I don't care what you're showing, because the KKK attacking blacks had nothing to do with any of the reasons you gave.
False. The KKK arose as a response to the Union league and the corrupt Northern military governments.
"That does not mean" doesn't prove anything. The fact that they didn't ratify it even with the pressing issues of secession and a possible civil war, even though they had the same amount of time as the five that did, proves everything.
No I did not. I posted the editorial opinions of several of the leading newspapers.
You posted cherry picked snippets that you think prove your point, without posting links so we can review the entire context or even substantiate they're authentic. What few I was able to find refuted the points your were trying to make.
Several of those Northern Newspapers were Republican. Feel free to look them up.
Why do I need to prove your point? You're the one who posted these snippets in an attempt to prove your point, so you look them up.
Here we go again with the childish Hitler references. :rolleyes:
Here we go with the moaning and groaning about being called Hitler instead of replying directly to the point, which is that just because JD knew what his motivations were when he said it, we don't have to conclude he wasn't lying.
Plenty of the leading politicians and newspapers at the time said it was not about slavery and that was true of the North, the South and the Foreign observers. Are we to suppose they were all just lying?
No. Many were just wrong. As we discussed earlier, many from England opposed the Confederacy but didn't think the Union was serious about abolishing slavery. They were wrong.
Correct! They real motivations as demonstrated by their actions make it clear slavery was not their big concern.
What actions? Sending a diplomat with plenty of potent power to AGREE to abolish slavery which never happened? Offering slaves their freedom if they fought for the Confederacy, but only if their masters would approve? Voting against abolition over "states' rights"? No, the Democrat's actions are full of examples of avoiding freeing slaves, and the only thing that freed them was the total defeat of the Democrats in the South, and elections in the North that replaced the Democrats with Republicans.
No it wouldn't have been unconstitutional. The original 7 seceding states turned down nothing.
The Northern dominated Congress and President both ratified/endorsed slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
It was never ratified. It was passed by Congress and signed by a Democrat president. Many of them were looking for new jobs the following year.
The Northern dominated Congress passed a resolution stating clearly that they were not fighting over slavery.
Once again, you cherry pick your facts without looking at the whole picture. The Union passed this resolution after the shock of suffering a major loss in the Battle of Bull Run. Once they got over the shock, they repealed it later that year.
President Davis empowered an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery.
Did he give him plenty of potent power to abolish it himself, or just agree to do it?
Yes, let's see what they were saying:
Here we go again.
Democrat, slave owning Senator Robert Toombs said...
Who cares?
Democrat Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said...
Am I supposed to care that slave labor was tariffed?
Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, who supported the right to own slaves and called for an amendment to protect slavery, said...
Who cares?
President Jefferson Davis, who said in 1858 that secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, said...
Who cares?
Democrat, slave owning Robert Barnwell Rhett said...
Who cares?
You're clearly living in fantasyland. Firstly the op ed writers were not just individuals with their own opinions. They and their newspapers represented powerful interests....interests which were very influential both on the people and directly on politicians themselves.
You can't even substantiate them or show the entire op-eds, yet you want us to that accept they prove your point.
Secondly any claim that they somehow did not mean exactly what they clearly stated are laughable.
The problem is we can't be sure what they stated, because you cherry picked the snippets that said what you wanted to hear without posting links to the entire op-eds for context. You posted a snippet from one op-ed as if it was the popular view, but by reading the entire op-ed we found it turned out to be the exact opposite.
Two different times and totally different issues. Industry is not concentrated in one part of the country and agriculture in another now as it was then.
Totally irrelevant. The fact is that in the cases of both the Democrat run Confederacy and the free traitors, they relied on slave labor to drive down prices. The results of the former were catastrophic enough, and the results of the latter could be far worse.
It was New England which imported the slaves....
Ignoring the fact that it ended before the time period we're discussing, did New England force the South to buy their slaves, or was that the result of "consumer demand" on the part of the slave holding states? You defend the Confederacy in the same way readers of child porn defend their actions. "I wasn't the one who took those pictures." Replace "pictures" with "slaves", same defense.
and which imported a lot of cheap labor from Europe to fill their factories.
You mean the people who chose to come over here in search of a better life?
You mean editorials in Northern newspapers which urged waging a war of aggression on the Southern states? That was Lincoln's position. That would hardly have been censored.
So far, what little you posted from the North that I was able to substantiate supported tariffs, not going to war.
This directly proves MY point. LOL! You're welcome for bringing it up. Northern industrialists and corporate fatcats wanted war. (this was before censorship was imposed anyway...and of course Lincoln adopted the policy they advocated so they would hardly have been censored anyway).
Show me where this op-ed (What shall be done for a revenue) called for war. It called for tariffs, as every other nation including the Confederacy did for revenue.
The North wanted to jack them sky high in order to line their own industry's pockets at the expense of the South.
Everyone whose goods are hit with tariffs says that. Even if true, am I supposed to feel sorry for nations that use slave labor when their goods are hit with tariffs? Spoiler alert, I don't care.
LOL! Its "cherry picked" when it doesn't say something YOU happen to like - old tactic of the Court Historians/PC Revisionists.
Then post links to the entire op-eds to prove that they said what you want them to say.
Yes, there were papers in the North that advocated letting the Southern states go in peace. That's when....feeling threatened by the certain loss of money, the Northern Establishment stepped in and started advocating for war.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
I've posted the sources they came from and the dates. You can look it up for yourself. Insisting that I also hunt down a link (which may or may not even exist) for each quote is a classic example of trolling 101 - send your opponent on wild goose chases and no matter what he brings back, claim its not good enough and he needs to waste more of his time. The key is no matter what, no evidence he produces can ever be deemed good enough. Hopefully he's dense enough to think there is any evidence you would ever accept.
Translation, you can't substantiate your sources.
Looks like you've got a lot of searching to do. Snap to it.
Why do I have to prove the veracity of your sources? You posted these excerpts, now prove they're real and show us the full context.
Repeats snipped.
Uhh....what? The Southern states wanted lower tariffs.
Who doesn't when their own goods are hit with tariffs?
They were not getting nearly as much from the federal government in terms of corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects anyway. The fact that they would have allowed for some tariffs however small they were does not mean they were perfectly fine with sky high tariffs. Get a clue.
What would you say is too high? For example, what rate did the Union tariff Confederate goods that you think is too high?
Read the date. Secession hadn't happened yet. The paper was making it clear the economic losses the North would suffer if the South did declare independence.
Then I guess we can drop your reference from this discussion since you now say it's totally irrelevant.
A lot of Southerners cared. He was a very influential political leader who is often called "The father of secession"
So? Am I supposed to care what a bunch of slave owners think?
A lot of Southerners cared. He was a leading Southern Senator and he authored much of the Georgia declaration of causes - especially those parts laying out their economic grievances.
You mean like this?
Lying about one's intentions would fall well within "to the last extremity".
My point is nobody is going to do that unless they are getting some major tangible benefit like oh....I dunno....foreign military aid.
I don't care what your point is. They knew how slavery looked to the nations they were trying to get aid from, which is why they, well, they didn't really do anything but talk about freeing their slaves.
Nope. They didn't even consider much less attempt to get rid of slavery until very late in the war. In fact, the Republicans including Lincoln were opposed to it.
They didn't have anywhere enough seats to even try to pass abolition until 1864 (eight years after they were formed), and even then they were blocked by the Democrats from passing abolition over "states' rights", the Democrats words.
No they weren't (founded by abolitionists).
Cassius Clay wasn't an abolitionist? OK.
The denial of this makes me believe you're a Democrat PC Revisionist posing as a conservative. Nobody who actually studied the real history would claim that they went to war to put down slavery.
They only did it.
By the way....nobody condemned freeing the slaves. Pitiful try.
From your previous post, "Yes some Northern states certainly did violate the constitution." I'll let you tell us whether you condemn or agree with the Northern states who freed them.
He could clearly see what both sides were fighting for - and it wasn't slavery.
they were perfectly clear that they were willing to protect slavery forever and that they were not fighting to get rid of slavery.
They never did the former, and they did the latter.
Every Western country has a history of having abolished slavery.
Except the Democrat run Confederacy.
No you did not. The Southern states had nothing to do with Lincoln's ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Lakota and Winnebago in Minnesota.
I never said they had anything to do with any of Lincoln's actions, but they committed their own atrocities against Native Americans, so your statement "The Southern states did not." is wrong.
Repeats snipped.
You call "cherry picking" anything that disagrees with your dogma. Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy.
Pointing to tribes that joined with the Confederacy while ignoring that other tribes joined the Union is practically the definition of cherry picking.
What's worse, you say the civilized tribes sided with the Confederacy? What would you call the tribes that didn't? A certain slur that I've heard applied to Native Americans? If you aren't a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad, then you need to go back to Richmond in 1861 where your views were accepted.
you are wrong on every count. The protections of slavery in the US constitution were explicit.
I'll let you have this, but it doesn't help your case anyway.
The Confederate Constitution did not preclude abolishing slavery and in fact
Maybe not at the state level, but in fact...
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
the Confederate government took steps to do so.
Yawn, here you go with your "they gave their diplomat plenty of potent power to agree to abolish slavery" nothing again.
Finally, Confederate political leaders did not "design their constitution from the ground up". They simply carried over the vast majority of it unchanged from the US constitution.
Once again you avoid the point, which is that they were writing a brand new constitution and, try to get this, could have left the explicit protections for slavery out repeat could have left the explicit protections for slavery out. That would not have required them to abolish slavery but would have given them that option if they ever intended to abolish slavery, which we all know the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy didn't.
There was fighting on the frontier and in the Western territories!
It was more than just fighting. They were atrocities committed against Native Americans by the Confederacy, something you said didn't happen. I'll share it again.
From Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War, "In the fall of 1861, Colonel Douglas H. Cooper, commanding the department of Indian operations under authority from the Confederate Government, made several ineffectual efforts to have a conference with the old chief of for the purpose of effecting a peaceful settlement of the difficulties that were dividing the nation into two hostile camps. Finding Hopoeithleyhola unwavering in his loyalty to the United States, Colonel Cooper determined to force him into submission, destroy his power, or drive him out of the country, and at once commenced collecting forces, composed mostly of white troops, to attack him. In November and December, 1861, the battles of Chusto Talasah and Chustenhlah were fought, and the loyal Indians finally were defeated and forced to retire to Kansas in midwinter....In the spring of 1862 the United States Government sent an expedition of five thousand men under Colonel William Weer, 10th Kansas Infantry, into the Indian Territory to drive out the Confederate forces of Pike and Cooper, and to restore the refugee Indians to their homes."
Waste of bandwidth repeats snipped.
These provisions were no different than what the US constitution allowed and they did not bar states that had already abolished slavery from joining the CSA nor did they prevent any state from abolishing slavery in the future if they wished.
It would be nice if you would post the comment you are replying to, but it prevented the Confederacy's federal government from abolishing slavery.
clearly
Too bad I have no interest in reading the book or patronizing Amazon.
its an outside point of view. There were points of view that were neither Northern nor Southern. It gives us more perspective to read them.
Well their point of view was they didn't think the Union was serious about abolishing slavery. They were wrong.
My "logic" is the factual reality. He didn't. He was already dead. Therefore claims that he did are factually false.
WOW, it's amazing how far you're willing to go to defend the Democrats running the Confederacy, even to belittle the accomplishments of other Democrats.
BTW, I suppose those soldiers who died fighting Hitler and Tojo didn't win WWII, since they didn't live to see their downfall. Is that your point?
No I'm not. The South was of course associated with the Confederacy. The Confederacy did not form to protect slavery and did not fight for its independence to protect slavery which was not threatened in the first place.
I can hear FR's servers saying "Oh no, not again.", but here you are.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.
Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...
The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
From Mississippi
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.
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 has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
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;
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
From Texas
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.
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 for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture...
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.
From South Carolina
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 "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.
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
More than choice. History and Heritage as well.
The Southerners of today can cling to their past and heritage without having to associate with the Democrat slave owners.
I substantiated many thousands from Union eyewitness accounts.
We both agree there were thousands. If that's all you want to claim, we're done on this topic, next.
Why would Union sources lie about it? Exact counts are of course impossible. Nineteenth century record keeping is not up to modern standards.
You answered your own question.
No its not. Its historical reality.
Your idea of historical reality is the Confederacy was willing to abolish slavery even though they never did until forced by defeat to do so, and the Republicans had no intention of abolishing slavery but did it, just as the Confederacy said they would years earlier.
As always, the truth is much more complex.
Understandable considering most were forced by their masters to serve the Confedracy's military.
Anybody interested in gaining some perspective.
From a fiction writer who incorrectly thought the Union wouldn't abolish slavery? I wonder what Gene Roddenberry thought on this subject. Maybe I should get his perspective too.
But it is stating historical facts.
So now you're calling tying modern Conservatives to slavery historical facts.
Without the South, the modern conservative movement is simply dead. The South is the heart of it. I'm not trying to drive a wedge into the conservative movement. You are by constantly demonizing the South and its culture and history.
I suppose what just happened in Kansas is part of the Conservative movement.
Never mind the so called conservatives who signed the free trade deals that sent our manufacturing, wealth, and technology to a communist country that uses slave labor.
Yes I know the leftist companies are doing it too, but we were betrayed by many socalled Conservatives who came from the South.
As for my demonizing the South, nothing in my posts about the Democrat run Confederacy is a reflection of what I think of the modern South, any more than my condemnations of Hitler and Imperial Japan are reflections of the countries now.
The only thing that ties the modern South to the Democrat run Confederacy is choice.
Nobody is saying slavery is good. What I've said is these people do not have my sympathy because instead of simply trying to run away and gain their freedom they instead chose to murder completely innocent people.
That's easy for you to say behind a computer screen. You weren't a slave who was forced to watch as his children were sold as animals to the highest bidder, and whose only way out was to fight his way out.
Yeah and nobody in the US would agree with slavery being allowed, women not having the vote, ethnic minorities not having the vote, gays being severely punished, Indians murdered and ethnically cleansed, etc etc. What's your point? Its a different world now but our history and heritage is still what it is. Most of it is good but there are parts that are awful.
I've made my point clear. The Democrat run Confederacy started and ended believing they had a right to forced slave labor. Even after they lost, they wouldn't let go and founded the KKK.
"collateral damage". Disgusting. I reject that out of hand. It is not morally defensible to deliberate slaughter defenseless little kids. It wasn't remotely necessary and didn't help anyone.
Reject it all you want. Millions of children died in Germany and Japan as a result of their leaders trying to conquer the world, and your freedom to sit safely behind a computer and post your nonsense is the result of that. If you reject that, then give up your freedom to keep posting on this topic.
Please note, I did not say the killing of those children was justified. I said it was the result of their nations' leaders' actions that they died, not the Allied bombers.
they weren't so "backwards" as the PCers like to claim. That was the world at that time.
Oh, they understood slavery was wrong and how their defense of slavery looked to other nations. I don't need the "PCers" to see that. You proved it yourself by constantly pointing out that they gave their diplomat plenty of potent power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery.
Why should anyone who sold slaves or who profited from the labor of slaves be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains? Yet there are a lot of slave profits that formed the basis of the Ivy League and many large Northern corporations.
No one running any of the corporations today had anything to do with the slavery of 160 years ago.
Of course many are guilty of the same thing by outsourcing their manufacturing to a communist nation that uses slave labor to make their products cheaper, but that's another debate.
False. The KKK arose as a response to the Union league and the corrupt Northern military governments.
That was just them painting their cause up in pretty language to cover their true goals, which was to maintain their perceived dominance over blacks.
Nope! It doesn't prove a thing other than that they did not pass it in the extremely limited time they had to pass a proposed constitutional amendment.
You posted cherry picked snippets that you think prove your point, without posting links so we can review the entire context or even substantiate they're authentic. What few I was able to find refuted the points your were trying to make.
LOL! Funny how every quote that is inconvenient to you is "cherry picked". Links? There aren't online links to many of these papers that were published - get this - 160 years ago. You can of course read various books and see where those sources are cited - but of course there aren't hotlinks in any of the books either so you'll probably claim that's not a valid citation either. LOL!
Why do I need to prove your point? You're the one who posted these snippets in an attempt to prove your point, so you look them up.
I have looked them up. I've also posted them and cited my sources. How hard is it for you to look up a certain newspaper and see if it was a Republican or Democrat paper if you're so curious? The answer is not hard at all. You just need to get to it.
Here we go with the moaning and groaning about being called Hitler instead of replying directly to the point, which is that just because JD knew what his motivations were when he said it, we don't have to conclude he wasn't lying.
Hitler references are so lazy, so trite that a term has been coined for them - Godwin's law. It is generally accepted that the first one to resort to Hitler/Nazi references has automatically lost the argument.
No. Many were just wrong. As we discussed earlier, many from England opposed the Confederacy but didn't think the Union was serious about abolishing slavery. They were wrong.
You believe they were wrong. They were giving their honest views which were that neither secession nor the war were about slavery. Many people at the time on both sides did not believe they were fighting over slavery. That speaks directly to motivations which is the whole point.
What actions? Sending a diplomat with plenty of potent power to AGREE to abolish slavery which never happened? Offering slaves their freedom if they fought for the Confederacy, but only if their masters would approve? Voting against abolition over "states' rights"? No, the Democrat's actions are full of examples of avoiding freeing slaves, and the only thing that freed them was the total defeat of the Democrats in the South, and elections in the North that replaced the Democrats with Republicans.
Actions like seceding in the first place when slavery was not threatened in the US. Actions like turning down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Actions like empowering an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery. Remember, they could have kept slavery by simply staying in the US. The Republicans - not being abolitionists - were more than happy to preserve slavery.
No it wouldn't have been unconstitutional. The original 7 seceding states turned down nothing.
False. They turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
It was never ratified. It was passed by Congress and signed by a Democrat president. Many of them were looking for new jobs the following year.
It was never ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was endorsed by Lincoln in his inaugural address. It had been orchestrated by Lincoln after all and introduced to the House and Senate by prominent Republicans.
Once again, you cherry pick your facts without looking at the whole picture. The Union passed this resolution after the shock of suffering a major loss in the Battle of Bull Run. Once they got over the shock, they repealed it later that year.
Once again you claim any inconvenient fact is "cherry picking" and try to gloss over the fact that it was exactly what I said it was. They passed a resolution stating that they were not fighting over slavery.
Did he give him plenty of potent power to abolish it himself, or just agree to do it?
you appear to not understand what plenipotentiary power is. Look it up.
Yes, let's see what they were saying: Here we go again. Senator Robert Toombs said... Who cares?
Anybody who looks at history and is intellectually honest?
Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said... Am I supposed to care that slave labor was tariffed?
If you are intellectually honest you are supposed to acknowledge the fact that the Southern states were paying the overwhelming majority of all taxes and were getting very little in return. That's the kind of thing that *just might* tend to piss people off.
Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas said... Who cares?
Anybody who is interested in history and is intellectually honest?
President Jefferson Davis said... Who cares?
Anybody who is interested in history and is intellectually honest?
Robert Barnwell Rhett said... Who cares?
Anybody who looks at history and who is intellectually honest?
You can't even substantiate them or show the entire op-eds, yet you want us to that accept they prove your point.
I have substantiated them and you wanting me to post long op eds as if they said anything else relevant in them is both laughable and of course intellectually dishonest.
the problem is we can't be sure what they stated, because you cherry picked the snippets that said what you wanted to hear without posting links to the entire op-eds for context. You posted a snippet from one op-ed as if it was the popular view, but by reading the entire op-ed we found it turned out to be the exact opposite.
the problem is you laughably claim any inconvenient facts or quotes are "cherry picked". As if that somehow negated the plain English of what was said. Then you even more laughably demand hotlinks you know do not exist to sources that are 160 years old. Then you top that off by lying about an earlier op ed saying the opposite of the relevant portion I posted.
Totally irrelevant. The fact is that in the cases of both the Democrat run Confederacy and the free traitors, they relied on slave labor to drive down prices. The results of the former were catastrophic enough, and the results of the latter could be far worse.
Totally irrelevant. Different times and radically different economics.
Ignoring the fact that it ended before the time period we're discussing, did New England force the South to buy their slaves, or was that the result of "consumer demand" on the part of the slave holding states? You defend the Confederacy in the same way readers of child porn defend their actions. "I wasn't the one who took those pictures." Replace "pictures" with "slaves", same defense.
Lying about the fact that New England was still illegally trading in human flesh long after the ban on slave trading went into effect in 1810, New England made a ton of money from slavery first by selling slaves, then by servicing slave produced goods and finally by lavishing federal money on themselves from imports paid for in part by slave labor. You defend New England in the same way that makers of child porn defend their actions "but there was a market to sell this too....."
You mean the people who chose to come over here in search of a better life?
No, I mean the corporate fatcats who imported European serfs, put them in horribly unsafe factories and dilapidated disease riddled tenement housing and then worked the crap out of them and their little kids all so they could have cheap labor.
So far, what little you posted from the North that I was able to substantiate supported tariffs, not going to war.
I've posted numerous well cited Northern editorials which supported going to war to maintain the sky high tariffs on Southern goods.
Show me where this op-ed (What shall be done for a revenue) called for war. It called for tariffs, as every other nation including the Confederacy did for revenue.
Here they are calling for acts of war to be committed against Southern States:
That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports." New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article "What Shall be Done for a Revenue?"
From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?" "That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad.... If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.....Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports. ---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the "rebel states", or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things de done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply OUR TREASURY will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; THE PRESENT ORDER OF THINGS MUST COME TO A DEAD STOP." New York Evening Post “What Shall be done for a revenue?”
Its clear to anybody who is honest that they are calling for war.
Everyone whose goods are hit with tariffs says that. Even if true, am I supposed to feel sorry for nations that use slave labor when their goods are hit with tariffs? Spoiler alert, I don't care.
You've just admitted it. You don't care that the Southern states were being cheated by having to pay the vast majority of the taxes and that they were getting relatively little in return with federal money being lavished on Northern states instead. You may not care, but they certainly did. This was exactly the same motivation that led their grandfathers to secede from the British Empire.
Then post links to the entire op-eds to prove that they said what you want them to say.
No. Feel free to look them up. I've provided names, dates and sources. If you're so all fired keen to read the entire op eds, have at it but don't ask me to do your research for you.
repeats snipped.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
Translation, you can't substantiate your sources.
I have substantiated my sources. I've provided where the quote came from and cited the date or which author and the page number. That is a perfectly valid citation of a source.
Why do I have to prove the veracity of your sources? You posted these excerpts, now prove they're real and show us the full context.
I've already proven the veracity of my sources. See above.
Who doesn't when their own goods are hit with tariffs?
Precisely. But it wasn't just that their goods were being hit with tariffs. Its that they were responsible for the vast majority of the imports AND that the money raised from these tariffs was being spent in the North rather than in the South. This was effectively highway robbery.
What would you say is too high? For example, what rate did the Union tariff Confederate goods that you think is too high?
Well let's see, the CSA set a maximum tariff rate of 10%....
Then I guess we can drop your reference from this discussion since you now say it's totally irrelevant.
Nope. It is arguing for war. That's clear.
So? Am I supposed to care what a bunch of slave owners think?
You don't care what Washington and Jefferson and Madison and Patrick Henry and George Mason and James Monroe thought?
You mean like this?
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
Yes. Exactly like that.
I don't care what your point is. They knew how slavery looked to the nations they were trying to get aid from, which is why they, well, they didn't really do anything but talk about freeing their slaves.
Its obvious you don't care about the point being made. They were willing to abolish slavery themselves. Yet another point of evidence showing their real motivation was not the perpetuation of slavery.
They didn't have anywhere enough seats to even try to pass abolition until 1864 (eight years after they were formed), and even then they were blocked by the Democrats from passing abolition over "states' rights", the Democrats words.
They did not even attempt to get rid of slavery until very late in the war.
"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . . 'I think Sumner [abolitionist Charles Sumner] and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way,' he told the Radicals. . . . 'We didn't go into this war to put down slavery . . . and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith.' Vindication of the president's view came a few weeks later, when the Massachusetts state Republican convention--perhaps the most Radical party organization in the North--defeated a resolution endorsing Fremont's proclamation." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76)
They only did it.
You're deliberately trying to conflate a later outcome with an earlier intent.
From your previous post, "Yes some Northern states certainly did violate the constitution." I'll let you tell us whether you condemn or agree with the Northern states who freed them.
My words mean exactly what they said. Several Northern states clearly violated the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. No serious history would dispute that fact. Note, I did not say whether I agreed or disagreed with the morality of their position. I said they violated that clause of the constitution - which they did.
repeats snipped
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
They never did the former, and they did the latter.,/P>
They offered to do the former and only did not do so because the Southern states refused. The fact that they did eventually do the latter does not prove that that was their intent when they started out. It clearly was not.
Except the Democrat run Confederacy.
Because it wasn't given the time. It only existed for 4 years. Certainly other western countries still had slavery in 1865.
I never said they had anything to do with any of Lincoln's actions, but they committed their own atrocities against Native Americans, so your statement "The Southern states did not." is wrong.
No it isn't. I referred specifically to Lincoln's ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Santee Sioux and Winnebago and the North's ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians.
Pointing to tribes that joined with the Confederacy while ignoring that other tribes joined the Union is practically the definition of cherry picking.
According to you "cherry picking" is anytime anybody makes their case or argues their side.
What's worse, you say the civilized tribes sided with the Confederacy? What would you call the tribes that didn't? A certain slur that I've heard applied to Native Americans? If you aren't a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad, then you need to go back to Richmond in 1861 where your views were accepted.
I didn't invent the term "the 5 civilized tribes" genius. Do try to educated yourself on some history.
Maybe not at the state level, but in fact... repeats snipped.
We've gone over this before and I've shown that the CSA allowed for states that did not allow slavery to join and that there was nothing in the Confederate Constitution which precluded any state which did allow slavery from abolishing it.
Yawn, here you go with your "they gave their diplomat plenty of potent power to agree to abolish slavery" nothing again.
Yawn. Here we go with your lame attempts to deny the obvious reality again.
Once again you avoid the point, which is that they were writing a brand new constitution and, try to get this, could have left the explicit protections for slavery out repeat could have left the explicit protections for slavery out. That would not have required them to abolish slavery but would have given them that option if they ever intended to abolish slavery, which we all know the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy didn't.
Once again you try to make the false argument that they "designed their constitution from the ground up" when in fact what they did is carry over the vast majority of it and only change certain provisions to strengthen the power of the states at the expense of the central government and to limit the central government's ability to spend money. The rest was literally the US Constitution.
It was more than just fighting. They were atrocities committed against Native Americans by the Confederacy, something you said didn't happen. I'll share it again. Repeats snipped.
There was a lot of that going around. In addition to the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed by the union government against the Santee Sioux and Winnebago in Minnesota, there was also this:
The Sand Creek massacre (also known as the Chivington massacre, the battle of Sand Creek or the massacre of Cheyenne Indians) was a massacre of Cheyenne and Arapaho people by the U.S. Army in the American Indian Wars that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 675-man force of the Third Colorado Cavalry under the command of U.S. Volunteers Colonel John Chivington attacked and destroyed a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho people in southeastern Colorado Territory, killing and mutilating an estimated 69 to over 600 Native American people. Chivington claimed 500 to 600 warriors were killed. However, most sources estimate around 150 people were killed, about two-thirds of whom were women and children.
The CSA offered the 5 civilized tribes the right to organize as a state (Oklahoma) which would be a recognized full and equal state in the CSA. The US never offered any Indians anything similar.
It would be nice if you would post the comment you are replying to, but it prevented the Confederacy's federal government from abolishing slavery.
No it didn't.
Too bad I have no interest in reading the book or patronizing Amazon.
You obviously have no interest in studying actual history and not the usual pro government PC Revisionist fair tales put out by Leftists in Academia. Though I do share your distaste for Amazon.
Well their point of view was they didn't think the Union was serious about abolishing slavery. They were wrong.
Their point of view was that neither side was fighting over slavery. They were right about that.
WOW, it's amazing how far you're willing to go to defend the Democrats running the Confederacy, even to belittle the accomplishments of other Democrats.
You claimed something that was false and I pointed out that it was false - nothing more, nothing less.
BTW, I suppose those soldiers who died fighting Hitler and Tojo didn't win WWII, since they didn't live to see their downfall. Is that your point?
LOL! That's the only comment this deserves.
repeats snipped
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] 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.
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 harrassing 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.
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-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
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.
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 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.
The Southerners of today can cling to their past and heritage without having to associate with the Democrat slave owners.
The country was founded by slave owners. Its part of our past like it or not. We can still venerate the men and their principles and ideas even while we disagree with some of them.
We both agree there were thousands. If that's all you want to claim, we're done on this topic, next.,/P>
Several tens of thousands.
You answered your own question.
No I didn't. Why would union sources lie about their eyewitness accounts of there being thousands of Black Confederates?
Your idea of historical reality is the Confederacy was willing to abolish slavery even though they never did until forced by defeat to do so, and the Republicans had no intention of abolishing slavery but did it, just as the Confederacy said they would years earlier.
My idea of historical reality is the confederacy was willing to abolish slavery and offered to do so. Also, the Republicans did not start out intending to abolish slavery. They only came to that position after years of fighting. My idea and THE reality happen to fit 100% based on the evidence.
Understandable considering most were forced by their masters to serve the Confedracy's military.
I have seen no evidence that "most" were "forced" to serve in the Confederate Army.
From a fiction writer who incorrectly thought the Union wouldn't abolish slavery? I wonder what Gene Roddenberry thought on this subject. Maybe I should get his perspective too.
He was of course a journalist and political commentator in addition to being a writer. He correctly thought that the union was fighting a war of aggression for money and empire. It was.
So now you're calling tying modern Conservatives to slavery historical facts.
Most Southerners today are Conservative. We are tied to the history of our region and of the whole country. Guess what. Slavery was tied to both like it or not. Of course slavery was also tied to the North though they try desperately to pass it off as an entirely Southern thing. They were implicated up to their eyeballs in slavery too.
I suppose what just happened in Kansas is part of the Conservative movement. Never mind the so called conservatives who signed the free trade deals that sent our manufacturing, wealth, and technology to a communist country that uses slave labor. Yes I know the leftist companies are doing it too, but we were betrayed by many socalled Conservatives who came from the South.
Sadly, RINOs come from everywhere but yes, there were and are plenty from the South....just as there are a lot of MAGA patriots from the South - more of them than in other regions.
As for my demonizing the South, nothing in my posts about the Democrat run Confederacy is a reflection of what I think of the modern South, any more than my condemnations of Hitler and Imperial Japan are reflections of the countries now.
The PC Revisionists have always had the goal of demonizing the South via means of claiming it fought for slavery when the reality is it did no such thing. Patrick Cleburne saw that coming over 160 years ago. He wasn't the only one.
The only thing that ties the modern South to the Democrat run Confederacy is choice.
History and heritage. There's no choice in that.
That's easy for you to say behind a computer screen. You weren't a slave who was forced to watch as his children were sold as animals to the highest bidder, and whose only way out was to fight his way out.
but that's just it. That wasn't the only way out. In fact, that wasn't any way out at all. If they had wanted out, they could have simply fled. Many others did and obtained their freedom. Just go. Don't murder anybody if you don't have to much less innocent defenseless little kids.
I've made my point clear. The Democrat run Confederacy started and ended believing they had a right to forced slave labor. Even after they lost, they wouldn't let go and founded the KKK.
My point is that both sides had slavery and neither side was fighting over slavery. The North thought it had the right to impose a government by force upon people who did not consent to it. After the war it trampled on the constitution by disenfranchising the vast majority of the voters and imposing corrupt military governments which stole everything in sight......and from people they claimed were their countrymen.
Reject it all you want. Millions of children died in Germany and Japan as a result of their leaders trying to conquer the world, and your freedom to sit safely behind a computer and post your nonsense is the result of that. If you reject that, then give up your freedom to keep posting on this topic.
Flattening entire cities did little to help the war effort. The resources would have been better deployed elsewhere in the war.
Oh, they understood slavery was wrong and how their defense of slavery looked to other nations. I don't need the "PCers" to see that. You proved it yourself by constantly pointing out that they gave their diplomat plenty of potent power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery.
They weren't defending slavery which was not under attack anyway.
No one running any of the corporations today had anything to do with the slavery of 160 years ago.
There sure were plenty in 1860 in New England who did...or who had fathers or grandfathers who built the family fortune on the backs of slaves.
That was just them painting their cause up in pretty language to cover their true goals, which was to maintain their perceived dominance over blacks.
As the Congressional report at the time stated:
The Ku Klux Klan was created to terrorize the ex-slaves out of participating in this political plundering racket operated by the Republican Party. The Republicans kept promising to share the property of white southerners with the ex-slaves, which of course they never did and never intended to do. Had the Republicans not used their victory and their monopoly of political power to line the pockets of the thousands of political hacks and hangers on who were the backbone of the party (the "carpetbaggers") the Ku Klux Klan would never have existed. This in fact was the conclusion of the minority report of an 1870 congressional commission that investigated the Klan. "Had there been no wanton oppression in the South," the congressmen wrote, "there would have been no Ku Kluxism" (Congressman Fernando Wood, "Alleged Ku Klux Outrages" published by the Congressional Globe Printing Office, 1871, p. 5). The report continued that when southern whites saw that "what little they had saved from the ravages of war was being confiscated by taxation . . . many of them took the law into their own hands and did deeds of violence . . . . history shows that bad government will make bad citizens."
Oh but it does prove something. With the same amount of time the five states that ratified it had, and with secession and the threat of a civil war pushing it on, they didn't, repeat didn't ratify it.
Waste of bandwidth repeats snipped.
LOL! Funny how every quote that is inconvenient to you is "cherry picked". Links? There aren't online links to many of these papers that were published - get this - 160 years ago. You can of course read various books and see where those sources are cited - but of course there aren't hotlinks in any of the books either so you'll probably claim that's not a valid citation either. LOL!
I know. I've seen what could be your sources on the Internet assuming you didn't post them yourself, and it's the same playbook the Confederacy Amen corner always uses. Just post the excerpts that seem to support their point of view, and we're supposed to accept that they could find the excerpts but couldn't find the entire op-eds.
I have looked them up. I've also posted them and cited my sources. How hard is it for you to look up a certain newspaper and see if it was a Republican or Democrat paper if you're so curious? The answer is not hard at all. You just need to get to it.
And you think that because someone just put the snippets in their books that you don't have to validate them and prove they're saying what you claim they're saying? No.
Hitler references are so lazy, so trite that a term has been coined for them - Godwin's law. It is generally accepted that the first one to resort to Hitler/Nazi references has automatically lost the argument.
Once again, you hide behind "Godwin's law" instead of addressing the point that is being made. Hitler knew his own motivations, but that doesn't obligate us to accept that he was telling the truth in 1945 when he said he didn't want war in 1939. The same applies to your point about the Confederacy knowing their own motivations.
You believe they were wrong. They were giving their honest views which were that neither secession nor the war were about slavery. Many people at the time on both sides did not believe they were fighting over slavery. That speaks directly to motivations which is the whole point.
It speaks nothing, since they were proven wrong.
Repeats snipped.
Actions like seceding in the first place when slavery was not threatened in the US.
Here we go again.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.
Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...
The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
From Mississippi
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.
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 has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
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;
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
From Texas
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.
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 for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture...
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.
From South Carolina
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 "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.
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Actions like turning down nothing.
Once again you claim any inconvenient fact is "cherry picking" and try to gloss over the fact that it was exactly what I said it was.
A resolution, with no impact, and which was repealed later that year once they got over their shock over Bull Run.
you appear to not understand what plenipotentiary power is. Look it up.
Of course I know. You're no fun.
Anybody who looks at history and is intellectually honest?
OK, Senator Robert Toombs was a Democrat slave owner, Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas supported the right to own slaves and called for an amendment to protect slavery, President Jefferson Davis said in 1858 that secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, and Robert Barnwell Rhett was a Democrat slave owner.
If you are intellectually honest you are supposed to acknowledge the fact that the Southern states were paying the overwhelming majority of all taxes and were getting very little in return. That's the kind of thing that *just might* tend to piss people off.
When they weren't getting pissed off at escaped slaves getting sancuary in the North.
I have substantiated them and you wanting me to post long op eds as if they said anything else relevant in them is both laughable and of course intellectually dishonest.
You haven't substantiated anything. You posted excerpts from your favorite Confederacy Amen Corner approved sources, who somehow managed to find the excerpts but can't produce the entire op-eds. What few complete op-eds I could find refuted the point you were trying to make with them.
The problem is you laughably claim any inconvenient facts or quotes are "cherry picked". As if that somehow negated the plain English of what was said. Then you even more laughably demand hotlinks you know do not exist to sources that are 160 years old.
Prove what was said. Your sources were able to find the excerpts, so you or they should be able to find the entire op-eds.
Then you top that off by lying about an earlier op ed saying the opposite of the relevant portion I posted.
You don't get to decide which parts are relevant. I posted the entire op-ed, something you're conveniently unable to do. Show me where I lied about what was said by pointing it out in the op-ed.
Totally irrelevant. Different times and radically different economics.
Both the Democrat run Confederacy and the free traitors relied on slave labor to drive down prices. That is not only relevant, it may or may not be a coincidence, given that it was Southerners from your "cradle of Conservatism" like Clinton, Bush, and others who got us addicted to communist slave labor.
Lying about the fact that New England was still illegally trading in human flesh long after the ban on slave trading went into effect in 1810, New England made a ton of money from slavery first by selling slaves, then by servicing slave produced goods and finally by lavishing federal money on themselves from imports paid for in part by slave labor.
I don't defend those who particicpated in the illegal slave trade. I know there were bad guys, but they were acting on their own, not in any official capacity as what was happening in the Confederacy.
And I also know there were corrupt government officials who looked the other way.
You defend New England in the same way that makers of child porn defend their actions "but there was a market to sell this too....."
New England wasn't the culprit, the bad players working from there were.
And I don't defend them or any slave traders, unlike you who have consistantly defended the consumers.
No, I mean the corporate fatcats who imported European serfs, put them in horribly unsafe factories and dilapidated disease riddled tenement housing and then worked the crap out of them and their little kids all so they could have cheap labor.
Here we go with that again. They came over by choice, and built the nation that gives leftists like you the freedom to trash it.
I've posted numerous well cited Northern editorials which supported going to war to maintain the sky high tariffs on Southern goods.
No, you posted excerpts, which you somehow were able to access but are completely unable to find the full op-eds.
FLT-Bird, still unable or unwilling to post the full op-eds, instead reposted the excerpts, then said...
Its clear to anybody who is honest that they are calling for war.
There was no mention of war. They were calling for tariffs.
You've just admitted it. You don't care that the Southern states were being cheated by having to pay the vast majority of the taxes and that they were getting relatively little in return with federal money being lavished on Northern states instead. You may not care, but they certainly did. This was exactly the same motivation that led their grandfathers to secede from the British Empire.
I just said I don't care if the products of their slave labor were hit with tariffs when they tariffed other's imported goods themselves, but you won't let that stop you from reading more into it than was there.
No. Feel free to look them up. I've provided names, dates and sources. If you're so all fired keen to read the entire op eds, have at it but don't ask me to do your research for you.
Why do I have to substantiate your sources? You posted these excerpts, now prove they're legitmate and the op-eds say what you claim they say. If you were able to find the excerpts, then it shouldn't be a problem to just post the full op-eds you got them from, assuming they're real of course. Don't ask me to substantiate your sources for you.
Repeats snipped.
Repeats of Hitler claiming in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939 snipped.
Precisely. But it wasn't just that their goods were being hit with tariffs. Its that they were responsible for the vast majority of the imports AND that the money raised from these tariffs was being spent in the North rather than in the South. This was effectively highway robbery.
Well yeah. If we had the brains to tariff communist goods, we would be using that money for our infrastructure too, and rightfully so. To bad those conservative law makers from your cradle of conservatism and many so called conservatives even at this forum decided that cheap goods were more important and called us protectionist.
Well let's see, the CSA set a maximum tariff rate of 10%....
That wasn't my question. What tariff applied by the North against Southern made goods would you say provoked secession? You keep making this case, so give us the number.
Repeat snipped.
You don't care what Washington and Jefferson and Madison and Patrick Henry and George Mason and James Monroe thought?
Not if they had denied thinking that owning slaves was a right, because they owned slaves.
Its obvious you don't care about the point being made. They were willing to abolish slavery themselves.
They never did, until forced by defeat to free them.
Yet another point of evidence showing their real motivation was not the perpetuation of slavery.
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
They did not even attempt to get rid of slavery until very late in the war.
The Republican party was only formed in 1856, and they didn't even have enough votes to try until 1864, but then they were blocked by the Democrats until enough Democrats were replaced by Republicans to finally get it passed. The fact that they were able to pass abolition and send it to the states nine years after being formed would be enough to prove to anyone with a functioning brain they were abolitionists, as the Democrats themselves said.
"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . .
Lincoln said a lot of things that could be seen as anti abolition, but he was dealing with a population that had many different viewpoints on abolition as you're so fond of pointing out, and he had to work with all of them to get things done. Frederick Douglas understood this when he later said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
You're deliberately trying to conflate a later outcome with an earlier intent.
Slavery was abolished by the Republicans nine years after the party was formed, and four years after the Democrats accused them of trying to do just that.
My words mean exactly what they said. Several Northern states clearly violated the fugitive slave clause of the constitution.
Your words would mean a lot more if you could put together a consistant narrative. The Republicans freed slaves but they were anti abolitionists. The South offered to free the slaves even though they couldn't. The abolitionists were terrorists but the slave owners who paid other to kidnap slaves weren't.
Note, I did not say whether I agreed or disagreed with the morality of their position.
Then say so now.
Because it wasn't given the time. It only existed for 4 years. Certainly other western countries still had slavery in 1865.
More of your convoluted logic. The South couldn't have abolished slavery because they only existed for four years, but they offered to do exactly that in return for military aid. The Republicans were not abolitionists but managed to abolish slavery nine years after they were formed.
No it isn't. I referred specifically to Lincoln's ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Santee Sioux and Winnebago and the North's ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians.
I don't care what you said, because the Democrat run Confederacy has plenty of atrocities to answer for, legal or not. The fact that they didn't participate in this one occurrence doesn't refute that.
According to you "cherry picking" is anytime anybody makes their case or argues their side.
No, cherry picking is like when you choose to only post excerpts when you could post the entire op-ed or a link to the op-ed. After all, you managed to find the excerpts, so why can't your or your source post the entire op-ed? That shouldn't be difficult if your excerpts are valid, should it?
I didn't invent the term "the 5 civilized tribes" genius. Do try to educated yourself on some history.
You also didn't use the term "the 5 civilized tribes". Your exact quote was "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." which you used to make your point regardless of who you borrowed it from. My point stands. If the "civilized" tribes joined the Confederacy, then what does that make the tribes that didn't in your eyes?
We've gone over this before and I've shown that the CSA allowed for states that did not allow slavery to join and that there was nothing in the Confederate Constitution which precluded any state which did allow slavery from abolishing it.
Did you not read the statement you replied to and posted, where I said "Maybe not at the state level" before posting the parts of the Constitution where it said the federal government couldn't ban slavery? I agreed with what you said earlier and you still can't get it right.
Yawn. Here we go with your lame attempts to deny the obvious reality again.
The only reality was this was that nothing came of it. In fact you've built your case on policies that went no where and produced nothing, while brushing aside the one policy that was ratified.
Once again you try to make the false argument that they "designed their constitution from the ground up" when in fact what they did is carry over the vast majority of it and only change certain provisions to strengthen the power of the states at the expense of the central government and to limit the central government's ability to spend money. The rest was literally the US Constitution.
What I said was true. They could have written their Constitution without the explicit protections for slavery, but as they said numerous times it was their intention to preserve and protect slavery.
No it isn't. I referred specifically to Lincoln's ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Santee Sioux and Winnebago and the North's ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians.
Once again, you cherry pick the facts that support your one sided point of view of Lincoln and the North being the bad guys while ignoring others, but the fact is what happened to Native Americans was also done by the South before, during, and after the CW.
You want to virtue signal about what everyone else did to the Native Americans, but none of that has stopped you from living here and taking advantages of the freedom that resulted.
The CSA offered the 5 civilized tribes the right to organize as a state (Oklahoma) which would be a recognized full and equal state in the CSA.
Here's what the Confederacy's offers meant.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
The US never offered any Indians anything similar.
We all know what those promises would have meant anyway, but I'm sure you won't let that stop you from using the freedoms that came from that to continue pretending the South was innocent in all of this.
No it didn't (prevented the Confederacy's federal government from abolishing slavery).
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
You obviously have no interest in studying actual history and not the usual pro government PC Revisionist fair tales put out by Leftists in Academia.
I have no interest in reading from authors who are basically saying the same thing you're saying, when I have the Confederacy's own documents and actions to prove what happened.
In response to "BTW, I suppose those soldiers who died fighting Hitler and Tojo didn't win WWII, since they didn't live to see their downfall. Is that your point?", you posted "LOL! That's the only comment this deserves."
Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.
A bunch of snippets showing the South's other "grievences" snipped.
Lying about one's intentions would fall well within "to the last extremity".
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-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
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. What rights were they talking about? Let us see, shall we?
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, 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.
Your account must have been hacked, because someone who hates the Democrat run Confederacy and is trying to prove me right posted all of this under your account.
The country was founded by slave owners. Its part of our past like it or not. We can still venerate the men and their principles and ideas even while we disagree with some of them.
The difference is that the US wasn't founded solely on the priciple of preserving slavery. I know you're going to come back with "the Confederacy wasn't founded to preserve slavery", but they said numerous times that it was. You'll also post more spam about how secession wasn't about preserving slavery, but I'll let their actions speak for them, and those actions were that they never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so.
Several tens of thousands.
I gave all of your sources the benefit of the doubt, and you didn't even make it to 15,000. If we discounted the 9,000 which we could rightfully do since it only said they "talked of having 9,000 men" and only said "but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes", you didn't even make it to 6,000.
No I didn't. Why would union sources lie about their eyewitness accounts of there being thousands of Black Confederates?
Because they weren't lying but as you yourself said exact counts were impossible in those days.
My idea of historical reality is the confederacy was willing to abolish slavery and offered to do so.
They never did, even to prove their true intentions to the nations they were trying to get military aid from. Well maybe that's not entirely right, as they proved their true intentions by refusing to abolish slavery.
Also, the Republicans did not start out intending to abolish slavery. They only came to that position after years of fighting.
They were founded by abolitionists in 1856, and nine years later abolished slavery. That was only four years after the slave owning states seceded over claims they were going to do exactly that.
My idea and THE reality happen to fit 100% based on the evidence.
Maybe 100% of your cherry picked pieces of evidence, but not all of it.
I have seen no evidence that "most" were "forced" to serve in the Confederate Army.
And I've seen no evidence that half of the op-eds you posted were ever even written, much less that they made the points you said they were making. You first.
He (Dickens) was of course a journalist and political commentator in addition to being a writer. He correctly thought that the union was fighting a war of aggression for money and empire. It was.
He toured the US twice, in 1842 and after the CW. In 1842 he made some stops in the South and was so sickened by slavery that he cancelled his tour in the South. Here's more.
Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War
Most Southerners today are Conservative.
So why to you keep voting McConnells and Grahams into Congress?
We are tied to the history of our region and of the whole country.
Do you tie with the Southern abolitionists, or the Southerners who voted to ratify abolition?
Guess what. Slavery was tied to both like it or not. Of course slavery was also tied to the North though they try desperately to pass it off as an entirely Southern thing. They were implicated up to their eyeballs in slavery too.
The difference is, the Republicans abolished it.
Sadly, RINOs come from everywhere but yes, there were and are plenty from the South....just as there are a lot of MAGA patriots from the South - more of them than in other regions.
You keep saying that, but if this secession you mentioned at the start of this thread happens, the new nation will need all of us, not just the South.
The PC Revisionists have always had the goal of demonizing the South via means of claiming it fought for slavery when the reality is it did no such thing. Patrick Cleburne saw that coming over 160 years ago. He wasn't the only one.
Did the PC Revisionists write all of those excerpts and links I posted above?
but that's just it. That wasn't the only way out. In fact, that wasn't any way out at all. If they had wanted out, they could have simply fled. Many others did and obtained their freedom. Just go. Don't murder anybody if you don't have to much less innocent defenseless little kids.
If they could have escaped I'm sure they would have, and I'm sure they could have found refuge in the North. Too bad the South wouldn't give up their slaves without being defeated first.
Yes, yes, I know, some states in the North had slavery too, but they abolished it without being forced by another power.
Flattening entire cities did little to help the war effort. The resources would have been better deployed elsewhere in the war.
The main targets for the USAF were industrial, communications, and yes military targets. The fact that innocent children were killed was the fault of Germany and Japan, not the Allies.
In the case of the atomic bombs, the civilians were warned to leave before the bombs were dropped.
There sure were plenty in 1860 in New England who did...or who had fathers or grandfathers who built the family fortune on the backs of slaves.
Thanks to the free trade deals that many of your Southern Conservative representatives voted for and Southerner Bush 2 signed, companies are getting rich off of slave labor now.
As the Congressional report at the time stated: The Ku Klux Klan was created to terrorize the ex-slaves...
Once again I had to do your job of substantiating your sources for you, but unlike some of the others I was able to track this one down. You're welcome, although I doubt you'll thank me after I tell you what I found.
First of all, you lifted this word for word from an article written by an author whose sympathies were clearly with the Confederacy.
The person who drafted the report on the KKK that he and you cited, Congressman Fernando Wood, was a Democrat who supported slavery and opposed the 13th Amendment. In fact, he was one of the Democrats who blocked passage of the 13th Amendment in 1864. None of that was mentioned in the article, and all of this disqualifies him as an impartial witness for the Democrat formed KKK.
And it gets better. Showing a complete lack of awareness of this, the author closed by making the statement "Had America ended slavery peacefully — as dozens of other countries, including the British, French, Spanish, Danish, and others did in the nineteenth century, none of this would have happened." Yes, he actually said that, after posting comments from a Democrat who opposed abolition.
So to sum it up, who cares?
But that itself does not prove they would not have passed it given more time which is what you claimed in the first place.
I know. I've seen what could be your sources on the Internet assuming you didn't post them yourself, and it's the same playbook the Confederacy Amen corner always uses. Just post the excerpts that seem to support their point of view, and we're supposed to accept that they could find the excerpts but couldn't find the entire op-eds.
They're in books. You are free to read the books cited. Or the newspapers cited - or the books those newspaper editorials are in. You'll have to do some actual reading.
And you think that because someone just put the snippets in their books that you don't have to validate them and prove they're saying what you claim they're saying? No.
Correct! I cited the source. That's what a citation is. If you are oh so curious, feel free to go to those books and see where they cited a quote or fact from.
Once again, you hide behind "Godwin's law" instead of addressing the point that is being made. Hitler knew his own motivations, but that doesn't obligate us to accept that he was telling the truth in 1945 when he said he didn't want war in 1939. The same applies to your point about the Confederacy knowing their own motivations.
Once again you immediately resort to Hitler/Nazi references. You claim Davis and others were lying yet you offer no evidence that they did not believe exactly what they said at the time.
It speaks nothing, since they were proven wrong.
No they weren't.
Here we go again......repeats snipped
Yes. Here we go.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence.
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] 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.
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 harrassing 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.
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-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
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.
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 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.
Actions like turning down express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever.
A resolution, with no impact, and which was repealed later that year once they got over their shock over Bull Run.
A resolution which showed their intent. They were not fighting over slavery.
OK, Senator Robert Toombs was a Democrat slave owner, Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas supported the right to own slaves and called for an amendment to protect slavery, President Jefferson Davis said in 1858 that secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, and Robert Barnwell Rhett was a Democrat slave owner.
And? The fact that someone was a slave owner does not mean secession was about slavery or even that that person supported secession due to slavery. Slavery was simply not threatened within the US. Why secede if preservation of slavery is the concern? Secession was always going to destroy slavery.
When they weren't getting pissed off at escaped slaves getting sancuary in the North.
sure they were upset at the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. That was unconstitutional and a violation of the deal that had been made between them. Note how secession was not going to change that. In fact, as a foreign country, states of the US were going to return zero runaway slaves instead of only returning some of them. What secession was going to change was the collection of very high tariffs on Southern goods.
You haven't substantiated anything. You posted excerpts from your favorite Confederacy Amen Corner approved sources, who somehow managed to find the excerpts but can't produce the entire op-eds. What few complete op-eds I could find refuted the point you were trying to make with them.
False! I have substantiated them. I posted where they came from, the dates and often even the page numbers. It is for you to find them if you want to read the entire op eds. You have yet to find an entire op ed from which I drew a quote that refutes that quote.
Prove what was said. Your sources were able to find the excerpts, so you or they should be able to find the entire op-eds.
I provided the sources, dates and sometimes even page numbers. That is a standard citation.
You don't get to decide which parts are relevant. I posted the entire op-ed, something you're conveniently unable to do. Show me where I lied about what was said by pointing it out in the op-ed.
I certainly get to decide which parts are relevant when making my case. You have yet to post a single op ed in its entirety which refutes a quote I posted from that op ed.
Both the Democrat run Confederacy and the free traitors relied on slave labor to drive down prices. That is not only relevant, it may or may not be a coincidence, given that it was Southerners from your "cradle of Conservatism" like Clinton, Bush, and others who got us addicted to communist slave labor.
I got news for ya. The North was "relying" on the slave labor from the slaves it sold too. You see, the North hardly produced any exports. They serviced Southern exports produced in part by slave labor. As for big business supporting free trade today - gosh, where is Wall Street located? Oh.
I don't defend those who particicpated in the illegal slave trade. I know there were bad guys, but they were acting on their own, not in any official capacity as what was happening in the Confederacy.,/P>
Huh? The Confederacy was only acting in favor of its independence. It never participated in the slave trade.
New England wasn't the culprit, the bad players working from there were.
The Culture of New England had no problem accepting all that blood money. They certainly never gave any of it back. Can you imagine the Ivy League coughing up the billions of dollars from their endowments that blood money would be worth today? Not a chance.
And I don't defend them or any slave traders, unlike you who have consistantly defended the consumers.
That's a bald faced lie. I haven't "defended" the consumers. I've said slavery was sadly, common practice throughout the world up until industrialization. Sadly it was.
Here we go with that again. They came over by choice, and built the nation that gives leftists like you the freedom to trash it.
Hunger doesn't leave people much of a choice. They came over and were exploited horribly just like the chattel slaves were. Of course, Leftists like you want to hide that fact so that you can demonize the South exclusively while not admitting all the faults of the North.
No, you posted excerpts, which you somehow were able to access but are completely unable to find the full op-eds.
Unable to find? I didn't look for the full op eds. Why should I? That's for you to do if you're so determined the read them. I already provided perfectly valid standard citations.
TwelveOfTwenty desperately trying to get FLT-Bird to do his work for him by finding full op eds he thinks will help his arguments, then said...
There was no mention of war. They were calling for tariffs.
They were pointing out the importance of those tariffs to their region economically. They were pointing out how they would lose out if the Southern states left and were making the argument to use violence to prevent them from leaving - ie war.
I just said I don't care if the products of their slave labor were hit with tariffs when they tariffed other's imported goods themselves, but you won't let that stop you from reading more into it than was there.
and I don't care if the North missed out on profits from its captive market and from not being able to service goods produced by Southern states and from not being able to lavish money raised from tariffs on Southern imported goods for its own corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects.
Why do I have to substantiate your sources?,/P>
You don't. I've already substantiated them.
You posted these excerpts, now prove they're legitmate and the op-eds say what you claim they say. If you were able to find the excerpts, then it shouldn't be a problem to just post the full op-eds you got them from, assuming they're real of course. Don't ask me to substantiate your sources for you.
I don't have to do that. You do if you're so keen to read the op eds. I've already provided the standard citations for any quote or source. If you think its so important to read the entire op eds then it shouldn't be a problem to just go find those op eds for yourself. It shows that you've never written any scholarly work. Nobody provides entire books or articles, etc for everything they cite. Nobody is expected to. That would be asinine.
That wasn't my question. What tariff applied by the North against Southern made goods would you say provoked secession? You keep making this case, so give us the number.
The tariff of abominations which was repealed in favor of the Walker Tariff. Then it when it was clear the 17% Walker Tariff was going to be replaced by the Morrill Tariff which would have at least doubled tariff rates, the Southern States left. They knew, that was just going to be the first bite of the apple. It wasn't going to stop there. Indeed, it didn't. Tariff Rates were raised to about 50% which was TRIPLE the rate of the ante bellum Walker Tariff.
Not if they had denied thinking that owning slaves was a right, because they owned slaves.
That's not what you said. You said you didn't care what any of those Southern leaders said about anything because they owned slaves. Well gosh, the Founding Fathers - at least most of them - owned slaves too. So you must not have cared what they said about anything either.
They never did, until forced by defeat to free them.
They were willing to and took steps to show their good faith willingness to do so. After all, we're talking about intent here.
repeats snipped.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] 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.
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 harrassing 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.
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-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
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.
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 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.
The Republican party was only formed in 1856, and they didn't even have enough votes to try until 1864, but then they were blocked by the Democrats until enough Democrats were replaced by Republicans to finally get it passed. The fact that they were able to pass abolition and send it to the states nine years after being formed would be enough to prove to anyone with a functioning brain they were abolitionists, as the Democrats themselves said.
They did not support abolition until very late in the war. Its not so much that they could not accomplish it politically. Its that they didn't want to do it. They said so many times.
Lincoln said a lot of things that could be seen as anti abolition, but he was dealing with a population that had many different viewpoints on abolition as you're so fond of pointing out, and he had to work with all of them to get things done. Frederick Douglas understood this when he later said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
There is zero evidence to support any claim that Lincoln was just trying to appease popular sentiment in the North which was against abolition until very late in the war. All the evidence is that he himself did not favor abolition until very late in the war. Whether it be him as a lawyer taking a case that returned an escaped slave to bondage, or getting Republicans to introduce and pass the North's slavery forever by express constitutional amendment in both houses, and then getting multiple states to ratify it or his public and private comments. Lincoln was no abolitionist nor were the vast majority of Republicans until about 1864.
Slavery was abolished by the Republicans nine years after the party was formed, and four years after the Democrats accused them of trying to do just that.
You're deliberately trying to conflate a later outcome with an earlier intent.
Your words would mean a lot more if you could put together a consistant narrative. The Republicans freed slaves but they were anti abolitionists. The South offered to free the slaves even though they couldn't. The abolitionists were terrorists but the slave owners who paid other to kidnap slaves weren't.
I've been quite consistent. The Republicans were not abolitionists and made that very clear until they changed their minds very late in the war. The Confederate government offered to free the slaves which it certainly had the power to do, in exchange for military aid from abroad. Not all abolitionists were terrorists but those who used terror to support their political goals were indeed terrorists. Slave owners who paid others to return their escaped slaves were not trying to accomplish a political goal. They were trying to recover their property. They were acting legally at the time. You or I not liking it 160 years later, does not make it illegal then.
Then say so now.,/P>
I've made it perfectly clear I think slavery awful. I've said so several times already.
More of your convoluted logic. The South couldn't have abolished slavery because they only existed for four years, but they offered to do exactly that in return for military aid. The Republicans were not abolitionists but managed to abolish slavery nine years after they were formed.
More of the truth. The South didn't have much of a change to abolish slavery given it was only independent for 4 years and had to fight a war of national survival that whole time. They did offer to do so in exchange for foreign military aid. The Republicans by their own multiple public admissions were not abolitionists. They only decided to support abolition in 1864.
I don't care what you said, because the Democrat run Confederacy has plenty of atrocities to answer for, legal or not. The fact that they didn't participate in this one occurrence doesn't refute that.
Ah yes, the ole "Hey look over there!" argument. I've never claimed the CSA was perfect. I said the Lincoln administration committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Santee Sioux and the Winnebago. So they did.
No, cherry picking is like when you choose to only post excerpts when you could post the entire op-ed or a link to the op-ed. After all, you managed to find the excerpts, so why can't your or your source post the entire op-ed? That shouldn't be difficult if your excerpts are valid, should it?,/P>
Back to this laughable BS. Nobody posts an entire book when one excerpt from it makes the point they are making. Same goes for a newspaper. Why do you expect others to do your research for you? You were provided standard citations. If you don't like that, too bad. Go dig them up yourself if you insist on reading the whole thing. It shouldn't be that difficult if you are actually interested should it?
You also didn't use the term "the 5 civilized tribes". Your exact quote was "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." which you used to make your point regardless of who you borrowed it from. My point stands. If the "civilized" tribes joined the Confederacy, then what does that make the tribes that didn't in your eyes?
As anybody who had actually studied the period would know, there were 5 major tribes which were relocated to Oklahoma. They were referred to as the 5 civilized tribes. Most of them sided with the CSA. As to what anybody who was not in the 5 civilized tribes was, you'll have to take that up with whoever coined the term the 5 civilized tribes.
The only reality was this was that nothing came of it. In fact you've built your case on policies that went no where and produced nothing, while brushing aside the one policy that was ratified.
We were discussing intent and I provided the evidence showing the CSA offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. They offered. They empowered their ambassador to agree to a treaty to that effect. Its not their fault that Britain and France chose not to take them up on that offer. The fact that they offered showed they were willing.
What I said was true. They could have written their Constitution without the explicit protections for slavery, but as they said numerous times it was their intention to preserve and protect slavery.,/P>
Their intention was to carry on with the US constitution but to strengthen the explicit rights of states and to cut down on wasteful government spending. Those were their main concerns.
Once again, you cherry pick the facts that support your one sided point of view of Lincoln and the North being the bad guys while ignoring others, but the fact is what happened to Native Americans was also done by the South before, during, and after the CW.,/P>
After the war the Southern states had no say in the federal government for 12 years. They certainly weren't responsible then. During the war it was the Lincoln administration which carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide of native peoples. The CSA had nothing to do with it. The fact is that the North actually were the bad guys who wiped out most of the Plains Indians and confined the few survivors to concentration camps. Grant was president, Sherman was the chief of staff and Sheridan had field command. It was done at the behest of Northern railroad companies.
Here's what the Confederacy's offers meant. Repeats Snipped
The Confederate Constitution neither required nor prohibited slavery in any territories it acquired.
We all know what those promises would have meant anyway, but I'm sure you won't let that stop you from using the freedoms that came from that to continue pretending the South was innocent in all of this.,/P>
So you have nothing. The CSA offered to let the 5 civilized tribes of Oklahoma come in as an equal state. The US never offered Native Americans anything anywhere near as good.
repeats snipped
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] 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.
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 harrassing 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.
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-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
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.
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 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.
I have no interest in reading from authors who are basically saying the same thing you're saying, when I have the Confederacy's own documents and actions to prove what happened.
I have no interest in hearing the same old Leftist PC Revisionist dogma when I have the facts, quotes from various newspapers and quotes from the people at the time to prove what the two sides' real motivations were.
Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.>/P>
Once again, LOL! That's all your gibberish here deserves.
repeats snipped.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] 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.
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 harrassing 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.
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-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
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.
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 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.
Your account must have been hacked, because someone who hates the Democrat run Confederacy and is trying to prove me right posted all of this under your account.
None of the above proves you right about anything. On the contrary it proves me right.
The difference is that the US wasn't founded solely on the priciple of preserving slavery.,/P>
Nor was the CSA.
I know you're going to come back with "the Confederacy wasn't founded to preserve slavery", but they said numerous times that it was.
No they didn't.
You'll also post more spam about how secession wasn't about preserving slavery, but I'll let their actions speak for them, and those actions were that they never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so.
Their actions were that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. They made it quite clear their intent in leaving was not to preserve something (slavery) which was never threatened in the first place.
I gave all of your sources the benefit of the doubt, and you didn't even make it to 15,000. If we discounted the 9,000 which we could rightfully do since it only said they "talked of having 9,000 men" and only said "but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes", you didn't even make it to 6,000.,/P>
You said there were hardly any. I gave you union sources which indicated many thousands of Black Confederates.
Because they weren't lying but as you yourself said exact counts were impossible in those days.,/P>
there were obviously many thousands of Black Confederates.
They never did, even to prove their true intentions to the nations they were trying to get military aid from. Well maybe that's not entirely right, as they proved their true intentions by refusing to abolish slavery.,/P>
We're talking about intent. They signalled their willingness to do so. Its not their fault Britain and France chose not to accept their offer. They were quite willing. You know who else didn't abolish slavery during the war? The USA....Why didn't it abolish slavery? It could have. It just chose not to. Gosh. Imagine that.
They were founded by abolitionists in 1856, and nine years later abolished slavery. That was only four years after the slave owning states seceded over claims they were going to do exactly that.
The vast majority of Republicans including the de facto leader of the party, Abe Lincoln were not abolitionists and were opposed to abolition as they themselves stated many many times.
Maybe 100% of your cherry picked pieces of evidence, but not all of it.
THE evidence and the facts at the time show neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
And I've seen no evidence that half of the op-eds you posted were ever even written, much less that they made the points you said they were making. You first.
You've seen standard citations....exactly the same kind you would find in any book or research paper had you ever written one.
He toured the US twice, in 1842 and after the CW. In 1842 he made some stops in the South and was so sickened by slavery that he cancelled his tour in the South. Here's more.
Dickens was an abolitionist....quite openly so.
So why to you keep voting McConnells and Grahams into Congress?
Why do you keep voting the Charlie Bakers and Larry Hogans and Chris Christies and Susan Collins' into office?There are lots of RINOs to purge....unfortunately even from very conservative areas. Look at Pierre Delecto and that Governor from Utah. Utah is as conservative as anywhere but.......
Do you tie with the Southern abolitionists, or the Southerners who voted to ratify abolition?,/P>
Of course. You realize it was the pre war elected representatives of the Southern states who voted to ratify the 13th amendment....right?
The difference is, the Republicans abolished it.
After coming to support abolition only very late in the war.
Did the PC Revisionists write all of those excerpts and links I posted above?,/P>
The South then as now was democratic. Different people had different opinions. When over 94% of the free population did not own slaves, what do you think they were fighting for? It certainly wasn't slavery.
If they could have escaped I'm sure they would have, and I'm sure they could have found refuge in the North. Too bad the South wouldn't give up their slaves without being defeated first.
They could have simply run away. Lots of others did. Instead they chose to murder a lot of innocent people. Too bad the North sold the slaves in the first place and then continued to profit from slavery for many more years.
Yes, yes, I know, some states in the North had slavery too, but they abolished it without being forced by another power.
The Southern states offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. Its not their fault Britain and France chose not to take them up on their offer. They showed their intent by offering it.
The main targets for the USAF were industrial, communications, and yes military targets. The fact that innocent children were killed was the fault of Germany and Japan, not the Allies.,/P>
in the end, the indiscriminate bombing of entire cities only hardened the resolve of people to fight to the bitter end. It had the same effect on the Brits when they were bombed.
Thanks to the free trade deals that many of your Southern Conservative representatives voted for and Southerner Bush 2 signed, companies are getting rich off of slave labor now.
Its hilarious you try to blame even this on the South. Hello????? Lots of Northern reps voted for it too. Lots of corporations located in the North lobbied for it too. Where do you think Wall Street is located? Hint: its not in the heart of Dixie.
As the Congressional report at the time stated: there would have been no Ku Klux Klan had bad laws and crooked governments which oppressed Southerners not been in place.
FIFY
First of all, you lifted this word for word from an article written by an author whose sympathies were clearly with the Confederacy. The person who drafted the report on the KKK that he and you cited, Congressman Fernando Wood, was a Democrat who supported slavery and opposed the 13th Amendment. In fact, he was one of the Democrats who blocked passage of the 13th Amendment in 1864. None of that was mentioned in the article, and all of this disqualifies him as an impartial witness for the Democrat formed KKK.
He was an elected politician from New York. Its hilarious you claim anybody who took a position you don't like is somehow "disqualified". Here's a news flash! There were no impartial witnesses. People took political stances back then just like they do now. The Congressional inquiry found that the KKK's formation was caused by the disenfranchisement of most Southern voters resulting in the installation of corrupt carpet bagger governments (backed up by Union League terrorists) who then stole everything they possibly could.
And it gets better. Showing a complete lack of awareness of this, the author closed by making the statement "Had America ended slavery peacefully — as dozens of other countries, including the British, French, Spanish, Danish, and others did in the nineteenth century, none of this would have happened." Yes, he actually said that, after posting comments from a Democrat who opposed abolition.
And? He's right about that. Had the US adopted a compensated emancipation scheme that would have diffused this key wedge issue that was used to unite Northerners behind the Northern corporate fatcats' economic interests which lay in sky high tariffs on Southern goods. That's exactly what Rhett and others had pointed out.
My statement proves that given the same amount of time as the five states that did ratify it, and with secession and the threat of a civil war, they didn't repeat didn't ratify it. It's your alternate realities about what might have happened that don't prove anything.
They're in books. You are free to read the books cited.
For what? All that would prove is they were able to dig up the op-eds but were only willing to post the excerpts that they think prove their point.
Or the newspapers cited or the books those newspaper editorials are in. You'll have to do some actual reading.
I read the op-eds I could find since you were unwilling or more likely unable to substantiate them. Taken in their entirety rather than just the excerpts you cherry picked, they said the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove.
Correct! I cited the source. That's what a citation is. If you are oh so curious, feel free to go to those books and see where they cited a quote or fact from.
Why should I? All that would prove is that the authors posted the excerpts you say they posted. That doesn't prove anything about whether they were authentic or what the full op-eds said. These are books that say what you want to hear, but there are any number that say the exact opposite. All I'm asking for is the full op-eds, and that's after I did your job and found two of them myself. We don't have to take the authors' of those books word for it just because they said what you want to hear.
They were able to post excerpts, so if those excerpts were legitimate then they should have been able to post the entire op-eds. They didn't, either because they made them up, or more likely because posting the entire op-eds would nullify the point they were trying to make.
No, I'm not going to go looking for books that only say what you want to hear, or take it upon myself to substantiate what you're taking on faith, that is that the books are telling the truth. Prove the op-eds are legitimate and say what you claim they say by either posting the entire op-ed or posting a link. Any other reply will be rightfully taken as a confession that you can't.
A bunch of repeats snipped.
Once again you immediately resort to Hitler/Nazi references. You claim Davis and others were lying yet you offer no evidence that they did not believe exactly what they said at the time.
Because they also said the exact opposite, and never freed the slaves until forced by total defeat to do so.
Oh, and there's this.
Lying about one's intentions would fall well within "to the last extremity".
Speaking of which...
Repeats of the Confederacy lying about how secession and the civil war weren't about slavery snipped.
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-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
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.
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 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.
If you can't see how these excerpts refute your own case, then keep posting them. I don't mind letting you refute your own case with their own words.
I don't need to post and reply these excerpts more than once, so two sets of repeats snipped.
In fact, I was able to reduce my entire reply to about 1/3 what it would have been just by cutting out all of the times you repeated the same point.
Actions like turning down nothing.
A resolution which showed their intent. They were not fighting over slavery.
Also a resolution they repealed later that year after getting over their shock of losing at Bull Run and before they won any substantial victories, so that shows they were fighting to abolish slavery, which they did. Funny how you don't think any of that shows their real intentions.
And? The fact that someone was a slave owner does not mean secession was about slavery or even that that person supported secession due to slavery.
More of your twisted logic. The slave owners and slavery defenders weren't fighting to preserve slavery, and the side that abolished slavery wasn't actually trying to.
sure they were upset at the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. That was unconstitutional and a violation of the deal that had been made between them. Note how secession was not going to change that. In fact, as a foreign country, states of the US were going to return zero runaway slaves instead of only returning some of them.
The resistance movements in Nazi Germany were illegal too, while everything the Nazis did was legal. Making atrocities legal doesn't make them right.
I know you'll come back with "I'm not defending slavery which was horrible.", but defences like these make it look that way.
What secession was going to change was the collection of very high tariffs on Southern goods.
It did no such thing, as the op-eds you referenced clearly showed. It was just the opposite, it provoked the call for higher tariffs.
Now ask me if I care that the products produced by slave labor were tariffed.
I certainly get to decide which parts are relevant when making my case.
Not when the entire op-ed refutes the point you're trying to make in the first sentence, which I'll repeat here so the readers won't have to parse through your spam to find it.
Manchester Union Democrat, February 19, 1861 "Let Them Go"
This was an op-ed which started out with "Some of our Republican friends affect to be very indifferent to the secession of the Southern states. "Let them go—we can get along very well without them.""
This op-ed was answering that view with the writer's own opnions.
You have yet to post a single op ed in its entirety which refutes a quote the excerpt I posted from that op ed.
I don't have to. The war was won and slavery was abolished. End of story.
I got news for ya. The North was "relying" on the slave labor from the slaves it sold too. You see, the North hardly produced any exports. They serviced Southern exports produced in part by slave labor.
Once again your twisted logic is shown. On one hand the North couldn't do without slave produced products, but on the other hand they hit those same products with tariffs large enough to force the buyers to choose home grown, and provoked the slave holding states to secede.
As for big business supporting free trade today - gosh, where is Wall Street located? Oh.
Wall Street may be in New York, but many of the companies as well has Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 who signed those free trade deals with China and gave them MFN status, along with many in Congress who voted for those trade deals, were from your "cradle of conservatism".
And if you ever chose cheaper made in Communist China over Made in USA, you made the same choice.
Used products don't count, since the money for manufacturing the products already went to China when the product was purchased new. A little tip for anyone who's interested.
Repeats snipped.
Huh? The Confederacy was only acting in favor of its independence. It never participated in the slave trade.
Tell that to the slaves who were forced to watch as their own children were sold into slavery in slave auctions.
The Culture of New England had no problem accepting all that blood money. They certainly never gave any of it back. Can you imagine the Ivy League coughing up the billions of dollars from their endowments that blood money would be worth today? Not a chance.
Only to virtue signal.
That's a bald faced lie. I haven't "defended" the consumers. I've said slavery was sadly, common practice throughout the world up until industrialization. Sadly it was.
From your previous post, "sure they were upset at the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. That was unconstitutional and a violation of the deal that had been made between them." You didn't sound so sad when you posted this.
Hunger doesn't leave people much of a choice. They came over and were exploited horribly just like the chattel slaves were. Of course, Leftists like you want to hide that fact so that you can demonize the South exclusively while not admitting all the faults of the North.
We discussed this in posts 677, 681, and 684
They were pointing out the importance of those tariffs to their region economically. They were pointing out how they would lose out if the Southern states left and were making the argument to use violence to prevent them from leaving - ie war.
Show me the excerpts where they called for war instead of tariffs.
and I don't care if the North missed out on profits from its captive market and from not being able to service goods produced by Southern states and from not being able to lavish money raised from tariffs on Southern imported goods for its own corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects.
Good, then you're OK with the North raising tariffs on slave made goods. So am I, and I favor that with goods from communist China today. If it means I can't buy the latest smart TV every year so I can watch the football games we're supposedly boycotting in high resolution color, that's a sacrifice I'll have to make.
The tariff of abominations which was repealed in favor of the Walker Tariff. Then it when it was clear the 17% Walker Tariff was going to be replaced by the Morrill Tariff which would have at least doubled tariff rates, the Southern States left. They knew, that was just going to be the first bite of the apple. It wasn't going to stop there. Indeed, it didn't. Tariff Rates were raised to about 50% which was TRIPLE the rate of the ante bellum Walker Tariff.
Good. We should do that with goods from Communist China now, but the profit loving conservatives from your cradle of conservatism won't do it.
That's not what you said. You said you didn't care what any of those Southern leaders said about anything because they owned slaves. Well gosh, the Founding Fathers - at least most of them - owned slaves too. So you must not have cared what they said about anything either.
I said I didn't care about what the Democrats said about secession and war not being about slavery. If the founding fathers said they were against slavery I wouldn't believe them, but they did form a Union where slavery would ultimately be abolished, unlike the Democrats who formed their country to preserve slavery.
We have both agreed that the founding fathers were flawed men who created a great if flawed nation, and they built the framework that led to the abolition of slavery. Why do we have to keep going back and forth on this when we have already agreed on it?
They were willing to and took steps to show their good faith willingness to do so. After all, we're talking about intent here.
Their only intent was to get military aid. Promising to abolish slavery only showed that they understood how wrong it was. Apart from that, we don't know their intent since they never moved to actually abolish slavery. Actually, we know their intent by the fact that they didn't abolish slavery.
Multiple repeats snipped.
They did not support abolition until very late in the war. Its not so much that they could not accomplish it politically. Its that they didn't want to do it. They said so many times.
Nine years after they were formed, and after they had enough representation to prevent the Democrats from blocking abolition, they passed the 13th Amendment.
There is zero evidence to support any claim that Lincoln was just trying to appease popular sentiment in the North which was against abolition until very late in the war. All the evidence is that he himself did not favor abolition until very late in the war. Whether it be him as a lawyer taking a case that returned an escaped slave to bondage, or getting Republicans to introduce and pass the North's slavery forever by express constitutional amendment in both houses, and then getting multiple states to ratify it or his public and private comments. Lincoln was no abolitionist nor were the vast majority of Republicans until about 1864.
I'm not going to waste FR bandwidth playing your game. We've been over this. Here are the links to that discussion.
More wasted bandwidth repeats snipped.
You're deliberately trying to conflate a later outcome with an earlier intent.
Yet more of your twisted logic. They were founded by abolitionists Like Cassius Clay, said in their platform they wanted to end slavery, and then between 1859 and 1863 abandoned that policy until 1864. In between that time, the slave holding states accused them of being abolitionists and accused the North of offering sancuary to escaped slaves even though they weren't. Yeah, that makes sense.
Even more wasted bandwidth repeats snipped.
I've made it perfectly clear I think slavery awful. I've said so several times already.
I believed you before, but I'm not so sure now. You seem more angry with the Northerners who offered escaped slaves sanctuary than you are with the slave owners.
The South didn't have much of a change to abolish slavery given it was only independent for 4 years and had to fight a war of national survival that whole time.
Then you must really be impressed with the Republicans, who managed to abolish slavery nine years after being formed and immediately after getting the votes they needed to abolish slavery.
Ah yes, the ole "Hey look over there!" argument.
That would be a valid if I denied the North committed atrocities against Native Americans, but I haven't.
I've never claimed the CSA was perfect.
And I never claimed the North was perfect.
I said the Lincoln administration committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Santee Sioux and the Winnebago. So they did.
Part of a long line of atrocities carried out by the entire nation, whose freedoms you are willing to use to attack it for its treatment of the poor, slavery loving CSA and the Democrats who formed it.
As anybody who had actually studied the period would know, there were 5 major tribes which were relocated to Oklahoma. They were referred to as the 5 civilized tribes. Most of them sided with the CSA.
So now you want to concentrate on "5 civilized tribes" although you didn't use that term in you original comment on this issue, which was "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." Now that you've been called out, you want to hide behind "5 civilized tribes".
As to what anybody who was not in the 5 civilized tribes was, you'll have to take that up with whoever coined the term the 5 civilized tribes.
Whoever coined that phrase is dead, but the person who said "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." is sitting in front of your computer. My question to that person stands.
Their intention was to carry on with the US constitution but to strengthen the explicit rights of states and to cut down on wasteful government spending. Those were their main concerns.
That doesn't answer my point, which is they could have left the explicit protections for slavery out of their Constitution if they had wanted to, but they intended to preserve slavery.
After the war the Southern states had no say in the federal government for 12 years. They certainly weren't responsible then. During the war it was the Lincoln administration which carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide of native peoples. The CSA had nothing to do with it. The fact is that the North actually were the bad guys who wiped out most of the Plains Indians and confined the few survivors to concentration camps. Grant was president, Sherman was the chief of staff and Sheridan had field command. It was done at the behest of Northern railroad companies.
First, taking the land didn't all happen in the 12 years.
Second, "Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States." The only thing that stopped them is the same thing that freed rgeir slaves, abd that's total defeat.
And last, from Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War, "In the fall of 1861, Colonel Douglas H. Cooper, commanding the department of Indian operations under authority from the Confederate Government, made several ineffectual efforts to have a conference with the old chief of for the purpose of effecting a peaceful settlement of the difficulties that were dividing the nation into two hostile camps. Finding Hopoeithleyhola unwavering in his loyalty to the United States, Colonel Cooper determined to force him into submission, destroy his power, or drive him out of the country, and at once commenced collecting forces, composed mostly of white troops, to attack him. In November and December, 1861, the battles of Chusto Talasah and Chustenhlah were fought, and the loyal Indians finally were defeated and forced to retire to Kansas in midwinter....In the spring of 1862 the United States Government sent an expedition of five thousand men under Colonel William Weer, 10th Kansas Infantry, into the Indian Territory to drive out the Confederate forces of Pike and Cooper, and to restore the refugee Indians to their homes." Everything you talk about is in this article, and the CSA had plenty of time for this while, as you put it, were fighting for their existance.
The Confederate Constitution neither required nor prohibited slavery in any territories it acquired.
Thank you.
So you have nothing. The CSA offered to let the 5 civilized tribes of Oklahoma come in as an equal state.
Another offer they never made good on. Your whole case is built on policies that were never ratified, and you write off the only policy that was ratified, abolition.
The US never offered Native Americans anything anywhere near as good.
Once again, LOL! That's all your gibberish here deserves.
Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.
Nor was the CSA (founded to preserve slavery)...No they didn't(say numerous times that it was about preserving slavery)...(later) The vast majority of Republicans including the de facto leader of the party, Abe Lincoln were not abolitionists and were opposed to abolition as they themselves stated many many times.
I can hear FR groaning about another hit on their server space, but here you are.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.
Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...
The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
From Mississippi
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.
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 has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
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;
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
From Texas
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.
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 for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture...
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.
From South Carolina
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 "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.
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Repeats snipped.
You said there were hardly any. I gave you union sources which indicated many thousands of Black Confederates.
Nope. Here are my first two posts on that point.
And we agree there were thousands. If that's your only point, we can exit this topic right now.
Why do you keep voting the Charlie Bakers and Larry Hogans and Chris Christies and Susan Collins' into office?There are lots of RINOs to purge....unfortunately even from very conservative areas.
Now who is playing "Look over there"? I know the North is sending alot of RINOs to Washington, but we also did alot of RINO hunting this year. Besides, I'm not the one calling my region the cradle of Conservatism.
Look at Pierre Delecto and that Governor from Utah. Utah is as conservative as anywhere but.......
No. Not because you're wrong, but because in this case you are dead right. Yuch!
Of course. You realize it was the pre war elected representatives of the Southern states who voted to ratify the 13th amendment....right?
I made the point to someone who said the Southern states were coerced into ratifying the amendment. He disagreed and challenged me to debate him on it, but it wasn't a hill I considered worth fighting for, especially after a year spent with your appalling defense of the Confederacy loaded with half truths and cherry picked facts. If you want to defend the South on that point, take it up with him.
As the Congressional report at the time stated: there would have been no Ku Klux Klan had bad laws and crooked governments which oppressed Southerners not been in place. FIFY
You didn't fix anything. This is just more of your cherry picking. This was the minority report, written by Democrats. The same party that founded the KKK.
The South then as now was democratic. Different people had different opinions. When over 94% of the free population did not own slaves, what do you think they were fighting for? It certainly wasn't slavery.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
They could have simply run away. Lots of others did. Instead they chose to murder a lot of innocent people.
More of your twisted logic. The slaves could have escaped, but the North was wrong for offering them sanctuary. Of course, all of this is easy for you to say because you never lived as a slave on any of those planatations. Alot easier than it was for the slaves to escape. If you had to watch families including yours split as children were sold to other masters, you would be singing a different tune.
Too bad the North sold the slaves in the first place and then continued to profit from slavery for many more years.
Bad players in the North arranged the sales illegally, and it was the slave states who bought them and sold their children to other masters as if they were animals.
in the end, the indiscriminate bombing of entire cities only hardened the resolve of people to fight to the bitter end. It had the same effect on the Brits when they were bombed.
Not entirely true. The constant bombing of the German and Japanese homelands made it impossible for their citizens to support the war effort. At least that was the goal. Whether it had its intended effect is open to debate. According to some Germans after the war, it was the USAF's precision bombing of their industry that had the most effect. And nothing you said answers my point that it was the Germans and Japanese, not the Allies, who were at fault for starting wars of conquest and forcing the Allies to destroy them to protect themselves, just as it was the slave owners and not the slaves who are responsible for their own children getting killed.
He was an elected politician from New York.
As you've pointed out and I've agreed, not everyone in the North was with the good guys. BTW, he was one of the Dems who lost his job, although he regained it a few years later. Again, not everyone in the North were with the good guys, so you don't need to come back with pointing that out.
This just proves the point that Lincoln had to work with all viewpoints to get things done, and the Democrats were blocking him as late as 1864. By 1865 there weren't enough of them left to block anything, and slavery was abolished.
Its hilarious you claim anybody who took a position you don't like is somehow "disqualified". Here's a news flash! There were no impartial witnesses. People took political stances back then just like they do now. The Congressional inquiry found that the KKK's formation was caused by the disenfranchisement of most Southern voters resulting in the installation of corrupt carpet bagger governments (backed up by Union League terrorists) who then stole everything they possibly could.
This is a perfect example of your cherry picking. That was the minority report, in this case the Democrat report, the same party that founded the KKK, in opposition to the majority. The idea that the Democrats of that time had any credibility on that issue is beyond rediculous.
He's right about that. Had the US adopted a compensated emancipation scheme that would have diffused this key wedge issue that was used to unite Northerners behind the Northern corporate fatcats' economic interests which lay in sky high tariffs on Southern goods. That's exactly what Rhett and others had pointed out.
Why should slave owners be compensated for losing the right to commit human rights abuses. Would we compensate the buyers of traficked women today for the loss of their services? I know you're going to say 1865, but they would have had no problem seeing what was wrong with paying human traffickers to capture people for slavery it if happened to them or their own children. You didn't need to be born after 1990 to understand that.
Besides, the person he cited was among those who voted against abolishion period, not abolition unless the slave owners were compensated. My point stands. This Democrat, slavery defender was not a credible source on the KKK.
So to repeat, who cares?
You claimed the fact that they didn't pass it in the limited time available somehow proves they wouldn't have. It is you who bears the burden of proof here.
For what? All that would prove is they were able to dig up the op-eds but were only willing to post the excerpts that they think prove their point.
So what? The citations prove that the sources they cited said what they quoted.
I read the op-eds I could find since you were unwilling or more likely unable to substantiate them. Taken in their entirety rather than just the excerpts you cherry picked, they said the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove.
I did substantiate them and your claim that the editorials somehow said the opposite of what was quoted is simply false.
Why should I? All that would prove is that the authors posted the excerpts you say they posted. That doesn't prove anything about whether they were authentic or what the full op-eds said. These are books that say what you want to hear, but there are any number that say the exact opposite. All I'm asking for is the full op-eds, and that's after I did your job and found two of them myself. We don't have to take the authors' of those books word for it just because they said what you want to hear.
Why should you? Because that would prove the quotes are accurate and authentic - which they are. There are of course none of the op eds cited which say the opposite of what was quoted in the excerpt.
They were able to post excerpts, so if those excerpts were legitimate then they should have been able to post the entire op-eds. They didn't, either because they made them up, or more likely because posting the entire op-eds would nullify the point they were trying to make.
they didn't because nobody ever posts an entire op ed. That would be asinine. And how often does an op ed say the opposite in its entirety of what is said in part? Almost never. That is certainly never the case in any of the op eds I've cited.
No, I'm not going to go looking for books that only say what you want to hear, or take it upon myself to substantiate what you're taking on faith, that is that the books are telling the truth. Prove the op-eds are legitimate and say what you claim they say by either posting the entire op-ed or posting a link. Any other reply will be rightfully taken as a confession that you can't.
Nobody posts an entire op ed or an entire book when they are quoting a source. Your demand for such is simply laughable. You don't read books that say the opposite of what you want to hear? Shocker! You obviously cannot handle anything other than the propaganda you were spoon fed. Nobody posts a link when citing a source. More of your clown show. My quotes are substantiated. I provided sources.
Because they also said the exact opposite, and never freed the slaves until forced by total defeat to do so.
But they didn't say the exact opposite and they didn't free the slaves during the war just like the Union didn't free its slaves during the war. Its ridiculous to expect anybody to do so unless they would gain some kind of military advantage thereby.
Oh, and there's this Repeats snipped
But then there's also this
We protest solemnly, in the face of mankind, that we desire peace at any sacrifice, save that of honor. In independence we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we have lately been confederated. All we ask is to be let alone--that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. 1, pp. 283-284; see also Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, p. 367)
Speaking of which...If you can't see how these excerpts refute your own case, then keep posting them. I don't mind letting you refute your own case with their own words.
If you can't see how them pointing out that the Northern states violated the compact, that they violated their obligation to secure the border simply out of spite, that they supported domestic terrorism against Southern states, that they treated the Southern states as their cash cows, then I don't know what to tell you. You obviously completely lack reading comprehension skills.
Actions like turning down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
FIFY
Also a resolution they repealed later that year after getting over their shock of losing at Bull Run and before they won any substantial victories, so that shows they were fighting to abolish slavery, which they did. Funny how you don't think any of that shows their real intentions.
Lincoln said they were explicitly not fighting to end slavery. The Congress passed a resolution explicitly stating they were not fighting to end slavery. Indeed, they had slavery themselves. But you conclude they were fighting to put down slavery. Natch!
More of your twisted logic. The slave owners and slavery defenders weren't fighting to preserve slavery, and the side that abolished slavery wasn't actually trying to.
No, I merely said that someone could both own slaves AND think that secession was not about slavery. As has been made abundantly clear, slavery was not threatened in the US.
The resistance movements in Nazi Germany were illegal too, while everything the Nazis did was legal. Making atrocities legal doesn't make them right.
Godwin. Good lord, you argue from a kindergartner's perspective. Everybody you disagree with is equivalent to Nazi Germany....no matter how ridiculous the claim - typical Leftist tactic.
defences like these make it look that way.
nobody is defending slavery.
It did no such thing, as the op-eds you referenced clearly showed. It was just the opposite, it provoked the call for higher tariffs.,/P>
Of course it would do exactly that - ie massively reduce tariffs on Southern trade. The Confederate Constitution had a maximum 10% tariff.
Now ask me if I care that the products produced by slave labor were tariffed.
Actually the products produced at least in part by slave labor were not hit directly with the tariff. Those were exports. It was the manufactured goods that were purchased mostly in the UK for import into the US that were hit with the tariff.
Not when the entire op-ed refutes the point you're trying to make in the first sentence, which I'll repeat here so the readers won't have to parse through your spam to find it.,/P>
Except it doesn't do that.
Manchester Union Democrat, February 19, 1861 "Let Them Go"
This was an op-ed which started out with "Some of our Republican friends affect to be very indifferent to the secession of the Southern states. "Let them go—we can get along very well without them.""
This op-ed was answering that view with the writer's own opnions.
OK. Some editorials in Northern Newspapers especially early on did say let them go in peace. It was mostly the corporate fatcats who, through the newspapers they owned, then started shrieking about how much MONEY the Northern states stood to lose by no longer being able to economically exploit the Southern states. It is this which motivated the Lincoln administration to start a war to prevent secession.
I don't have to. The war was won and slavery was abolished. End of story.
We are talking about the causes, not the end results. Neither secession nor the war were caused by slavery. The war did result in the end of slavery but that is not the same thing as saying it was the cause of secession or the war.
Once again your twisted logic is shown. On one hand the North couldn't do without slave produced products, but on the other hand they hit those same products with tariffs large enough to force the buyers to choose home grown, and provoked the slave holding states to secede.
Your historical ignorance is shown once again. The North benefitted greatly from goods produced at least in part by slave labor....what do you think fed those Northern cotton mills? Those same products were not hit directly with tariffs. They were exported. It was the manufactured goods purchased in Europe that were hit with the tariffs. Tariffs intended to price those exports out of the market....to allow Northern manufacturers to both raise price and profit margins while simultaneously gaining market share....tariffs that were designed to raise a lot of money which the Northern states could then vote to use for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects for themselves.
Wall Street may be in New York, but many of the companies as well has Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 who signed those free trade deals with China and gave them MFN status, along with many in Congress who voted for those trade deals, were from your "cradle of conservatism".
Some indeed were. Many were from the Northeast and the Midwest also.
Tell that to the slaves who were forced to watch as their own children were sold into slavery in slave auctions.
We are talking about the importation of slaves here. That is what was referred to as the slave trade in the US Constitution. That is what was given a 20 year grandfather clause which expired officially in 1810.
Show me the excerpts where they called for war instead of tariffs.
Most didn't urge war specifically though some did.
"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go." The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861
then there's this:
The Philadelphia Press in their 1861 edition proposed one of the most interesting ideas that made its way to Lincoln, January 15. This also seems to be the basis for Lincoln's Inaugural Address. The paper said that: If South Carolina were to take the forts by force, this would be levying war against the United States and high treason against the Constitution" In other words, if South Carolina could be "tricked" into firing on the Forts in Charleston Harbor, that would be enough to go to War to stop the State from Seceding and thus reeking havoc on Northern and government revenues. The paper went on to say:
"In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws. Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but of enforcing the revenue laws. The practical point, either way, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports."
As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor" by reprovisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that "This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South."
Good, then you're OK with the North raising tariffs on slave made goods. So am I.,/p>
and I'm OK with the Southern states seceding to look out for their own economic interests in response.
Good. We should do that with goods from Communist China now, but the profit loving conservatives from your cradle of conservatism won't do it.
Do try to stay on point. Look at how many Southern states voted for Trump who jacked up tariff rates on China. Now look at how many states in the Northeast or even the Midwest voted for Trump. The South supported him far more than those two regions.
I said I didn't care about what the Democrats said about secession and war not being about slavery. If the founding fathers said they were against slavery I wouldn't believe them, but they did form a Union where slavery would ultimately be abolished, unlike the Democrats who formed their country to preserve slavery.
LOL! None of the Founding Fathers expressed any desire for abolition. Oh, and of course the Southern states did not secede nor did they form the CSA to preserve slavery.
We have both agreed that the founding fathers were flawed men who created a great if flawed nation, and they built the framework that led to the abolition of slavery. Why do we have to keep going back and forth on this when we have already agreed on it?
They didn't build a framework that led to the abolition of slavery. That's ridiculous whitewashing. They were all long dead when slavery was abolished some 76 years after the Constitution was ratified.
Their only intent was to get military aid. Promising to abolish slavery only showed that they understood how wrong it was. Apart from that, we don't know their intent since they never moved to actually abolish slavery. Actually, we know their intent by the fact that they didn't abolish slavery.
Their intent was to gain their independence. Promising to abolish slavery shows that was not what they were fighting for. Nobody offers to sacrifice that which he is fighting for. Otherwise, there would be no point in fighting. If not abolishing slavery during the war shows they had no intent to do so then the Northern states had no intent to abolish slavery either since they didn't do so during the war either.
Nine years after they were formed, and after they had enough representation to prevent the Democrats from blocking abolition, they passed the 13th Amendment.
Its not that they tried and were blocked by Democrats as you are trying to portray it. Its that they did not try. They did not support it until very late in the war.
I'm not going to waste FR bandwidth playing your game. We've been over this. Here are the links to that discussion.
Yes, we've been over it. And there is zero evidence to support a claim that Republicans favored abolition prior to very late in the war.
Yet more of your twisted logic. They were founded by abolitionists Like Cassius Clay, said in their platform they wanted to end slavery, and then between 1859 and 1863 abandoned that policy until 1864. In between that time, the slave holding states accused them of being abolitionists and accused the North of offering sancuary to escaped slaves even though they weren't. Yeah, that makes sense.
“There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them.” Abraham Lincoln
"“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln
I believed you before, but I'm not so sure now. You seem more angry with the Northerners who offered escaped slaves sanctuary than you are with the slave owners.
I am crushed. YOU don't believe me. Whatever shall I do? As for providing sanctuary for escaped slaves, no matter how sympathetic I am to this morally, there is another side to it. That is not what they agreed to when the Constitution was ratified. The Southern states had a completely valid point when they said the Northern states had violated the deal.
Then you must really be impressed with the Republicans, who managed to abolish slavery nine years after being formed and immediately after getting the votes they needed to abolish slavery.
The Republicans did so to try to give the bloodbath they started over money and empire some veneer of respectability and to pretend they had some noble purpose. They had to tell the voters in the Northern states something after getting so many of their men killed and mangled fighting a war of aggression for money.
Part of a long line of atrocities carried out by the entire nation, whose freedoms you are willing to use to attack it for its treatment of the poor, slavery loving CSA and the Democrats who formed it.
Some of that horrible treatment Native Americans got was indeed done with the support of Southerners. You can't lay this one at the feet of Southerners though - not even in part. This was all Northerners who did this. The same goes for the wars of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians. The South was politically powerless after having been subjected to military occupation and widespread voter disenfranchisement when that happened. That's all on the North.
So now you want to concentrate on "5 civilized tribes" although you didn't use that term in you original comment on this issue, which was "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." Now that you've been called out, you want to hide behind "5 civilized tribes".
The Civilized Tribes was obviously in reference to the 5 civilized tribes genius.
Whoever coined that phrase is dead, but the person who said "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." is sitting in front of your computer. My question to that person stands.
My point about your massive historical ignorance stands. The vast vast majority of the Indians in Oklahoma were members of one of the "5 Civilized Tribes".
That doesn't answer my point, which is they could have left the explicit protections for slavery out of their Constitution if they had wanted to, but they intended to preserve slavery.
The Union could have chosen to abolish slavery if they wanted to. Instead they chose to preserve it.
First, taking the land didn't all happen in the 12 years.
Second, irrelevant repeat snipped
Everything you talk about is in this article, and the CSA had plenty of time for this while, as you put it, were fighting for their existance.
The CSA did indeed fight against union leaning Indians just as the Union fought against confederate leaning Indians. The point remains that the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Santee Sioux and Winnebago was done entirely by the union and given how politically powerless the Southern states were after the war, the Northern states bear the overwhelming responsibility of the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians. Hell, Little Bighorn happened when the Southern states were still under military occupation.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Another offer they never made good on. Your whole case is built on policies that were never ratified, and you write off the only policy that was ratified, abolition.
They did not win the war, therefore that is somehow to be held to mean they didn't offer the things they offered. LOL!
Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.
Back to Hitler. smh.
repeats snipped
Turnabout is fair play
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion <.p>
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] 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.
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 harrassing 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.
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-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
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.
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 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.
Now who is playing "Look over there"? I know the North is sending alot of RINOs to Washington, but we also did alot of RINO hunting this year. Besides, I'm not the one calling my region the cradle of Conservatism.
If you look at my numerous posts on the subject, I've said RINO's are enemy #1 and must be hunted to destruction - even at the cost of putting Democrats temporarily in some seats they otherwise would not win. We must purge the RINOs completely. And yes the South is the cradle of conservatism. Look at how the Southern states vote vs how the Northeast or even the Midwest votes. Its not close.
I made the point to someone who said the Southern states were coerced into ratifying the amendment. He disagreed and challenged me to debate him on it, but it wasn't a hill I considered worth fighting for, especially after a year spent with your appalling defense of the Confederacy loaded with half truths and cherry picked facts. If you want to defend the South on that point, take it up with him.,/P>
I have simply pointed out the truth that the Southern states did not secede nor did they fight over slavery. They chose to fight for the same reason people always choose to fight - money. That goes for the 94.63% of White Southerners who did not own slaves as well as some of very small percentage who did. They knew they would be much better off financially if they were independent. The Northern states knew that too which is why they fought to keep them in. People usually fight over money, not for moral crusades.
You didn't fix anything. This is just more of your cherry picking. This was the minority report, written by Democrats. The same party that founded the KKK.
It was true. Take away the military occupation, the widespread disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the voters, the massive corruption and theft of hearth and home from many and the terrorism of the Union League, there would have been no KKK. Notice, nobody is "defending" the KKK so don't even try to spin that crap. What I'm saying is if you're really nasty to people and you really oppress them, they will tend to fight back - often in ways that are extremely nasty in return.
repeats snipped
More of your twisted logic. The slaves could have escaped, but the North was wrong for offering them sanctuary.
No. While I of course agree with helping slaves escape morally, that does not mean the Southern states did not have a legitimate gripe. The Northern states agreed to return escaped slaves then they broke their word. No matter how much you or I sympathize morally the response is "if you thought it so immoral, why did you make the deal in the first place?" and "if you're not going to keep your end of the bargain we made, then we are out and we are not the ones who broke the deal - you are." The Southern states had a good argument here. Yes, even though I don't like slavery. You seem incapable of grasping that.
If some states get to decide what they agreed to in the past is immoral, do they get to break the law, repudiate their agreements, etc? The answer is of course, No. Otherwise every state gets to decide which laws and which parts of the constitution it cares to obey and which part it cares to ignore.
Of course, all of this is easy for you to say because you never lived as a slave on any of those planatations. Alot easier than it was for the slaves to escape. If you had to watch families including yours split as children were sold to other masters, you would be singing a different tune.
I do not and never have supported slavery. I also think it can be ended without violence and do not think deliberately murdering innocent children who did no harm to anybody in any way justified even if the murderers are people who are themselves victims of slavery.
Bad players in the North arranged the sales illegally, and it was the slave states who bought them and sold their children to other masters as if they were animals.,/P>
The Slave Trade was THE major trade in New England for quite a while. It wasn't just a few bad players. Most of New England society was engaged in or was profiting from the slave trade in some form or fashion. Even after it formally ended they were still servicing goods produced at least in part by slave labor if not getting direct raw material inputs made at least in part from slave labor - think of the extensive cotton mills for example. They were furthermore lavishing the money raised from tariffs on imports which was the return journey for those goods sent to Europe in order to pay for their infrastructure and to pay corporate subsidies to Northern businesses.
Not entirely true. The constant bombing of the German and Japanese homelands made it impossible for their citizens to support the war effort. At least that was the goal. Whether it had its intended effect is open to debate.
Not true, their citizens continued to support the war efforts and the studies done after the war showed that the bombings only hardened their resolve to keep fighting - just as it had done in the UK.
Just as it was the slave owners and not the slaves who are responsible for their own children getting killed.
Disagree. Lots of slaves escaped without murdering anybody, let alone innocent children. The escaped slaves themselves are responsible for their actions.
This just proves the point that Lincoln had to work with all viewpoints to get things done, and the Democrats were blocking him as late as 1864.
They weren't blocking him. He wasn't trying to abolish slavery until 1864. He had no desire to do so and was himself blocking some of the few radicals who wanted to abolish slavery.
This is a perfect example of your cherry picking. That was the minority report, in this case the Democrat report, the same party that founded the KKK, in opposition to the majority. The idea that the Democrats of that time had any credibility on that issue is beyond rediculous.
This isn't "cherry picking". This is reality. This is what actually happened. When you militarily occupy a region, disenfranchise the voters, steal hearth and home from a lot of people and allow thugs to commit terrorist acts against them, you can expect them to fight back - and they're probably going to be just as nasty in return. The Democrat party did not found the KKK. Also, it very likely did not represent the minority in the Southern states at the time. The minority was governing - backed by federal troops. The majority had been disenfranchised.
Why should slave owners be compensated for losing the right to commit human rights abuses. Would we compensate the buyers of traficked women today for the loss of their services? I know you're going to say 1865, but they would have had no problem seeing what was wrong with paying human traffickers to capture people for slavery it if happened to them or their own children. You didn't need to be born after 1990 to understand that.
Why should the sellers of slaves be allowed to keep their blood money? Ditto those who profiteered from slavery like ship builders, sailors, shipping companies, Warehousing and Distribution for same, Law Firms, Insurers, Banks, etc? How come the moral outrage seems to magically stop at the Mason-Dixon line when the culpability for slavery and the profiteering from slavery certainly didn't stop there?
No matter how much you or I may dislike it, slavery was legal at that time just like owning a car with an internal combustion engine is legal now. Maybe in the future people will be horrified by that but so be it. If you want people to give up their legal property, then they are owed fair market value in compensation. Other than Haiti in the 18th century, just about every other Western country figured that out and adopted a compensated emancipation scheme. The Northern political class was bitterly opposed to that.
Besides, the person he cited was among those who voted against abolishion period, not abolition unless the slave owners were compensated. My point stands. This Democrat, slavery defender was not a credible source on the KKK.
Of course he's a credible source on the KKK. He was from the region and lived at the time. He saw what was happening and why it was happening.
With the same amount of time to ratify the Corbomite maneuver as the five states that did ratify it, and with the issues of secession and a possible civil war pressing it, they never ratified it. Nothing else needs to be proven, and nothing else on this subject matters.
One repeat snipped.
So what? The citations prove that the sources they cited said what they quoted.
That's all it proves. That doesn't prove the authors didn't just make them up or what the full op-eds say.
Since you have either failed or were unwilling to provide the full op-eds so we can see the excerpts in their their full context rather than what your Confedracy Amen Corner™ approved sources shared with us, and since the entire op-eds I was able to find refuted the points you were trying to make, I will rightfully and correctly conclude that you are unable to substantiate your point with them.
The rest of your comments on this were literally begging me to accept your excerpts at face value. No I won't, and I won't waste FR bandwidth discussing them until you post full links to them.
One repeat snipped.
But then there's also this. We protest solemnly, in the face of mankind, that we desire peace at any sacrifice, save that of honor. In independence we seek no conquest,
I had to stop you there. Remember this?
"Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
This alone puts a lie to what JD said, but let's continue.
no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we have lately been confederated. All we ask is to be let alone--that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. 1, pp. 283-284; see also Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, p. 367)
JD also said that secession was a justifiable response to the election of abolitionists. Unlike you and your Confedracy Amen Corner™ approved sources, I'm willing to post a link to the entire speech, rather than just an excerpt.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
If you can't see how them pointing out that the Northern states violated the compact, that they violated their obligation to secure the border simply out of spite, that they supported domestic terrorism against Southern states, that they treated the Southern states as their cash cows, then I don't know what to tell you. You obviously completely lack reading comprehension skills.
No, you lack the capacity to understand that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right in any sense.
Lincoln said they were explicitly not fighting to end slavery. The Congress passed a resolution explicitly stating they were not fighting to end slavery. Indeed, they had slavery themselves. But you conclude they were fighting to put down slavery. Natch!
I have already refuted your comments on that resolution in my last post (among others), but it comes as no surprise you chose to ignore it and just repost your same comments. Here is it again.
"Also a resolution they repealed later that year after getting over their shock of losing at Bull Run and before they won any substantial victories, so that shows they were fighting to abolish slavery, which they did. Funny how you don't think any of that shows their real intentions."
We'll discuss Lincoln's comments (again) later.
No, I merely said that someone could both own slaves AND think that secession was not about slavery. As has been made abundantly clear, slavery was not threatened in the US.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.
Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...
The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
From Mississippi
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.
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 has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
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;
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
From Texas
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.
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 for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture...
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.
From South Carolina
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 "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.
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Four repeats snipped.
Godwin. Good lord, you argue from a kindergartner's perspective. Everybody you disagree with is equivalent to Nazi Germany....no matter how ridiculous the claim - typical Leftist tactic.
It comes as no surprise that you chose to hide behind Godwin rather than answer the point. I'll make it again.
The resistance movements in Nazi Germany were illegal too, while everything the Nazis did was legal. Making atrocities legal doesn't make them right.
nobody is defending slavery.
From your post later, "No. While I of course agree with helping slaves escape morally, that does not mean the Southern states did not have a legitimate gripe. The Northern states agreed to return escaped slaves then they broke their word. No matter how much you or I sympathize morally the response is "if you thought it so immoral, why did you make the deal in the first place?" and "if you're not going to keep your end of the bargain we made, then we are out and we are not the ones who broke the deal - you are." The Southern states had a good argument here. Yes, even though I don't like slavery. You seem incapable of grasping that."
You defended the legality if not the morality of slavery, and you can't even see anything wrong with that. To help you understand, Stalin and Hitler passed laws that made their crimes legal too. Would you agree if someone defended the legality of their actions?
The fact that you cited a Democrat opponent of abolition to defend the KKK also puts a lie to this.
Two repeats snipped.
Of course it would do exactly that - ie massively reduce tariffs on Southern trade. The Confederate Constitution had a maximum 10% tariff.
Tariff of the Confederate States of America Approved by Congress, May 21, 1861.
Actually the products produced at least in part by slave labor were not hit directly with the tariff. Those were exports. It was the manufactured goods that were purchased mostly in the UK for import into the US that were hit with the tariff.
So what? We should be doing that with communist made goods now, but thanks to the globalists your cradle of conservatism voted into the White House and Congress we're too addicted to cheap communist slave labor to do it.
One repeat snipped.
OK. Some editorials in Northern Newspapers especially early on did say let them go in peace. It was mostly the corporate fatcats who, through the newspapers they owned, then started shrieking about how much MONEY the Northern states stood to lose by no longer being able to economically exploit the Southern states. It is this which motivated the Lincoln administration to start a war to prevent secession.
Secession had already happened, and the Democrats fired the first shot.
That's beside the fact the Democrats participation in slavery was an act of war against those people in itself. Notice I said Democrats instead of the South, so you don't need to go crying to your mommy about how the North did it too.
Some indeed were. Many (free trators) were from the Northeast and the Midwest also.
I don't deny that. We have them at FR. But it was the representatives from your cradle of Conservatism that passed the free trade deals that sent our manufacturing, technology, and money to the communists. We can't even make our own computer chips now, thanks to the representatives you sent to Washington.
Additionally, the state representatives from Georgia didn't even try to force verification of the 2020 vote count, even though anyone who was watching that night (as I was) could see something wasn't right.
This is nothing but a leftist ploy to split Conservatives, and you're either a leftist who's trying to split Conservatives and tie modern Conservatives to the Democrat run Confederacy, or a useful idiot doing their work for them.
Two repeats snipped.
We are talking about the importation of slaves here. That is what was referred to as the slave trade in the US Constitution. That is what was given a 20 year grandfather clause which expired officially in 1810.
You might be trying to limit the debate to exclude the Confederacy, but I'm not. Slave owners would sell of offspring of their slaves as animals, with no regard for the families they were breaking up. The Democrats fought to preserve this in the South and voted against ending it in the North. Nothing repeat nothing you've posted refutes that.
and I'm OK with the Southern states seceding to look out for their own economic interests in response.
Then you must also be OK with this.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
These were the economic interests they seceded over.
LOL! None of the Founding Fathers expressed any desire for abolition.
Now you try to stay on point. I never said they did. My point was if they had said it.
They didn't build a framework that led to the abolition of slavery. That's ridiculous whitewashing. They were all long dead when slavery was abolished some 76 years after the Constitution was ratified.
That framework allowed us to replace Democrats with Republicans from a party founded less than a decade earlier who would ultimately abolish slavery.
Its not that they tried and were blocked by Democrats as you are trying to portray it. Its that they did not try. They did not support it until very late in the war.
They didn't have enough votes to make a serious attempt until 1864, and they were blocked by the Democrats. You defend the Democrats for not abolishing slavery because they didn't have the time, and then you gloss over the fact that the Republicans managed to get enough representatives elected to abolish slavery less than a decade after they were formed.
Yes, we've been over it. And there is zero evidence to support a claim that Republicans favored abolition prior to very late in the war.
I'm not going to waste FR bandwidth playing your game. Here are the links to that discussion again.
“There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them.” Abraham Lincoln
As usual, you cherry pick what you think proves your point. Lincoln started off this speech with "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." This was the audience he was speaking to. As I have pointed out, Lincoln had to deal with a nation that was split into different camps on this issue, and he had to work with all of them. As Frederick Douglas, himself an escaped slave and abolitionist, said, "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
"“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln
Once again you cherry pick what you think proves your point, and ignore the overall context of the situation. Below is a link to the speech, including the audience's reaction.
Abraham Lincoln, First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858 (excerpt)
One reading of this and anyone can see he would have been booed off the stage if he had spoken out for complete abolition in front of this audience. This is what he and the Republicans had to work with, as Frederick Douglas pointed out. Only a few years later, there were enough Republicans to pass the 13th Amendment.
One repeat snipped.
I am crushed. YOU don't believe me. Whatever shall I do?
I take back what I said about you not being any fun.
The Republicans did so to try to give the bloodbath they started over money and empire some veneer of respectability and to pretend they had some noble purpose. They had to tell the voters in the Northern states something after getting so many of their men killed and mangled fighting a war of aggression for money.
What a stupid reply. I suppose the escaped slaves who joined the Union's military weren't fighting to free slaves. Or the black soldiers in the North. Or the over 100,000 fighting age white men who left the South to join the Union's cause.
Some of that horrible treatment Native Americans got was indeed done with the support of Southerners. You can't lay this one at the feet of Southerners though - not even in part. This was all Northerners who did this. The same goes for the wars of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians. The South was politically powerless after having been subjected to military occupation and widespread voter disenfranchisement when that happened. That's all on the North....The CSA did indeed fight against union leaning Indians just as the Union fought against confederate leaning Indians. The point remains that the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Santee Sioux and Winnebago was done entirely by the union and given how politically powerless the Southern states were after the war, the Northern states bear the overwhelming responsibility of the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians.
Another stupid reply. I can lay it at the feet of the South. They occupied land that had also been taken from the natives, so the idea they had nothing to do with it in itself is beyond ludicrous. I also find it absolutely amusing that you say the South couldn't just free their slaves after only four years, but they never would have expanded if they had more than four years, when both their Constitution and their actions prove they would have. You can't keep anything straight.
The Civilized Tribes was obviously in reference to the 5 civilized tribes genius...My point about your massive historical ignorance stands. The vast vast majority of the Indians in Oklahoma were members of one of the "5 Civilized Tribes".
No, you said "civilized tribes", not "5 civilized tribes". You can't just hide behind "5 civilized tribes" after getting called out on it. The question stands. If the "civilized" tribes joined the Confederacy, then what does that make the tribes that didn't in your eyes?
The Union could have chosen to abolish slavery if they wanted to. Instead they chose to preserve it.
They abolished it, as soon as they replaced enough Democrats with Republicans. That process had been going on since 1858, which is why the slave holding states seceded.
Second, irrelevant repeat snipped
"Irrelevant" is leftist speak for "I can't refute your point so I'm calling it "irrelevant"." Tough, because what the Democrats put in their shiny new constitution is indeed relevant, so I'll post it again.
"Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
Hell, Little Bighorn happened when the Southern states were still under military occupation.
So what?
They did not win the war, therefore that is somehow to be held to mean they didn't offer the things they offered. LOL!
The fact that they even offered to free the slaves only proves the knew they were in the wrong. It doesn't prove anything about whether they would have done it. Of course your whole case is built on policies that were never ratified while ignoring the one policy that was ratified.
Back to Hitler. smh.
I didn't say anything about Hitler. I was asking about the troops who gave their lives fighting to defeat him.
I'll repeat again. Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.
Turnabout is fair play
So was slavery, according to the Democrats who ran the Confederacy.
No. While I of course agree with helping slaves escape morally, that does not mean the Southern states did not have a legitimate gripe. The Northern states agreed to return escaped slaves then they broke their word. No matter how much you or I sympathize morally the response is "if you thought it so immoral, why did you make the deal in the first place?" and "if you're not going to keep your end of the bargain we made, then we are out and we are not the ones who broke the deal - you are."
You keep making this about the North and the South. Yes the North agreed to this, decades before the time period we're discussing, and decades before the Republican party was even formed. Nine years after the Republicans were formed, they abolished slavery everywhere in the US.
If some states get to decide what they agreed to in the past is immoral, do they get to break the law, repudiate their agreements, etc? The answer is of course, No. Otherwise every state gets to decide which laws and which parts of the constitution it cares to obey and which part it cares to ignore.
Absolute nonsense. The Democrats could see the writing on the wall and responded by doing everything they could to preserve slavery, even in the North. It wasn't until the Republicans had enough votes to pass the 13th Amendment that slavery could finally be abolished.
I do not and never have supported slavery.
Good. That means you're not a free traitor.
I also think it can be ended without violence and do not think deliberately murdering innocent children who did no harm to anybody in any way justified even if the murderers are people who are themselves victims of slavery.
You also never lived as a slave on a Southern plantation and watched as your children were sold to other masters.
The Slave Trade was THE major trade in New England for quite a while.
It was abolished long before the period we're discussing.
Not true, their citizens continued to support the war efforts...
How, when their means of supporting the war were disrupted by the destruction of their factories?
and the studies done after the war showed that the bombings only hardened their resolve to keep fighting - just as it had done in the UK.
Did you actually read my full reply, where I pointed out both viewpoints? I'll post it again.
Not entirely true. The constant bombing of the German and Japanese homelands made it impossible for their citizens to support the war effort. At least that was the goal. Whether it had its intended effect is open to debate. According to some Germans after the war, it was the USAF's precision bombing of their industry that had the most effect.
And nothing you said answers my point that it was the Germans and Japanese, not the Allies, who were at fault for starting wars of conquest and forcing the Allies to destroy them to protect themselves, just as it was the slave owners and not the slaves who are responsible for their own children getting killed. You just waste more bandwidth dragging out a discussion that could have ended months ago.
Disagree. Lots of slaves escaped without murdering anybody, let alone innocent children. The escaped slaves themselves are responsible for their actions.
You can disagree all you want. If you try to enslave someone against their will, don't be surprised when your family members are killed as a consequence.
This isn't "cherry picking". This is reality. This is what actually happened. When you militarily occupy a region, disenfranchise the voters, steal hearth and home from a lot of people and allow thugs to commit terrorist acts against them, you can expect them to fight back - and they're probably going to be just as nasty in return. The Democrat party did not found the KKK. Also, it very likely did not represent the minority in the Southern states at the time. The minority was governing - backed by federal troops. The majority had been disenfranchised.
Do you mean like Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey? Can't we also expect them to fight back? Or do you only grant that right to former slave owners?
The Democrat party did not found the KKK.
Fair enough. Maybe the party didn't, but Democrats did.
Also, it very likely did not represent the minority in the Southern states at the time. The minority was governing - backed by federal troops. The majority had been disenfranchised.
The person who drafted the report on the KKK that he and you cited, Congressman Fernando Wood, was a Democrat from New York. This was a minority report.
Why should the sellers of slaves be allowed to keep their blood money? Ditto those who profiteered from slavery like ship builders, sailors, shipping companies, Warehousing and Distribution for same, Law Firms, Insurers, Banks, etc? How come the moral outrage seems to magically stop at the Mason-Dixon line when the culpability for slavery and the profiteering from slavery certainly didn't stop there?
Good points. I never said they should. I would extend that to the companies that use communist slave labor today.
No matter how much you or I may dislike it, slavery was legal at that time just like owning a car with an internal combustion engine is legal now. Maybe in the future people will be horrified by that but so be it. If you want people to give up their legal property, then they are owed fair market value in compensation. Other than Haiti in the 18th century, just about every other Western country figured that out and adopted a compensated emancipation scheme. The Northern political class was bitterly opposed to that.
And "the Northern political class" were right. The idea that people who paid others to capture humans as animals for slave labor are owed something for losing their services is beyond appalling.
Of course he's a credible source on the KKK. He was from the region and lived at the time.
None of that obligates us to believe he, as a Democrat who opposed abolition, was telling the truth about the KKK. You can beg me to take his word for it all you want, but he was a Democrat who opposed abolition repeat a Democrat who opposed abolition.
He saw what was happening and why it was happening.
So did Fredrick Douglas, but unlike your KKK defending, abolition opposing friend, he was an unbiased, credible source.
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.