Posted on 04/12/2022 2:53:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
It was in this month, one hundred and fifty-seven years ago, that the Civil War ended. I have seen afficionados of both sides lament what happened, while they might argue over who was right, and what was lost.
I am not an aficionado of the Lost Cause Theory. While some defenders of Dixie claim the issue was states’ rights, the chief underlying cause of the war was slavery. In his "Cornerstone Speech" of March 21, 1861, Confederate VP Alexander H. Stephens' stated bluntly that slavery was the very foundation of Southern society. Four states: Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, even listed slavery among their reasons for leaving.
Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes"…
Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights. -- Battlefields.org
The usual reply is that the South rejected the proposed Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the south, hence the issue was states’ rights.
The problem with that argument is that the South did not want slavery to be “protected.” Rather, the South wanted slavery to expand to the Pacific. They wanted New Mexico, Arizona, and even Southern California to allow slavery. In their minds, the Corwin Amendment wasn’t enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This claim is like being a "little bit pregnant."
You either are or you are not.
The Corwin Amendment protected slavery to just as great of an extent as the Confederate (and the US Constitution) did.
There is no half measure when it comes to keeping slavery legal, and the Great Liars of the North would have us believe that all their representatives voted to make slavery permanently legal, but later fought a war to end slavery.
Of course it did.
When all the representatives of all the Northern states supposedly complaining about slavery voted to pass the Corwin Amendment, it is foolish to argue that ending slavery played any role in why Northern armies invaded the South.
Northern Armies invaded the South to protect the money streams flowing into powerful Northern pockets and the corrupt Washington DC government.
And then they claimed they did it for reasons of morality, instead of the truth, which was that they did it for reasons of greed.
All of this is because the corrupt Northern power elites who still control Washington DC government today are still trying to justify the horrible evil thing they did in 1861.
All the broadcasting powers and publishing powers are under their control, and just like they are trying to make January 6th into an "insurrection" and a "rebellion", so too do they continue to repeat lies about the causes of the Civil War and their greedy role in it.
There are still constant mocking, ridiculing and condemning of the South because they still need to feel the need to justify the horrible things they did to remained in power all these years.
It will never stop until these corrupt elites are thrown out of power and are therefore unable to censor and suppress the truth.
Funny thing is that all of those (excepting LBJ) were the darlings of the Liberal Northeast. Wilson was president of Princeton. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.
Yes, the liberals dearly loved their idiot/corrupt Democrat presidents, even those from the South.
And for what it's worth, FDR and JFK did far more damage than any of the others you mentioned.
Comes now Union President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address to a candid world:
“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.’
“It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution — to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, “shall be delivered,” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
“There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?”
Miss Dawg, you say slavery is never mentioned in the United States Constitution. What then, was Abraham Lincoln talking about?
The Second American Revolution was about slavery in the same way the First American Revolution was about tea.
Touché
And the Third American Revolution will be about Racism and Gender Policies.
Very misleading statement verging on a lie.
Slavery is mentioned twice in the US Constitution through the usage of euphemisms, and you know this.
Article IV, section 2 is entirely about slavery and the authorization to Congress to pass a law in 1808 to end the slave trade is also about slavery.
According to my g-grandfather, some of ours fought for the North. I have a picture of the grave site of one that was a Union officer. The ancestors that fought for the South only did so because Union armies attacked them. He said that they were dirt poor and all they had were their farms. After the Union armies attacked them, burned their crops, stole their livestock, and tried to starve them, they decided to fight. If it had been the Confederate army attacking them, they would have fought for the Union. With them, it was only about surviving and self-defense. They were not going to sit back and let all they had be destroyed.
My g-grandfather was born in 1865 and grew up in the years after the war. He died in 1962 when I was in grade school. He told me stories about growing up on the farm after the war and working side-by-side with free black sharecroppers. He said they were all poor. They were all hated. He said that if they and the black sharecroppers hadn’t teamed up, they would have all starved.
There were a lot of reasons that our ancestors fought for the side they fought for, including the reasons yours did. Most didn’t fight to preserve slavery. Slavery was the rich person’s game.
I will take his word any day over today’s revised history.
I am a Southerner, but I do think African slavery was indeed a sin.
I am a Southerner , by choice, and agree with your thoughts and sentiments.
And these people are still our enemies today. The Salem Witch Hunters have an evil mindset of imposing their "morality" on others, and they should be fought and destroyed at every opportunity.
It is these nasty evil people who have the upper hand right now, and we need to find ways to bite off their hands. These people are evil and they need to be treated as though they are evil.
You can take the boy out of Northeastern Liberal elite territory, but you can't take the Northeastern Liberal elite out of the boy.
The Bush's are backstabbing liars, and that's how we know they still have that Northeastern "elite" in them.
Interesting and true, to my mind.
When i went to school in Georgia (UGa), our patronizing and liberal landlady, Mrs. Traylor, used to say, if you love the post office, you’ll love Jimmy Carter’s health plan.
Our own founding document declares secession to be a right.
Excellent comment, speaking as a pro-life northern Catholic, embarrassed by the pro-aborts in the northern states.
Originally it was double. Then it went to triple and stayed there until the 19-teens.
There was corruption and coercion. The secret ballot was not introduced until years, or decades, later. It's hard to say whether a majority in Georgia actually wanted secession. At least one state pledged to have a referendum but didn't hold it. Other states had no referendums. Several state convention rejected secession and then in a heated atmosphere of conflict accepted it. Why should one vote count and the other not?
There is no evidence of corruption and coercion. The vote was held in the same manner as in other elections and/or the conventions that ratified the constitution in the first place. The states that rejected secession voted to secede after Lincoln chose to start a war to prevent other states from leaving and ordered states in the union to provide troops to attack them....thus converting the union from one based on consent to one based on force and threats.
That would be theft of bought and paid for federal property. Guantanamo didn't become Castro's just because he wanted it.
No it would not any more than any other property claimed by a state government under its eminent domain power is theft. Fair market value is owed for that property but a state or any sovereign can compel the sale. Cuba was never part of the US. There is a treaty between Cuba and the US which leases Gitmo to the US. Bad analogy.
Lincoln did propose compensate emancipation. It was rejected.
Lincoln proposed compensated emancipation only after he had started the war and he did not propose fair market value.
Everybody knew it wasn't what the political class of the South wanted or would accept.
They wouldn't accept it even though they offered to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery in exchange for British/French military aid? Even though they turned down slavery effectively forever via express constitutional amendment? It seems as though slavery and the preservation of it was not their primary motivation.
They wanted to impose slavery on the territories (and some wanted to impose it on the free states).
As I've already gone over, they needed Senators who would vote with them to prevent things like the rapacious Morrill Tariff so long as they were in the US. They made scant effort to spread slavery to the Western territory and were perfectly willing to leave without claiming any of the western territory. So much for the idea that they had any zeal to spread slavery. Their main concern was obviously protecting themselves against Northern predations. The whole idea of imposing slavery on the Northern states is laughable.
Culturally or intellectually maybe, but the South dominated the antebellum federal governments. 1860 marked the moment when the growing industrial and agricultural strength of the Midatlantic and Midwestern states came to be felt in spite of the established power of the Southern Democrats. It was not about New England however much propagandists want to make it out to be.
The South HAD dominated the federal government in the early years of the Republic. It was by far the wealthiest region then. It certainly had not dominated the federal government for at least a generation before secession. Indeed it had been fighting a desperate rearguard action to prevent the Northern states from re-imposing crushingly high tariffs like the Tariff of Abominations which had proven so harmful to the South. Propagandists are those trying to claim New England was not driving things in the Federal government. Look at who the big corporate fatcats were. Look who benefitted from high protective tariffs.
I have no desire to pursue this further with you. I remember getting your long, pointless cut and paste screeds at all hours and have no desire to go through that again.
Yes, I remember you trying to spew propaganda in these threads before and how much you disliked anybody pointing out the actual history.
Eventually those words are true or they are lies.
When they were written, they were not intended to be seen as a statement about slavery. No thought was given to those words applying to slaves, those words were meant as applying to the British Subjects in the colonies and no one else.
It is a later day deliberate misdirection for people to apply those words to slavery. All the representatives of the 13 slave owning states signed that document, and none of them saw those words as applying to slaves.
Nowadays it seems that most people think those are the only words in the Declaration of independence, and in truth, they are the least significant thing it says.
What is the Declaration of Independence? It is the assertion of a right to *INDEPENDENCE*. What it is *NOT* is a commentary on the issue of slavery. As i've pointed out, that was a later day invention.
The Declaration puts forth a *RIGHT TO INDEPENDENCE*. That is all it does.
In simple terms, it sides with the South's right to secede from a government it saw as corrupt and tyrannical.
I know what you mean. Baptists aren’t perfect either. They did vote for Carter. That shows you they aren’t as smart as they think they are.
Personally, I love the Catholic church. I don’t agree on everything they teach but I have issues with some Baptist teachings also.
To me, a Catholic church is one of the most peaceful and beautiful churches I have ever been in.
My dad was born in the South and my mom was born in the North. As a child, I was allowed to attend church with friends. I grew up in S. Florida and there were a lot of Catholics down there. No so many in Tennessee. Anyway, I attended Mass a lot. I loved it!
Funny, because that is exactly what they did do with the British Union.
They declared a right to independence and they left.
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.