Posted on 02/27/2018 1:09:19 PM PST by think4yrsf
Curious that.
So, are you saying that ol jeff davis didn't really mean his words when he spoke them:
It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision (to secede). She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.?When Davis mentions "domestic institutions" he is of course referring to slavery. When he says that his state made the decision to secede based on the threat to those "institutions," why shouldn't I believe him?
Alexander Stephens, the man who would become davis's vice president, noted in March 1861 that "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." He further intoned that the Confederacy had as its cornerstone "the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."And this:
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.When Stephens says the slavery was the cause of the Confederacy's present revolution, why shouldn't I believe him?
In its secession declaration, the state of Mississippi explained why it left the Union: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world."When the state of Mississippi says they the seceded over the issue of slavery, why shouldn't I believe them?
The state of Texas put it this way in its secession declaration:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable…? That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.When the state of Texas says they the seceded to counter the threat posed by their pro-slavery sectional enemies, should I believe that it was "fake news"?
"We went to war on account of the thing. we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery. Men fight from sentiment. After the fight is over they invent some fanciful theory on which they imagine that they fought." - Confederate Col. John S. MosbyFake News?
On Dec 11, 1860, when Representative Thomas S. Hindman, of Arkansas, proposed his amendment, he acknowledged he was doing so in the hopes of "settling the agitation of the slavery question on a just and fair basis." Three months later, Arkansas's governor, Henry M. Rector, opened his state's secession convention by emphatically stating, "The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South. Rector however, believed that the U.S. Constitution did not need amending, it only needed to be enforced. "The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North," he lectured, "not mere paper agreements and compromises." To reiterate the problem facing the nation, he concluded, "They believe slavery a sin, we do not, there lies the trouble."?Fake News?
SIR: In obedience to your instructions I repaired to the seat of government of the State of Louisiana to confer with the Governor of that State and with the legislative department on the grave and important state of our political relations with the Federal Government, and the duty of the slave-holding States in the matter of their rights and honor, so menacingly involved in matters connected with the institution of African slavery. --Report from John Winston, Alabama's Secession Commissioner to LouisianaFake News?
This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last. -- Speech of Fulton Anderson to the Virginia ConventionFake News?
Gentlemen, I see before me men who have observed all the records of human life, and many, perhaps, who have been chief actors in many of its gravest scenes, and I ask such men if in all their lore of human society they can offer an example like this? South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle? Gentlemen, I have thus very rapidly endeavored to group before you the causes which have produced the action of the people of South Carolina. -- Speech of John Preston to the Virginia Convention.Fakery at its finest?
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia ConventionMore Fake News?
Their very words stand testament to their true sentiments.
“More Fake News?”
When you cherry-pick and misinterpret with egregious abandon, yes. That’s exactly what it is.
But I’m not going to waste any more time and energy on this. One day you will look back on your obstreperous wrong-headedness and shudder with embarrassment. Till then, I don’t need any more recitations of this manufactured crap.
“Till then, I don’t need any more recitations of this manufactured crap.” - translation: “Run away!”
“translation: “Run away!””
Yes, I’m going to run away before the stupid gets all over my clothes.
If you would just wipe up your excess drool that wouldn’t be a problem ;’}
Sorry, I won’t regress to an elementary school level with you.
Dude, you went there with your leftard crap. You own it!
Sorry, I won’t regress to an elementary school level with you.
Maybe you'd learn percentages if you did.
“Dude, you went there with your leftard crap.”
Go back to DU.
“Maybe you’d learn percentages if you did.”
And dishonesty to top it all. Great combo.
I’m not afraid of your name calling, or percentages.
His bark is even more pathetic than his bite.
He’s lacks class. He’s the one who belongs on DU.
Redneck has a point....the great push for emancipation and support for the “escape” systems such as the underground railroad came in large part from churches and religious minded folk...not from idealistic atheists!
The atheists( and lip service Christian money powers) who opposed the south’s bid for freedom were the money’ed interests of NYC and Boston who feared loss of revenue from the South (which had sought, even before the war, more direct markets for their goods overseas, bypassing the ports and manufacturing centers of the North!).
As what happens in much of history when money,politics, and religion find themselves in a threesome lock step waltz, there was a devil to pay...in this case a national Civil War!
Of course it was religious types who helped abolish slavery! My point is simply that you cannot communicate with that person. He will start spamming you with more and more obscure posts that devolve into...nothing. He has his own religion which seems not to have any connection to any mainstream organization I can figure out.
I have asked him over and over to quit posting to me.
Alexis de Toqueville would have disagreed with you. Who is the “they” you are referring to?
Are you even aware of Washington’s warning regarding factions and the “Man on Horseback”...on how he viewed “Religion and Morality as being the Twin Props upon which our freedoms rested”? You need to study a little more...I don’t think you are ready for prime time!
Well I won’t spam you...I do feel a sense of despair that it is rare in history that conflicts rarely are fought by diametric opposites where one can clearly see a right side or wrong side to the fight. Rather it seems the case that with most conflicts, while there may be an eventual victor, all who shared or took part in the conflict are tainted with a sense of guilt and evil. Most wars pit groups of sinful men against one another and there are often public pious appeals for prayer that God might smile upon their particular nation’s fight; appeals I might add, made by kings and politicians whose personal lives smoke with the stench of Hades!
Minor points, the events of the Civil War and it’s ending led to ratification of the 13th amendment which led to slavery’s end in all states....even it was 6 months after the war. Lincoln of course wasn’t around to see the amendment ratified by the Union as he had been assassinated.
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.