GOP candidate: Civil war wasn’t about slavery

The Hill ^ | June 25th, 2018 | Lisa Hagen

[gandalftb]

ping

BTW, the Constitution was defective, ignoring the issues of secession and slavery.

There is no such thing as states rights, there are only personal rights, that’s all. There are powers given to the states and to the federal government.

Slaves were legally property, and slave owners legally had a property right claim. I agree with Jefferson Davis on only that point, that the issue was property rights.

But passionate political pursuits, right or wrong, are irrelevant when the shooting starts.

[BroJoeK]

FLR-bird: "Davis acknowledged as early as 1861 that slavery was going to end …"

x: "Show where."

Clearly Jefferson Davis expected slavery to end the same day as hell freezes over:

FLR-bird: "and had been urging the Confederate Congress to empower an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty which would end slavery for a while before they did so in 1864."

x: "Documentation? Citation? Referenc"

FLT-bird has posted that piece of nonsense before (~4/28/18) and seen it exposed, here but now is back to it.
The events he refers to happened not of 1864 but of 1865, in the very last dying gasps of the Confederacy Davis sent Duncan F. Kenner to France & Britain offering abolition in exchange for recognition.
The French told Davis' emissary: sure, if the Brits go along.
It is now almost spring of 1865 when Kenner & others reach Britain and the Brits tell them: go to hell, go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200, you boys are finished, hang it up.
In the mean time, RE Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House.

FLR-bird: "[Lincoln] even offered strengthened fugitive slave laws."

Lincoln "offered" nothing, but did forward the proposed Davis/Corwin Amendment to the states, as required by the Constitution.

FLR-bird: "The original 7 seceding states turned down his offer because slavery was simply not their primary concern."

There was no "offer" and nothing was "turned down".
The proposed Corwin amendment originated with Jefferson Davis in December 1860 as his attempt at "compromise".
It failed and by the time Lincoln was inaugurated, the question of Corwin involved only thoser Northern Union states which did not secede.

FLR-bird: "Had the British kept a fortress in the middle of New York harbor and sent a heavily armed fleet to reinforce it, Washington would have fired upon it."

In fact British forces remained in New York for more than three months after their own superiors ordered them to evacuate it in August 1783.
George Washington was patient and waited until the Brits and their flags had been removed before marching into New York, seven years after first retreating from it in 1776.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Oh, FYI, the Brits did not evacuate those forts until after the war of 1812.
That was part of the peace treaty so no, it was not resolved peacefully.
It took another war before it was resolved."

That's a misunderstanding, but I've posted the same thing myself in years past, not understanding what really happened.
In fact the Brits did evacuate all their forts and trading posts in the US Northwest Territories as a result of the 1796 Jay Treaty -- 15 years after their surrender at Yorktown in 1781 and 12 years after they promised to in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
But after Congress declared war on Britain in 1812, British forces reoccupied some forts they had earlier abandoned, and those then took the 1814 Treaty of Ghent to move the Brits out.

Here is a listing of British & other forts & posts in Ohio.

Here is a listing of British & other forts & posts in Michigan.

map of British forts.

[HandyDandy]

According to some around here, “Slavery” was enshrined in the Constitution.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Nobody would have tolerated another country holding a fortress in the middle of one of their biggest harbors."

Just so we're clear on this point: Charleston then as now was far from the South's biggest harbor.
Overall Charleston's 40,000 population ranked 22 among US cities in 1860.

Among Southern cities:

1. Baltimore was 5 times bigger than Charleston.
2. New Orleans and St. Louis were both 4 times bigger.
3. Louisville was almost twice Charleston's size.
4. Richmond & Mobile were both about the same size as Charleston.
5. Other Southern cities from Norfolk to Wilmington to Savanah, Mobile & New Orleans were all connected into the Southern railroad grid and could serve just as well as Charleston to handle Southern shipping needs.

So the idea constantly promoted by DiogenesLamp & others that Charleston was somehow unique & special is just fantasy except, of course, in the minds of Charlestonians.
They can certainly be forgiven for promoting their own city, but nobody else need buy it.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Those that know of a pending attack have a duty to say something, which did happen in post #534: 'Right now Brother Joe is preparing a Castro-strength smoke barrage that will obscure this debate space for days.' "

Your post here amounts to nothing more than graffiti, a sad long fall for someone who used to dazzle us on the prod to chivvy your mess & gom into a tally book.
I wondered what you'd do for a follow-up, and now we know: graffiti.

[FLT-bird]

So the idea constantly promoted by DiogenesLamp & others that Charleston was somehow unique & special is just fantasy except, of course, in the minds of Charlestonians.
They can certainly be forgiven for promoting their own city, but nobody else need buy it.

Look at the value of the goods flowing out of Charleston. Only New Orleans was more important in terms of ports in the original 7 seceding states.

[FLT-bird]

FLT-bird has posted that piece of nonsense before (~4/28/18) and seen it exposed, here but now is back to it.
The events he refers to happened not of 1864 but of 1865, in the very last dying gasps of the Confederacy Davis sent Duncan F. Kenner to France & Britain offering abolition in exchange for recognition.
The French told Davis’ emissary: sure, if the Brits go along.
It is now almost spring of 1865 when Kenner & others reach Britain and the Brits tell them: go to hell, go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200, you boys are finished, hang it up.
In the mean time, RE Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House.

No I posted it before and provided the source and you’ve never been able to refute it.

---

Lincoln “offered” nothing, but did forward the proposed Davis/Corwin Amendment to the states, as required by the Constitution.

Lincoln by his own words offered strengthened fugitive slave laws and of course as we all know, masterminded the Corwin Amendment which he endorsed in his Inaugural Address. I’ve referred you to the Kearns-Goodwin book before.

---

There was no “offer” and nothing was “turned down”.
The proposed Corwin amendment originated with Jefferson Davis in December 1860 as his attempt at “compromise”.
It failed and by the time Lincoln was inaugurated, the question of Corwin involved only thoser Northern Union states which did not secede.

This is false. They were offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. They turned it down. The Corwin Amendment was Lincoln’s idea. It did not “fail” as you claim. The Original 7 seceding states simply refused to come back even when offered this blandishment.

---

[HandyDandy]

FLT-bird, you are a, not to be trusted, scoundrel. When you present the following as the words of Abraham Lincoln (and then double-down on it!)

“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 trhe existing institution. 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

What you are butchering is the following excerpt from the Peoria Speech (a speech of 17,000 words that took three hours to deliver):

“Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, 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 how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,---to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world 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 betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? 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 white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.” A. Lincoln

FTL-bird, can you discern the differences?

[FLT-bird]

FLT-bird, you are a, not to be trusted, scoundrel. When you present the following as the words of Abraham Lincoln (and then double-down on it!)

Oh give me an effing break. I gave an excerpt rather than the entire speech. In it he said he was willing to support fugitive slave legislation. That was the point that was being argued about. People did not need an extended text of the whole speech to see that.

Get a clue.

[BroJoeK]

gandalftb: "How does owning other people morph?
They are either owned property or they are not."

You most likely understand that there are many different forms of "slavery" including metaphorical slavery, i.e., the Bible says we are "slaves to sin".
Many today are "slaves" to drugs or alcohol, others said to be slaves to their work, etc.
This article lists several types of slavery all of which are illegal today but still practiced where laws are not strongly enforced.

So here's my point: there's a long distance between 1860 chattel slavery and full voting citizenship, as illustrated by the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments.
Those produced the Southern reaction after 1876 when Union troops were withdrawn which effectively negated results the amendments intended.

gandalftb: "Please offer your ideas on what “slightly less obnoxious” means, gandalftb said, grinning ear to ear."

No humor in it that I can see -- Jim Crow, black codes, segregation, KKK-type enforcement all "slightly less obnoxious" than slavery itself.
You disagree?
You find them funny?

gandalftb: "Abolition was a minority view in most of the North where there was a widespread white supremacy notion."

No, rather abolition was the 100% majority view in the North, for their own states.
No Northerner wanted to return slavery to their own states.
But as for Southern states -- most Northerners, especially Democrats, believed in laissez faire, let Southerners do what they wished.
Yes, many Northerners, especially Republicans thought slavery a blight on the country which should be restricted as much as possible, but they were still the minority before 1860.

gandalftb: "There were in fact 67 Constitutional amendments offered, only Corwin was passed and ratified by 5 states."

Including one similar by Senator Jefferson Davis in December 1860, which is why we should call it the Davis/Corwin amendment.
Davis thought it would help hold Deep South states in the Union, but turns out he was wrong about that.

gandalftb: "He poses that the South’s primary concerns were: the expansion of slavery into the western territories and the return of fugitive slaves."

Sounds about right.

gandalftb: "In SC, 43% owned 57% to be precise.
My point was that any society changing that 57% to 0% will see war."

I stand corrected, had not before noticed that South Carolina and Mississippi's slave population outnumbered their free population.
As for abolition without war, maybe, seems to me that some central & south American countries also had huge slave populations.
Not known how many of those achieved abolition without civil war.
My guess is that after the US Civil War many such countries decided keeping slavery was not worth the bloodshed it might bring.

gandalftb: "???.” What do you call the many slave rebellions? Imagineering?
It would have gotten much worse, there were many John Browns getting started, ready to arm the slaves."

The last serious slave revolt was Nat Turner in 1831.
John Brown was a Northerner, there was no equivalent Southerner, and Brown's raid totally failed to rouse slaves to rebellion.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Look at the value of the goods flowing out of Charleston.
Only New Orleans was more important in terms of ports in the original 7 seceding states."

The Deep South's number one export, by far, maybe 10 to one, was cotton and South Carolina grew relatively little cotton.
So there's no reason to think Charleston shipping was any more important than any other Southern port:

Based on Confederate railroads & cotton, I count a dozen Southern coastal cities that could have done the job Charleston wanted all for itself.

[HandyDandy]

Ok, try this out: you are a lying sack of sh*t. Still now you are lying. You did not quote an excerpt. What you posted was a mashed and mangled “excerpt”. And you put Lincoln’s name to it. Read it again, for the first time. Misquoting Lincoln doesn’t win points around here (quite the opposite).

[FLT-bird]

Ok, try this out: you are a lying sack of sh*t. Still now you are lying. You did not quote an excerpt. What you posted was a mashed and mangled “excerpt”. And you put Lincoln’s name to it. Read it again, for the first time. Misquoting Lincoln doesn’t win points around here (quite the opposite).

No, it is YOU who is the lying sack of sh*t. I ACCURATELY QUOTED what he himself said. You are simply LYING to say otherwise. He said he supported fugitive slave legislation. That was his position. He never changed it. Lie about it all you like that will never change it. Anybody who bothers to read can see that for himself.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "No I posted it before and provided the source and you’ve never been able to refute it."

I doubt if you provided the sources, but they can be looked up easily enough, regarding: Davis sent Duncan F. Kenner to France & Britain offering abolition in exchange for recognition.
Yes, the idea was first presented by Kenner to Davis in 1864, but Davis refused thinking victory still possible.
Only when defeat became obvious to all at the very end in 1864 did Davis ask Kenner to visit France & Britain, and it was 1865 before Kenner got there.
Even then Kenner's was a secret mission with no notice given the Confederate congress or press and not revealed to the public until 30+ years later!

[FLT-bird]

The Deep South’s number one export, by far, maybe 10 to one, was cotton and South Carolina grew relatively little cotton.
So there’s no reason to think Charleston shipping was any more important than any other Southern port:

“Charleston was the leading city in the South from the colonial era to the Civil War. The city grew wealthy through the export of rice and, later, sea island cotton and it was the base for many wealthy merchants and landowners.”

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199730414/obo-9780199730414-0193.xml

---

[FLT-bird]

I doubt if you provided the sources, but they can be looked up easily enough, regarding: Davis sent Duncan F. Kenner to France & Britain offering abolition in exchange for recognition.

I provided the sources.

---

Yes, the idea was first presented by Kenner to Davis in 1864, but Davis refused thinking victory still possible.
Only when defeat became obvious to all at the very end in 1864 did Davis ask Kenner to visit France & Britain, and it was 1865 before Kenner got there.

Davis supported it fairly early. It was gaining the support needed in the Confederate Congress that was the delay - not Davis. Yes Davis asked Kenner to go in 1864 but due to the blockade his passage was delayed.

[HandyDandy]

You most certainly did not “accurately quote” what Lincoln said. I did accurately quote what Lincoln said. Obviously you can not discern the difference. What, pray tell is the source for your sliced and diced and clipped quote?

You say Lincoln never changed his opinion on it? Do you know the reason for that? Are you familiar with Roger Taney and the Dred Scott Decision? That pretty much blew the Fugitive Slave Law out of the water. It was a very fluid situation. Some get it some don’t.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird on Charleston: "The city grew wealthy through the export of rice and, later, sea island cotton and it was the base for many wealthy merchants and landowners.”"

1860 raw cotton exports totaled nearly $200 million of which at most 5% shipped from Charleston.
Rice exports totaled $2.5 million of which Charleston shipped maybe half.
Charleston was simply not a major player in the economic life of the South, regardless of what its promoters claimed.

[FLT-bird]

ou most certainly did not “accurately quote” what Lincoln said. I did accurately quote what Lincoln said. Obviously you can not discern the difference. What, pray tell is the source for your sliced and diced and clipped quote?

You say Lincoln never changed his opinion on it? Do you know the reason for that? Are you familiar with Roger Taney and the Dred Scott Decision? That pretty much blew the Fugitive Slave Law out of the water. It was a very fluid situation. Some get it some don’t.

I most certainly did accurately quote him. His position was that he supported federal fugitive slave legislation to return escaped slaves. You either cannot read or you’re hoping you can simply lie your way through here. You can’t.

“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.”

Boom. There’s no debate. Those are his words.

You trying to BS your way out of Lincoln’s direct quote by citing Dred Scott is yet more BS. The above sentence is an accurate quote from Lincoln. That was his position. He never changed his position at any time before 1861. You can try lying again, but its not going to help you.