Posted on 06/22/2020 12:39:05 PM PDT by Borges
‘It was legal and would have remained legal in the USA but for the war.’
o why did the eleven states of the confederacy secede, and why did four of those eleven issue elaborate declarations of cause specifying the retention of slavery being threatened...? I mean, if it was legal and would have remained so absent the war, what were the secessionists afraid of...?
At least you got this part right. Most people think all 11 states issued these statements, but it was at most 4.
But I have three possible answers to your point.
1. Because they were somehow misled into believing that slavery was under a threat of being abolished if they remained.
2. Because claiming slavery as a cause for separation made separation legal on the grounds of breach of contract. (This idea was put forth by conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts.)
3. To disguise their real reason for doing it because that would have provoked an overwhelming desire to stop them.
Which particular one would you like to focus on? I personally favor #3.
It could also be all of the above.
They just want to tear down monuments of white people.
You don't have a clue to what is really going on do you? Or maybe you are a just a pathetic sniveler who thinks if you cuck enough they will leave you alone.
Are you talking to me or the people who wrote this? Because they aren’t here.
1) Yes.
2) Then, oops, you missed it. Already pulled down and kicked to rubble by mob. People who read a statement honoring the officers at the ceremony are brutally beaten and sent to the emergency room. Can't get a job again "You aren't hiring that racist, are you?"--Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to employer.
SORRY! I thought it said honoring the police officers.
The people who wrote the article. I assume you didn’t mean for this to be your writing?
SORRY!! I thought it said honoring police officers. I take back the mistaken post.
Missed the word “murderers”. So sorry.
I did not.
Yep. Slavery simply was not threatened in the USA in 1860. Nobody waged a war to defend something that did not need defending. If anybody thought it did, the first thing Lincoln and the Northern dominated Congress offered was slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
Bingo. We Southerners have been saying this ever since Political Correctness first appeared in the early 90s. I know I’ve said it since then.....ie that they’d go after Washington and Jefferson and the Stars and Stripes next. You didn’t have to be Nostradamus to see where this was going.
“Conservatives” who were willing to appease the Leftist screech mobs by throwing Southerners and their history under the bus were only empowering the mob and embittering people who otherwise would have stood with them when the mob came for the historical figures and symbols they value. Idiots.
4 states issued declarations of causes. 3 of those 4 listed reasons (tariffs, unequal federal government expenditures, malicious refusal to provide border security) other than just that the Northern states had violated the compact by refusing to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. The Upper South seceded only after Lincoln chose war. They obviously were not seceding over slavery.
What is the first thing Lincoln and the Northern Dominated Congress offered? The Corwin Amendment which would have expressly protected slavery in the constitution. Given there were 15 states that still had slavery, and it takes 3/4s of the states to pass an amendment, it would have taken 45 states to vote in favor of overturning the Corwin Amendment. ie it could not be revoked without the consent of the states that still had slavery. Everybody understood this.
Yet, the original 7 seceding states turned down the offer of the Corwin Amendment as the price of their return. Obviously, protection of slavery was not their primary concern.
I’m convinced it was reason #2. Listing the Northern states’ violation of the Constitution was a pretext. It provided them a legal excuse to do what the wanted to do anyway - become independent, set their own trade policies and stop sending so much money North in tribute to others.
With lower tariffs, the British and French could afford more of their cash crops and they would also pay lower prices for manufactured goods than they were paying. They would also not see the additional money from those tariffs paying for infrastructure projects and corporate subsidies for others as had been the case up to 1860.
The vast majority of all wars in human history have been about money. Governments almost never admit that’s what they are fighting for but in the end its obvious they are. It was no different here. Plenty saw it.
” If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union. So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” – Charles Dickens
So their cause was based on a lie? Good to know.
Now , why do you suppose that is...?
Expansion of it was.
Nobody waged a war to defend something that did not need defending.
The Southern leaders of the time would disagree with you.
If anybody thought it did, the first thing Lincoln and the Northern dominated Congress offered was slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
Said offer being made after the Southern states had seceded and after they adopted a constitution that protected slavery to an extent never dreamed of by Thomas Corwin.
Exactly right.
It's still gonna eat them. :)
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.