Replies

Well stated!

Here is yet another direct quote which many neo-Confederates will either reject as the true 'cause' of the slave based Cotton Empire tiggering a civil war in this country.

James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina:

"Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth."

The quote from this Hammond 'revolutionist' continues:

# Hammond again, from later in the same speech:

"the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."

Let's read this line again, ....A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."

Talk about communists!

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

Come on pro-Confederate heritage types to defend these quotations from pro-slavers.

If slavery 'had nothing to do' with the origins of the Civil War why is it depicted on worthless Confederate money?

In the Land o' Lincoln, after the WBTS, Illinois law required Blacks to post a $1,000 bond to enter the state or own property in the state. Assembling for the purpose of dancing or reveling carried a $20 fine.

Prior to the WTBS, an 1853 Illinois law effectively barred Black people from residing in the state. Lincoln never spoke out against this law.

Ward Hill Lamon, friend of Lincoln, said the Illinois Black Code was "of the most preposterous and cruel severity, -- a code that would have been a disgrace to a Slave state, and was simply an infamy in a free one. It borrowed the provisions of the most revolting laws known among men, for exiling, selling, beating, bedeviling, and torturing Negroes, whether bond or free."

The Illinois Black Code said that any Black found without a certificate of freedom was considered a runaway slave and could be apprehended by any White and auctioned off by the sheriff to pay the cost of his confinement.

There is no record of any Lincoln dissent to any of these Black Codes in his home state.

Article XIV of the Illinois State Constitution adopted in 1848 stated:

The General Assembly shall at its first session under the amended constitution pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state, and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state, for the purpose of setting them free."

The architect of "An Act To Prevent the Immigration of Free Negroes into the State" was John A. "Black Jack" Logan. Black Jack Logan was later named a Major General by Abraham Lincoln.

Lerone Bennett, Jr. documented how various newspapers condemned the Illinois laws. Frederick Douglass expressed his outrage. "What did Lincoln say? He didn't say a mumblin' word."

Good finds.

What the revisionist historians want to do is make slavery a cause but not the the cause for the war, thereby removing some of the moral onus that goes with fighting to perserve an immoral system.

Clearly, from their own writings, they saw slavery as being intergal to their way of life and were determined in not only keeping it but expanding it.

Because the North did not go to war to end slavery, the revisionists jump on that to prove that the war was not about slavery.

Yet, the South seceded because of the issue (although not every particular state) and it was the critical issue in bringing about the war.

The neo-confederates now want to be identified with personal freedom, yet the issue of 'states rights' had nothing to do with individual liberty.

[Espinola, baiting]Here is yet another direct quote which many neo-Confederates will either reject as the true 'cause' of the slave based Cotton Empire tiggering a civil war in this country......

You're making the claim again -- without support -- that "it's all about slavery!"

[More baiting] If slavery 'had nothing to do' with the origins of the Civil War why is it depicted on worthless Confederate money?

We didn't say it didn't. You keep saying it IS the cause of the Civil War. More to the point, you are trying to polemicize against people who disagree with you by making them over into slavery advocates, which is just vile ad hominem.

If there is nothing to my charge, then why do you keep demanding that we defend slavery, when we don't?

Take your ad hominem and stick it.