No, here's your LOL!
Posted on 04/15/2010 1:16:02 PM PDT by wolfcreek
Ten years ago, I received an e-mail from a reader who signed him or herself "J.D." "I am a white racist," wrote J.D., "a white supremacist and I do not deny it."
From that, you'd suspect J.D. had nothing of value to say. You'd be mistaken. J.D. wrote in response to a column documenting the fact that preservation of slavery was the prime directive of the Confederacy. "I was most pleased to see you write what we both know to be the truth," the e-mail said. "I never cease to be amazed at the Sons of Confederate Veterans and similar 'heritage not hate' groups who are constantly whining that the Confederacy was not a white, racist government ..."
That argument, noted J.D. with wry amusement, plays well with "white people who want to be Confederates without any controversy."
(Excerpt) Read more at news-record.com ...
But all the events leading up to the rebellion seem to have something to do with slavery, doesn't it?
“From the Confederate States Constitution: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed
“
From the United States Constitution of the same time:
Slave Clause: Constitution: Article I. Section 9. Clause 1:
“The Migragation or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think prefer to admit, shall
not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be
imposed an such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
Slave Clause: Constitution: Article IV. Section 2. Clause 3:
“No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
Article V:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Article I, Section 2:
“3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”
We can go tit for tat all day long.
The link discusses economic differences between North and South -- which were primarily explained by the latter's dependence on slave-served agriculture. The South's culture and economy were built on a foundation of slave labor and plantations. Take away the slaves, and they'd have been a completely different group of people -- and the economic chasm would almost certainly have been eliminated.
And don't forget the entire decades-long Sectional Crisis -- which was entirely about slavery and its expansion into new territories -- was the chief cause of the tensions and ultimately led up to the secessions that followed Lincoln's election.
And, of course, we have the various declarations of secession, which made it clear that they were acting to protect the institution of slavery. The gentlemen of Mississippi were explicit on the matter:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
When I said "it is impossible to imagine" the CW taking place in the absence of slavery, I did so by reference to historical fact -- as opposed to the hysterical wishes so spittle-tossingly offered by the neo-confeds who infest these threads.
It is dishonest to deny the preeminent role that slavery played in the South's secession, and the war that inevitably followed from it. And yet there are those who do deny it. Because they wish things were different, and are not above employing dishonesty and self-deception to protect their wishes.
Some of the Ken Burns stuff or letters and commentaries I’ve read over the years. Even the “Killer Angel’s “ author did thorough research.
Wars have to have a moral component to them, some compelling reason that they should be fought, the moral issue for many in the north was slavery and presevation of the union while the money powers of the north I believe had more courser reasons.
Absent the moral reasons, the money powers would have had to come to some agreement with the southern states regarding the demands that the south’s economic and state interests be preserved without resort to blood shed and war. Unfortunateley, morality and greed may have been strange bedfellows in the Civil War!
Now states rights have again become an issue, yet this time it is producers being stolen from while their religious heritage is being mocked at and being proscribed from public expression little by little. We have a grasping greedy overspending central government representing grasshoppers stealing from the wise ants...the money powers are at disadvantage in that they have no core moral “narrative” they can “ride the whirlwind on”. We have the blood of some 30-40 million of our little ones on our hands. Generational theft is evil and the ants are burrowing into their holes to wait out the winter that is coming.
Time for a “New”, new order....
I never denied that fact. *Something* is not absolute.
Also, just like racism, abortion, political philosophies and such are used as a crutch in an argument they are also used to inflame passions.
Read the link at #50. The issue of slavery was used to further inflame passion by corrupt forces outside this country seeking to enrich themselves off our struggles as a relatively new nation. (and to get at us for the Revolution.)
That process countinues as we speak.
We feel the same about ya’ll. LOL!
Only 5% of the Southerners owned slaves. To say that the other 95% just sat around waitin for that cotton money to come down the pike would be ludicrous.
The North's tariffs/blockades were keeping the people in the south from getting some of their basic needs. Basically getting embargoed from their right to trade with other countries.
Your *facts* don't mean squat to real Southerners.
And yet the war nevertheless began over the issue of slavery. Which does not reflect well on the intelligence or independence of the other 95%. Of course, many of them were also illiterate....
It's been obvious for years that facts don't mean squat to you.
As to your assertion that "real" Southerners are characterized by their revulsion to facts -- I'm pretty sure that real real Southerners have brains and are not afraid to use them.
And then there are you silly bitter-enders.
For 128 and 129
Must of struck a chord with you once more...lowering yourself to the level of your fellow, name-calling Liberals.
One of these days, possibly in the very near future, sides will be taken again. Hope you choose wisely.
Do me a favor, stay off my threads if you can’t mind your manners.
... when they seceded over the issue of slavery.
Now suppose that Lincoln had acquiesced, and the South Carolina militia had not decided to start a war at Fr. Sumpter.
You really think that war would not have started in the West, as the new Confederacy came into conflict with the United States over expansion of slavery into the territories that would now be claimed by both?
The FACT is that secession over the issue of slavery had been brewing for decades. The FACT is that shots had already been fired in Kansas and elsewhere over whether slavery would expand into new territories.
Secession would not have prevented war. All that Ft. Sumpter did, was to start the war on the Eastern Seaboard, instead of out west.
LOL! And thus we get to the hallmark of your style of debate. You've lost on facts, so you resort to the old "you're a liberal" ploy ... which does not change the situation at all: you've still lost on facts.
One of these days, possibly in the very near future, sides will be taken again. Hope you choose wisely.
ooooOOOOOOOoooooohhhhhhh..... scawwy, scawwy wolfie!
Or what would have happened if John C. Fremont had won the presidency in 1856 instead of James Buchanan? Would much of anything have been different or would his administration, presumably setting as policy the expansion of slavery, have hastened the inevitable southern secession and Civil War?
No, here's your LOL!
And yet the gentlemen of Mississippi said it straight out at the time. As did those of Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, in their Declarations of Secession.
You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
And you should spell it Ft. Sumter.
Ah, yes. Trying to be pissy over a typo -- which does not remove your difficulty with the historical facts.
Least I ain’t a sissy. LOL!
Now we know what really led to the CW.
TEN YEARS OF THIS CRAP! LOL!
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.