Posted on 07/10/2011 1:17:20 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
How was this supposed to work?
If freed, were ex-slaves to be rewarded with guns?
Or, if the Confederacy gives slaves freedom then they owe guns to the Confederacy?
We can do this (emancipation) more effectually than the North can now do, for we can give the negro not only his own freedom, but that of his wife and child, and can secure it to him in his old home. To do this, we must immediately make his marriage and parental relations sacred in the eyes of the law and forbid their sale. The past legislation of the South concedes that a large free middle class of negro blood, between the master and slave, must sooner or later destroy the institution. If, then, we touch the institution at all, we would do best to make the most of it, and by emancipating the whole race upon reasonable terms, and within such reasonable time as will prepare both races for the change, secure to ourselves all the advantages, and to our enemies all the disadvantages that can arise, both at home and abroad, from such a sacrifice. Satisfy the negro that if he faithfully adheres to our standard during the war he shall receive his freedom and that of his race. Give him as an earnest of our intentions such immediate immunities as will impress him with our sincerity and be in keeping with his new condition, enroll a portion of his class as soldiers of the Confederacy, and we change the race from a dreaded weakness to a position of strength.
One only needs to read the statements of secession by the various States to know this. Yes, for the average Joe there were lot of reasons, but it was the fundamental political reason.
"As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter — give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself."
He was wrong in his assumptions about the Richmond gang. The politicians who ran the Confederacy were no patriots.
Instead, when Davis fired Johnston (again) after giving ground to Sherman outside of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he appointed twice wounded and heavily drugged John Bell Hood as commander of the Army, ultimately leading to the debacles at Franklin (where Cleburne was killed) and Nashville.
“The fact that it was rejected shows that for the people in charge of the Confederacy, it was ALL about the defense of slavery. “
You’re not a very bright person since you jump to illogical conclusions. You want to say the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery so you jumped to that conclusion. Bias is stupidity.
There you go jumping to your own illogical conclusions again and placing the blame on dead people.
Interesting.
Ok, then explain to us why they south refused to use a large supply of available manpower to fight?
Not even Lincoln saw the war as slavery. He was for Slavery. In fact, he helped get passed a law in his own home State to prevent free slaves from becoming citizens.
Here is also his own comments about slavery as President.
Lincoln’s inaugural address, 4 March 1861:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: ‘No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. ‘ It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.”
And if it wasn’t about slavery. Why not free the slaves and seceed? It’d be kinda hard for the north to keep complaining about slavery if they had already been freed.
“Ok, then explain to us why they south refused to use a large supply of available manpower to fight?”
Why don’t you think a few seconds instead of relying on your bias and give us that answer? Go ahead, we’ll wait. I don’t expect you to think about it, but until you do, you won’t be getting a reply from me. I don’t do someone else’s thinking for them. Lazy and stupid isn’t going to be rewarded.
Why didn’t the North free their own slaves first? They didn’t. They North had slavery.
The public school system has really distorted history and people such as yourself believe it hook, line, and sinker.
South Carolina doesn’t agree with you. From their declaration of causes of secession:
“The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.”
WE know the answer. They would lose their property,, after all, they bought those slaves fair and square.
North didn’t have slavery in 1860. Thats a southern fiction.
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.