What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

National Review ^ | April 7 2018 | Daniel Gerelnter

[DiogenesLamp]

It turns the arguments from FLT-bird and DiogenesLamp on their heads.

My argument is that the Northern coalition cared so very little about the plight of slaves that they offered permanent protection for slavery in an effort to coax the Southern states into staying in/rejoining the Union.

That they offered it, and the Southern states were not moved by it, demonstrates clearly that neither side really gave a sh*t about the issue of slavery, and so modern attempts to portray the war as having been about that are just dishonest.

The one most damaged by the "Corwin Amendment" is Lincoln, who clearly offered his support for it in his first Inaugural address. It makes him appear to be two-faced.

100% legalization of slavery at all times in all places, which is what the new Confederate constitution gave them.

And effectively what the US constitution also gave them, though many people in the North refused to accept it.

Forbidding any state law to interfere with the return of a slave to his master effectively nullifies any and all laws against it. It was an ugly clause to the US Constitution, but the Northern states agreed to it, and so they should have been bound by it until such times as it was lawfully repealed.

[DiogenesLamp]

But they did, it was the 1850 Compromise which, among other things, defeated the Wilmot Proviso which would have outlawed slavery in US territories.

You are trying to dodge the point again. You allege the Southern states had a total commitment to slavery, and you also allege they controlled congress.

If both of the things you allege were true, there would be no need for "compromise" and there would be no possibility of such a thing as the "Wilmot Proviso" even making it to the floor.

Now you've been caught. You have to discard one claim or the other, because they are patently contradictory. Both cannot be true or the "Missouri Compromise" (which was itself unconstitutional) could not have made it through congress. The majority that is committed to something do not "compromise" regarding it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Besides that, it doesn't really matter why the South was fighting off an invasion, it only matters why the North was engaging in Invasion."

That's like saying it doesn't matter why Germans, Italians or Japanese fought off allied invasions.
Maybe, but it matters a lot why they went to war in the first place and why they refused to stop fighting short of Unconditional Surrender.

In the case of 1860s Confederates, all your repeated denials notwithstanding, protecting slavery was a big part of it.
You have only to read their own words to see it.

Of course that doesn't matter to DiogenesLamp, right?

[DiogenesLamp]

More cockamamie nonsense the truth of which we've reviewed at length but you just can't accept and still keep your coveted C.L.C.P.

I do not even know what you mean by "C.L.C.P", but I am long accustomed to you using the phrase "cockamamie nonsense" whenever you've come up against something you can't refute.

Dred Scott loses his case strictly from Article IV, Section 2. Indeed, you would have thought any competent attorney of the era would have advised him against filing it because so long as Article IV, Section 2 remained part of the Constitution, no state law of any sort (outside the laws of the state holding him) could rescue him from his condition.

But I guess they had irrational liberal lawyers back then too, who would hope courts would ignore the plain letter of the law, and make something up more to their liking based on emotional pleading.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well first of all, your map (reproduced below) is yet another crock of nonsense:

This map has nothing whatever to do with 1860 except possibly show where future slavery may have expanded, i.e., west Texas, Arizona and California.

Your response to it is the crock of nonsense. (There is that word again!) The map shows that it was clearly impossible to expand slavery to the "territories" because you could grow no cash crops in any of them. You point out west Texas, Arizona and California, and if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would know it was impossible to grow cotton in any of those places in the 1860s because it required modern electric pumps and irrigation systems to even make it possible.

Effectively, Slavery could not expand to the territories, so the whole issue was phoney baloney astro-turf crap, and curiously enough, the party which was most responsible for spreading this nonsense was the "Free Soil Party", and coincidentally it was head quartered in New York.

So why would a New York headquartered entity be worried about "free men and free soil" in the territories a thousand miles away? Could it have something to do with representation in Congress, and therefore control of the power of Washington DC? They should have at least put this phone baloney organization in Chicago, where it would look a little more plausible having better proximity to the region in question.

Slave holders clearly had their eyes on any and all possibilities for expanding slavery beyond its 1850s limits.

So we have been constantly told, though the facts of modern cotton growing would indicate either those people in the 1860s who grew cotton for a living were either too stupid to know they couldn't grow cotton there, or this is just made up propaganda bullsh*t spread by people with other reasons for gaining those states representation in Congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

Historically interesting, but irrelevant to the main point. How did specie purchases end up in New York when the bulk of specie was coming from California and Nevada?

[DiogenesLamp]

Irrelevant for reasons I provided in a previous posting. The trade was eventually going to Europe, regardless of where it was produced in the South.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln was going to accept a deal to let the original seven states go if Virginia would offer assurances that it would remain in the Union.
"A state for a fort is no bad business."

What a crock!
Lincoln's reported offer, "a state for a fort" had nothing to do with the "original seven states", but only with getting some value out of abandoning Federal properties.
Lincoln's promise was that he would not "assail" Confederates, and a fort for a state could do it, he thought.

DiogenesLamp: "As with The Corwin Amendment breaking the principle of Union support for Slavery, so too does the "Virginia deal" break the principle of "Preserving the Union." "

Utter nonsense, but a lie big enough to make old Joseph Goebbels blush.
Of course, Uncle Joe Stalin's minions would smile & nod -- they knew the more outrageous your lies, the better, so long as you delivered them with passion, frequently, and never back off, right?

DiogenesLamp: "When you finally wake the F*** up, I think you will end up doing some serious soul searching, as did I when I realized that most of what I had been told was just a lie. "

Sorry, but I don't think there's a seriously honest bone in DiogenesLamp's body -- it's all just propaganda, all just BS that he hopes somebody will buy, or accept for free.
So "serious soul searching" is not part of DiogenesLamp's make-up, doesn't know what it is and never did it.
It just that for some reason he swallowed the Lost Cause myth hook line & sinker and now can't, won't let go of it, regardless of facts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to x: "They checked your log books, and there were penalties beyond just the forfeiture of your cargo for manipulating those.
If you got caught trying to ship between US ports on a foreign built ship, a foreign owned ship, or even a ship that has a partial foreign crew, then your ship could be seized as well as your cargo, and you could end up in Prison."

And this data comes from where?

[BroJoeK]

SoCal Pubbie: "The South’s economic problems arose from 'our own supine and lack of energy,' charged another Southerner.
Merchants were timid.
They would not import merchandise themselves but were content merely to sell goods imported by Northerners..."

Thanks for another great post!

Too bad DiogenesLamp literally can't see what doesn't support his opinions.

[DiogenesLamp]

You go to great lengths to avoid confessing that a huge portion of "Southern products" could be and were produced outside the Deep South.

"Could" is irrelevant. "Is" was what was relevant on the cusp of this financial crises for the North.

But does it not occur to you that Union states produced not only about half of US total exports

27%, and that's being generous.

but also $200 million they "exported" to the South and several times that they consumed themselves?

As a consequence of protectionist pricing. With European trade directly to the South, much of those exports would have suffered as well. Northern Newspapers of the time say so themselves.

You desperately hope to focus enough attention away from "slavery, slavery, slavery" in the South and onto "money, money, money" up North, so people will just... sort of... forget, right?

Forget? No! The problem then is the same problem we face now! F***ing New York controls the "News", controls much of entertainment, and constantly promotes nationally policies which help keep the Federal spending party going.

Back in 1995, when Republicans had finally taken over control of congress, I noticed every talking head on the "News" Programs were ridiculing the idea of balancing the Federal budget by reducing spending. Every F***ing bastard one of them were mocking the idea that the budget could or should be balanced, and this always bothered me.

Why? Why would any sane citizen of the USA be against balancing the budget? What sort of lunatic would think this ridiculous spending party could just continue unabated? Then it dawned on me. Those people who profit from excessive government spending would be against balancing the budget, especially by reducing borrowing and spending. So then the realization started to form that these media people were merely agents of the people who profit from government excess spending.

And now it makes sense.

But you want it to be about "slavery" instead of about power, influence and money, because you think the Civil War was about some moral question. It's not. We still face the same enemy that the South faced 150 years ago, and it's still about money and power controlling Washington DC against the interests of the people of America.

But you'll use any modern data that supports your own case, right?

The question isn't regarding whether information is modern or old, it's whether it is relevant. Post 1861 financial events were the consequences of an artificial restraint on trade that would not have occurred without a war. You can't use them to predict what would be the likely financial conditions absent that war.

You have to use projections from before the War, and work with those, because the war fundamentally altered the reality of what would have happened. It skewed all the numbers.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "For all I know, "Harold D. Woodman" is BroJoeK, and I would simply be reading the same crap he already posts."

The only thing I can find was a 90 year old Harold D. Woodman in West Lafayette, Indiana, which is just off I-65 Northwest of Indianapolis.
That is right where I spent a very harrowing night two winters ago, ice like glass on I-65, cars & trucks in ditches on both sides, road closed, sat for hours stuck between semis, until dawn they reopened it...
Oh, dear... one of my toughest nights ever...

But no, otherwise I have nothing in common with old Harry.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "A whole bunch of blather trying to claim Davis was saying the exact opposite of what he clearly said.
It was not about slavery.
Deal with it."

Certainly Davis did not mention slavery in his February 18, 1861 Inaugural address, but plenty of others did, and for them it certainly was about slavery.
Which you well know.

FLT-bird on Confederate abolition: "They were prepared to do so and empowered the Confederate ambassador with plenipotiary powers (meaning he could sign a treaty and legally bind the CSA by doing so) which would have abolished slavery in return for European recognition/military aid.
This was 1864 just one year after the EP."

No, it was December 1864, Davis sent Duncan F. Kenner who departed in January 1865 arriving in France, then Britain just weeks before Lee's surrender at Appomattox:

"By December 1864, Davis considered sacrificing slavery in order to enlist recognition and aid from Paris and London; he secretly sent Duncan F. Kenner to Europe with a message that the war was fought solely for "the vindication of our rights to self-government and independence" and that "no sacrifice is too great, save that of honor."
The message stated that if the French or British governments made their recognition conditional on anything at all, the Confederacy would consent to such terms.[141]
Davis's message could not explicitly acknowledge that slavery was on the bargaining table due to still-strong domestic support for slavery among the wealthy and politically influential.
European leaders all saw that the Confederacy was on the verge of total defeat.[142]"

"The three men met with French Emperor Napoleon III, who agreed to recognize the Confederacy under these terms if the British would follow suit.
The commissioners quickly sailed to London, where they met with the Prime Minister, Henry John Temple, who sternly rebuked their proposal, stating that Her Majesty’s government would never recognize the Confederacy under any condition.
Lee’s surrender dashed any lingering hopes..."

And that's it for me for now...

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Its obviously just too inconvenient for you to admit it.
Davis did not want war and did not start a war.
Lincoln did."

Nonsense and blather all you wish, but Davis ordered a military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
That's war.

FLT-bird re BJK comment on Atlantic Monthly volume 14 Number 83 quote of Jefferson Davis: "Your usual BS and tapdancing.
Davis says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
He always did."

No, it's your usual BS misinformation.
Here is the Atlantic Monthly you "quoted".
Note first the date is September 1864, which means the Confederacy was nearing its death throws.
Note second it doesn't include your quote from Davis.
Further looking suggests the quote is genuine, but in a letter to one James R. Gilmore, 1864.

But while we're talking Davis quotes, here's another:

"[P]roperty in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof." Compromise proposal (24 December 1860)"

This is Davis' version of the Corwin amendment which has our Lost Causers so energized.
They accuse Lincoln himself of "orchestrating" Corwin, even though still in Illinois.
They say it means Northerners were willing to grant slavery forever for sake of Union.
And they say Confederates "rejected" the Union "offer", so it wasn't about slavery!

Well, let's notice some things:

1. Davis himself proposed a version of Corwin's amendment, telling us clearly what Davis considered the "real reason" for secession, slavery -- not Morrill, not "unequal spending", etc..

2. The new Confederate constitution went far beyond what Corwin said, it made slavery irrevocable anywhere or any time in the Confederacy.
   So, if Confederates "rejected" the Corwin "offer", it was because they already had a much better offer on slavery from the Confederate constitution (thanks DoodleDawg!).

3. Davis himself claimed the war was not for slavery, but for independence.
   Fine, but defending slavery was the first reason for secession and a major reason Confederates refused to stop fighting short of Unconditional Surrender -- or in Davis' word, "extermination"!

More later...

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird referring to this Davis quote on slavery:

"...it never was an essential element.
It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination.
It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded."

FLT-bird: "Once again Davis says exactly the opposite of what you claim and you can’t handle it so you resort to your usual spin and BS."

No, Davis said exactly what I reported, no "spin" necessary.
Davis said slavery "fired the musket" and that is the essential moral act in any murder, in this case the murder of the old Federal Union.
Davis implies that other issues "capped and loaded" the musket, but none of those by themselves could fire it.

I'd say that's pretty close to true, though slavery didn't just "pull the trigger", slavery built the musket in the first place, as was recognized decades earlier by Founders like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

FLT-bird "Johnson’s views were consistent with even those of Chase as the quotes of Chase I provided amply demonstrate."

Both were Democrats, Chase running for the Democrat nomination for president.
Naturally they said what their fellow Democrats wanted to hear.

FLT-bird: "His impeachment by the Radical Republicans was a joke.
Johnson was a flawed man to be sure but he was a damn sight better than those corrupt lunatics."

I won't defend either Johnson or the Congress which tried to impeach him.

FLT-bird: "He told the truth about them and they couldn’t stand it."

Or lied the way Democrats always lie, it's their nature, you know, and sometimes they even believe their own lies.
That's when they're most dangerous.

FLT-bird: "Except that thousands of Blacks served in the Confederate Army and had for years.
So this line of BS falls apart."

Sure slaves doing slave-work, nobody disputes that.
Somewhere I read that Lee's army at Gettysburg included tens of thousands of slaves:

"African American slave labor was used in a wide variety of logistical support roles for the Confederacy, from infrastructure and mining, to teamster and medical roles such as hospital attendants and nurses.[78][79]"

"...According to historian James M. McPherson in 1994, 'no black soldiers fought in the Confederate army, unless they were passing as white.'[12]
He noted that some Confederates brought along 'their body servants, who in many cases had grown up with them" and that 'on occasion some of those body servants were known to have picked up a rifle...
But there was no official recruitment of black soldiers in the Confederate army until the very end of the war', when it was brought about only by a 'desperate shortage of manpower.'[12]

FLT-bird quote from #395: "What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party..."

FLT-bird: "Its very clear that it says the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
That slavery was far from the most important issue....
that what they really did not like or want was a sectional party hell bent on high tariffs to benefit one region at the expense of another and of government largesse to corporations. "

Total nonsense and you well know it because the only new political element in the new Republican party (versus the old Whigs & Federalists) was abolitionism.
To say, "let's go back to pre-Republican days" meant only one thing: the days of no controversy over slavery.
Everything else -- tariffs, spending, etc., -- had been there from Day One.

FLT-bird: "There is no question the quote is genuine and has been cited numerous times.
Its just inconvenient for you... "

Naw, the internet is chock full of fake quotes and you well know it, including real quotes that are added to or subtracted from to make a different point.
The only protection we have against that, and it's far from perfect, is to see if we can find the same quote in multiple places which would have no reason to lie about it.
In this case I did find part of your quote elsewhere, but not the whole thing, and the missing part sounds "off" to me, as if somebody decades later wanted to put their own words in Cleburne's mouth.
Regardless, it doesn't change your main point, which is correct, about Cleburne's support for enlisting black soldiers.

FLT-bird "Cleburne was promoted to major general from a relatively low rank to begin with.
Obviously his talent was recognized."

Sure, but only before his support for black Confederate soldiers, not afterwards.

"Cleburne's proposal was vigorously attacked as an "abolitionist conspiracy" by General William H.T. Walker, who strongly supported slavery and also saw Cleburne as a rival for promotion.
Walker eventually persuaded the commander of the Army of Tennessee, General Braxton Bragg, that Cleburne was politically unreliable and undeserving of further promotion.
'Three times in the summer of 1863 he was passed over for corps commander and remained a division commander until his death'. "[16]"

FLT-bird disagreeing 25% were slaveholder families: "Firstly...no it doesn’t.
He says AT LEAST 75% DO NOT own slaves.
He put no upper limit on how many did not own slaves.
He did not say 25% DID own slaves.
Read more carefully."

Sorry, but you know very well that if he had meant to say "95% of families didn't own slaves", he would have said it.
He didn't, and "at least 75%" means that up to 25% did own slaves.
My calculations show on average 26% of families did own slaves, so I'm perfectly happy with that.
Your efforts to deny the obvious are... well... ludicrous.

FLT-bird: "Oh and he also pointed out slavery was not what the Confederates were fighting for and pointed out - once again - that they could have preserved it any time by simply laying down their arms.
You seem to have skipped over that part.
I wonder why."

No, it's no problem, one man's opinion is just fine, others said otherwise.
Consider the quote above about Patrick Cleburne's fate.

What's certainly true is that slavery was more important to some Confederates than others, and generally, the wealthier & more powerful politically, the more important was slavery.
And the proof of it is that Davis himself never seriously moved to even consider black soldiers until the war's very end.

FLT-bird on reasons for Border States' declining slavery: "Its no secret.
Its not magic.
It was industrialization.
Industrialization was steadily moving Southward and it was killing slavery slowly as it did.
It wasn’t some previously unmentioned influx of Northerners in these states.
Get real."

Nonsense, you've reversed cause & effect.
Slaves were perfectly capable of working in factories, as Tredegar in Richmond amply demonstrates -- 50% slaves.
Industrialization didn't kill slavery, just the opposite, abolition created a greater need for labor-saving machines, hence industrialization.

And there was a huge influx of anti-slavery immigrants to the Border States -- Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland
They made a huge difference in first reducing slavery's political influence and then keeping those states Union.

Add to that the relative ease of escaping to the Underground Railroad and many Border State slave-holders promised their slaves lawful freedom in exchange for a set number years service.
One result, by 1860 half of Maryland's slaves were free.

Finally the matter of sky-high slave prices driven up by the booming Deep South cotton economy.
High prices made slavery unprofitable in marginal Border State regions and one result was actual (Maryland) or relative (Missouri & Kentucky) reductions in slave populations.

It had nothing to do with more factories in those states, except to the degree those factories employed anti-slavery immigrant voters.

FLT-bird "He is guesstimating obviously.
He says 80% the previous one says at least 75%.
Whatever the exact percentage the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY did not own slaves or have the slightest interest in slavery."

Here's what's absolutely true:

1. The Deep South with the highest percentage of slave-holding families was the quickest to declare secession, took no special persuasion.

2. The Upper South with significantly fewer slaveholding families refused to secede when the issues were only slavery, tariffs & "unequal spending".
   Only actual civil war convinced Upper South states to flip against the Union (which is why Davis wanted war and Lincoln didn't!), and even then large regions of all four Upper South states remained loyal and suffered from Confederates for it.

3. Border States had so few slaveholding families that even Civil War did not convince the majority to secede.
   Yes, those Border State regions which did have large slaveholding populations did provide Confederate troops, but the vast majority (two or three to one) served the Union Army.

FLT-bird "As to 5.63% those are the percentages of the total free populations in those states which owned slaves as of the 1860 US Census.
If you don’t like the numbers take it up with the US Census bureau.
Obviously there were families in which just one person - usually the father - would be listed as the sole owner of slaves."

I have no problem with 5.63%, none.
The question is: how large was the average slaveholder's family?
A wife & two children with one on the way (2.5 children ;-)) makes the overall average about 25% which sounds right according to everything I've seen.
And you have no statistical evidence otherwise -- none, zero, nada statistics -- only your feeeeeling that some wives owned slaves.
Sure, and for every wife who owned slaves, another family had six or more children, so it balanced out.

FLT-bird: "What we do know is that the overwhelming majority DID NOT." [own slaves]

Sure, on average including Border States, absolutely.
But in the Deep South everyone who could afford to did, and nearly half could, & so did.
It explains why the Deep South was so quick to secede to protect themselves against the perceived threat from "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.
It explains why Border States never did and why Upper South states finally did secede, but with huge regions remaining Unionists.

FLT-bird: " 3 of the 4 states that listed reasons listed several including the economic grievances."

Wrong. All "Reasons for Secession" documents listed slavery as the major, if not only, reason.
Confederate VP Alexander Stephens perhaps said it best in his famous Cornerstone speech:

"...Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong.
They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.
This was an error.
It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Hard to argue slavery was not vital to Confederates, isn't it?

FLT-bird "Secondly, it was a democracy.
Those who did not own slaves would not have willingly sacrificed their lives for something they did not own and/or had no interest in owning."

And they certainly did not willingly sacrifice themselves in Unionist regions with very few slaveholders.
Indeed, if you look at the ratio of Confederate state soldiers to slaveholders it averages roughly four-to-one suggesting every slaveholder, on average, provided one or two sons plus some neighbor lads.

A result you will see here.
McPherson studied hundreds of Confederate soldiers' letters drawing several conclusions, including:

"Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view."

McPherson also said: "...while about one-third of all Confederate soldiers belonged to slaveholding families, slightly more than two-thirds of the sample [429 letters] whose slaveholding status is known did so."

It suggests soldiers from slaveholding families were more literate than others.

And that's it for now.

[FLT-bird]

Its pretty funny he’s still replying to me....days after I left the thread since I didn’t see any value in simply contradicting each other for the 17th time. He’s still replying to posts he’s already replied to a week or more ago. Somebody sure is desperate to keep spinning his wheels about this topic for hours on end every single day.

The case stands. Those at the time on all sides openly said it was in essence, a fiscal quarrel as Charles Dickens described it. It was all about money and empire - like most wars throughout history.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Those at the time on all sides openly said it was in essence, a fiscal quarrel as Charles Dickens described it. It was all about money and empire - like most wars throughout history.”

Except for the Confederates, like the ones who wrote the secession documents, who clearly said it was about slavery.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "It was a different time.
People did not view slavery the same way we do today - that holds for the overwhelming majority.
Racism was the norm throughout the world.
It horrifies us today but it was a different world.
The vast majority on both sides were not fighting over slavery and didn’t really care very much about slavery.
No matter how much people would get worked into a lather today, they just didn’t then."

Despite your best efforts to minimize slavery, the data still says otherwise.
Slavery & abolition were very important to a large minority on both sides:

"[O]nly 20 percent of the sample of 429 Southern soldiers explicitly voiced proslavery convictions in their letters or diaries.
As one might expect, a much higher percentage of soldiers from slaveholding families than from nonslaveholding families expressed such a purpose: 33 percent, compared with 12 percent.
Ironically, the proportion of Union soldiers who wrote about the slavery question was greater, as the next chapter will show.
There is a ready explanation for this apparent paradox.
Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial.
Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial.
They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it."
— James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (1997), pp. 109–110, emphasis added.[30]

Reviewing many hundreds of Civil War letters McPherson found higher percent of Union soldiers concerned about abolition than Confederates.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "BroJoeK’s PC Revisionism is pretty much the standard nationalist dogma:"

No, just real history of what actually happened, not what somebody might wish happened.

1. "Deny quotes that are inconvenient."

   No, only alleged quotes from less reliable sources.

2. "Claim scholars whose opinions they do not agree with are not scholars and/or are not credible."

   Only if they are not scholars and/or are not credible.
   By the way, I've never noticed Lost Causers rushing to embrace historians they disagree with.
   So, good for goose, good for gander?

3. "Refuse to read Lincoln’s inaugural address and just lie about it repeatedly instead."

   So how did I quote from a document I didn't read?

4. "and above all just repeat the word 'slavery slavery slavery' no matter how obviously ridiculous that is while at the same time try to deny people then were motivated by pocketbook issues just like they are today and have been throughout history."

Well... "slavery, slavery, slavery" is what Fire Eaters themselves said in early 1861.
And it's what Senator Davis addressed in his version of the Corwin amendment (December 1860), not Morrill or "unfair spending".
Sure, some secessionists mentioned other reasons as well, but as your quote from Jefferson Davis said, slavery "pulled the trigger" which committed the murder of the old republic.

And "slavery, slavery, slavery" is what kept Confederates from doing the one thing which might have won the Civil War: offer slaves genuine freedom in exchange for enlistment & service as regular Confederate soldiers.

And abolition did motivate Union soldiers, especially after 1862, as careful reading of their letters home & popular songs reveals.

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
with a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on."

But sure, other than that... "slavery, slavery, slavery" was "secondary" to many on both sides.

[DiogenesLamp]

But no, otherwise I have nothing in common with old Harry.

I'll take your word for it. :)

I just found it odd that I could find so very little on the man. Usually you can find an authors bio or something, but for him? Nothing.