Replies

Now here your crazy train leaves the rails at two points as it careens down the mainline of the revisionist express.

First, just because they COULD have kept slavery doesn’t mean secesh THOUGHT that way. Southern Democrats viewed the Republican Party as such a threat to the institution of slavery that they, as I pointed out in a previous post, had already threatened secession if the GOP won in 1856.

Now in fairness to Johnny Reb, imagine how Second Amendment supports would react today to the election of a Democrat to the White House who openly supported the end of private gun ownership by any means necessary? Not representing any one region, gun owners would not likely move for secession but there would be hell to pay. The difference of course between these two scenarios is that Republicans really didn’t want to outlaw slavery in the Southern states by force at that time, and Americans don’t have the same easily offended mentality that Southerners had then. Plus the Second Amendment is not a morally indefensible abomination like slavery. But if it came down to gun confiscation today I’m sure violence would ensue.

Lincoln said over and over again including in his inaugural address he had no desire to interfere with slavery where it existed. He even promised strengthened fugitive slave laws by the federal government. The Northern dominated Congress passed the Corwin Amendment which would have enshrined slavery in the constitution expressly and protected it effectively forever. Even after the war started the US Congress passed a resolution saying they were not fighting over slavery. Its very clear that SLAVERY WAS NOT THREATENED.

The second place you jump the tracks is suggesting that Southerners only wanted to preserve slavery. They planned on expanding its reach. That’s what drove the Compromise of 1850. Oh, by the way, the Feds took over the public debt of the State of a Texas in that act. Damnation on those scurrilous Yankees for always financially oppressing those poor beleaguered gentlemen of Dixie! But I digress. Southerns wished to spread slavery into new territories, be they within existing American borders or into Carribean islands, or even parts of Mexico.

Southern secession resembled nothing less than a personal duel writ large. The honor and virtue of the South was at stake, and no low down, cotton pickin’, scaliwag mudsill was going to walk all over us!

Ah the whole spread of slavery gambit. SO your argument is that they seceded because they could not have spread slavery to the territories.

Oh but wait! When those original 7 states seceded they made no claim to US territory. The left with only their own sovereign territory.

Thus by the very act of seceding, they were giving up any chance to spread slavery.

OOPS! Your argument just fell apart.

Oh but wait! When those original 7 states seceded they made no claim to US territory. The left with only their own sovereign territory.

Bullcrap. The soil of those 7 states was UNITED STATES territory - before "secession" during and after. It was never not US soil.

If the insurrectionists wanted to leave so badly they should have gotten on a boat to somewhere else. Instead they launched a bloody civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.

No it didn’t. No amount of facts stops you from stomping your feet and screaming with your fingers in your ears, but I’ll keep posting them anyway.