Posted on 07/18/2022 1:02:13 PM PDT by Dr. Franklin
Recording made in 1947 when he was 101 years old as an oral history of the American Civil War, (or the War Between the States, as it is known in South). This man joined the 24th Virginia Calvary in 1862 at the age of 16 and and half. He was eventually taken prisoner in the Spring of 1965 at what must have been the Battle of Hillsman's House since her refers to Gen. Ewell's surrender. He was held at Point Lookout, Maryland until the end of the war.
He is quite emphatic that the South didn't fight for "the preservation or extension of slavery", but for states rights. When he begins by reminiscing about the "early 50's", he was, of course, referring to the 1850's.
As yours is not automatically correct either.
And yet far more Marylanders fought for the Union army than in the Confederate army.
I’ve been pointing this out to people for a few years now. The South’s economy would have been just fine if the corrupt Northern crooks had simply stayed out of it.
Abraham Lincoln campaigned on an anti slavery platform and the very party he represented, the Republican Party, was formed to get rid of slavery. Those in the South so wanted slavery, that they complained before Lincoln was ever elected, that if he were to be elected, they would secede.
“During the campaign for president in 1860, some secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln (who opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories) be elected, including William L. Yancey. Yancey toured the North calling for secession as Stephen A. Douglas toured the South calling for union if Lincoln was elected.[38] To the secessionists the Republican intent was clear: to contain slavery within its present bounds and, eventually, to eliminate it entirely. A Lincoln victory presented them with a momentous choice (as they saw it), even before his inauguration – “the Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union”.[39]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Lincoln campaigned against slavery and won the national vote, November 3, 1860.
The first state, South Carolina, seceded Dec. 20, 1860.
The initial version of the Corwin Amendment was already in progress after the election, but before Lincoln ever took office. It was President Buchanan who was a fan of it, but the work of the Committee of Thirty-Three in the US House continued to work on it until Jan. 14, 1861, when it was proposed to be a Constitutional Amendment, but Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas had already joined South Carolina in seceding from the Union, making its passage with those states irrelevant.
“Lincoln, along with other Republicans, supported the final amendment because he believed it didn't change anything already in the Constitution, as he mentioned in his First Inaugural Address:”
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of any particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
To be fair, the Corwin Amendment would have cemented slavery in the existing states, but would not have protected it in any new states, leaving then current slave states a permanent minority.
Back you your assertion, the argument that secession was not simply from slavery, is completely bogus, on its face. This was the only “States’ right” issue that bedeviled the South. In fact, the CSA said SLAVERY WAS THE ONLY ISSUE IN ITS CORNERSTONE SPEECH:
The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... 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 idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.
Alexander H. Stephens, speech to The Savannah Theatre. (March 21, 1861)
There were 11 states in the CSA, yet somehow you people can only find 3 or 4 of these secession documents that mention slavery as an issue. You completely ignore those ones that don't.
How about Virginia's secession document? Want to quote that one?
Because it doesn't show what you wish to believe, people generally won't talk about Virginia (The most important state in the CSA) and why they left the Union.
Also, if you want to see a different take on the slavery angle, Paul Craig Roberts has you covered.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/13/a-civil-war-lesson-for-the-uneducated/
Neither am I, but as for Abe Lincoln, you should get to know him better. He was quite a witty fellow. Quite clever and cagey too.
This isn't quite true. Most in the North hated slavery, but not for the reasons we have been led to believe.
The main reason Northerners hated slavery is because most of them earned wages by trading their work for money, and the thought of someone coming in and working without being paid was a serious threat to their livelihood, and of course people are very passionate about threats to their income.
The second main reason Northerners hated slavery is because they hated black people. We know this because we can read the laws they passed in that era where they express great hatred for the idea of blacks living in their states. The Illinois black codes (The Land of Lincoln) are horrible. They passed laws which would do horrible things to black people if they tried to live in Illinois, up to and including selling them into slavery.
So yeah, the majority of the Northerners were not motivated by the milk of human kindness. They were motivated by hatred and by concern for their own financial welfare.
Their reasons were really ugly, but they don't teach that in history.
Just say it…you want some “boy” to mow your lawn.
Defending slavery is abhorrent.
Ah. Something I mostly agree with you on.
I find this comment fascinating. Who were the other two?
But which can hardly compete with the myths written by the winners.
After Lincoln arrested all the ones in favor of it.
This is like saying "Comrade Stalin won the election!"
Of course he did.
This is an example of one of those Myths we were talking about earlier.
You’ve had all that explained to you before. You won’t learn anything because you refuse to learn anything.
You’ve had all that explained to you before. You won’t learn anything because you refuse to learn anything.
Just like all those Southern states voting for the 13th amendment.
You put a gun to their back and they will vote whatever way you tell them, but it isn't democracy or free will involved, it's tyranny.
Have you ever heard the word "Vichy"?
Are you not getting how this "guns in the back" thing works?
Defending slavery is abhorrent.
Mischaracterizing other people's motives is abhorrent.
You do know Lincoln tried to get the Corwin Amendment passed?
Was he abhorrent when he was defending slavery, or could he perhaps have had some other purpose in mind when he did it?
Something else is abhorrent. Marching into other people's lands to kill them because they wish to rule themselves instead of being ruled by corrupt Washington DC.
Nobody listens to Mike Pence.
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.