Posted on 05/01/2024 4:07:52 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
The Declaration of Secession was the result of a convention of the Mississippi Legislature in January of 1861. The convention adopted a formal Ordinance of Secession written by former Congressman Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar. While the ordinance served an official purpose, the declaration laid out the grievances Mississippi’s ruling class held against the federal government under the leadership of President-elect Abraham Lincoln...The convention really couldn’t be any more straightforward:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest in the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at mississippitoday.org ...
The old Sherman-Chivington hell-scale argument.
War criminals by standards then, and now.
Yes the CSA had a pro-slavery constitution. So did the USA.
Yes the CSA president took an oath to uphold his nation's pro-slavery constitution. So did the president of the USA; twice.
Yes the CSA was created after unilateral secession. So was the USA.
The CSA was probably the second most powerful slave-owning nation in the world but it was defeated by the very most powerful slave-owning nation in the world.
Do you know which nation that was?
The only seed that rose is marxism, we don’t have time to Chace past phantoms while we are in a fight to the death now.
See post 23.
“The only seed that rose is marxism, we don’t have time to Chace past phantoms while we are in a fight to the death now.” (sic)
I think I know what you are trying to say.
Since we don’t have a lot of time hopefully I will not have to repeat over and over why the South was right.
Whenever you are ready. I am sure there are one or two that think it might be a good idea.
It’s not.
In the end, I think various states are going to go their separate way and parts of states will secede from them. As long as that is done peacefully, it would be much preferable to a massive bloodbath. I'd be perfectly happy to let New England and the Left Coast go be a separate country and never have to deal with their BS again.
“which would have explicitly protected slavery in the US Constitution effectively forever.”
Not really. All the Corwin Amendment did was to prevent the U.S. Government from taking any action against slavery in any state where it was already legal. States were free to end the institution if the so chose to do so, and Congress had the authority to prevent the introduction of slavery into any territory they so chose.
Dunno what you're talking about here. The South is and has always been about as far the opposite from Marxism as is possible to get.
The South voted for Wilson and FDR, both traitors and Socalists. You can make your arguments, but that is what the scum Wilson and FDR were. Now, happily, the South has turned into a center of Conservatism. The New England and Northeastern States have now turned traitor.
Some Southern Conservatism began to emerge in the 1938 Elections. It took a good deal of time to develop. And it was not mainly about Segregation, that is a leftist lie.
It was only protecting slavery in the states where it already existed. It did not protect slavery in future states. It needed 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which seemed unlikely.
The Southern aristocracy was all about expanding slavery into new territory. It was the only way they could figure to keep the institution alive. Cotton needed new ground.
Here is the proposed Corwin Constitutional amendment:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
That's something I've wondered about. I think the South might have fared better if they had waited to see how Lincoln handled the slavery question.
That's something I've wondered about. I think the South might have fared better if they had waited to see how Lincoln handled the slavery question.
My point in posting the article was to spur some thought over culpability for the violence and economic drag that 13% of our population imposes on the rest of us. People who celebrate Confederate heritage don't seem to take that into account.
Lincoln got it passed in 5 states and had the original 7 seceding states indicated that this would satisfy them, it is highly likely it would have passed. Had protecting slavery been their primary concern, they could have had it.
The Southern aristocracy was all about expanding slavery into new territory. It was the only way they could figure to keep the institution alive. Cotton needed new ground.
Nobody seriously thought the West suitable for cotton production. There was almost no effort made to bring slaves into the Western territory and had the expansion of slavery been their big concern, they would hardly have adopted a solution that meant they would leave without making any claim to the Western territory of the US which is exactly what they did when they opted for secession. Expansion before had been about votes in the Senate. With them no longer needing votes in the US Senate, they no longer cared about expanding slavery.
The South has always favored decentralized power, a balanced budget and a limited government. That goes all the way back to the time that they were colonies. That's not something new that emerged in 1938. It had always been there. That's what caused the South's break with the Democrat party. They became the party of big government, centralized power and socialism all of which were anathema to Southerners.
The South voted against Republicans for 100 years after the Republicans covered themselves in chit in the mid 19th century. The South didn't turn conservative. It always was. The Democrats turned from the party of small government, states rights and the working man to the party of centralized power, big government, socialism and most recently fascism....ie government and big business in bed together.
Yes really. Slavery would be explicitly protected in the US Constitution and since 15 states still allowed slavery and it takes a 3/4 majority to pass a new amendment, it would be impossible to ever ban slavery without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed it. Everybody understood the numbers back then. It was ironclad protection of slavery - and Lincoln even said he would offer strengthened fugitive slave laws. Obviously that wasn't what even the original 7 seceding states were interested in because they turned the offer down.
Rediculous. The Confederacys Government was way larger than the North and Socalized entire industries. The South was a Center of the Populist Parry. Most Southern Senators supported the Facist New Deal. Jackson was a founder of what is considered modern Conservatism. The orginal Maga. The Union, Small Goverment, and Anti- Hamiltonianism and Monopoly.
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.