Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Modern Democrats reveal their true intentions align with those of the Confederacy
NY Post ^ | 4/09/25 | Adam B. Coleman

Posted on 04/10/2025 2:41:26 AM PDT by Libloather

Modern Democrats have latched onto an argument in favor of illegal immigration — and it’s the same one pro-slavery Democrats used in the 1800s.

“So, I had to go around the country and educate people about what immigrants do for this country, or the fact we are a country of immigrants. The fact is ain’t none of y’all trying to go and farm right now,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said at a speech commemorating Grace Baptist Church’s 125th anniversary in Waterbury, Conn.

“You’re not, you’re not. We done picking cotton. We are. You can’t pay us enough to find a plantation.”

A cheap, illegal workforce is necessary, the Democrats argue, and the peoples of Mexico, Honduras, Haiti and other nations should be forced to fill it.

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York agrees, stating in a hearing last year, “Forget the fact that our vegetables would rot in the ground if it weren’t being picked by many immigrants, many illegal immigrants.”

In January 2025, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) pressed the then-agriculture secretary nominee, Brooke Rollins, during her nomination hearing about the impact of losing illegal labor.

“It’s estimated that half of California’s farmer workforce is undocumented. How are farmers in California supposed to survive if there are truly mass deportations in which half of the workforce is sent out of the country?”

“Americans don’t want to do that work. It’s frankly too backbreaking. So, who’s going to work the farms?”

Do Democrats — the party of woke and cancel culture — realize how racist they’re being?

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Food; History
KEYWORDS: confederacy; crockett; democrats; nadler; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last
To: FLT-bird
The owner of the imported goods sees his margins squeezed and his sales decline.

So the Confederate Tariffs would work the same way? They would just be paying Southern politicians rather than damn yankee politicians. Hummm. So what was so bad about tariffs again?

81 posted on 04/15/2025 9:34:32 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
So the Confederate Tariffs would work the same way? They would just be paying Southern politicians rather than damn yankee politicians. Hummm. So what was so bad about tariffs again?

The tariffs the CSA laid on were to raise money to pay for their defense. The ones Yankee corporate interests lobbied for and got were to line their own pockets.

Tariffs aren't bad per se. The problem was the the economy was very highly specialized between the regions and tariffs would greatly benefit one region while crushing another. It would be like in the old days when all the auto manufacturers were in Detroit erecting massive tariffs on imported cars. GREAT for Detroit. They will be able to jack up their prices and still gain market share. Bosses, stockholders and employees can divide up the extra profits but they all win. Sucks for everybody else - the price of cars goes up. They're just poorer. If the region that benefits has more people such that they can always outvote the region that gets screwed, then the region getting screwed knows that's it. They have no real chance of ever getting out from under this politically imposed impoverishment for others' benefit. Its exactly the same cause that caused their fathers and grandfathers to secede from the British Empire. The colonies were offered seats in Parliament. It was just never going to be enough to stop themselves from being economically exploited by an English Parliament that had every incentive to just keep jacking up their taxes.

82 posted on 04/15/2025 11:17:38 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
The tariffs the CSA laid on were to raise money to pay for their defense. The ones Yankee corporate interests lobbied for and got were to line their own pockets.

Oh.. So it was those DamnYankee tariffs that were bad evil, ugly and worth going to war over. But the Confederate tariffs were good and dog gone it and pure as snow.

Is that it? Slavery had nothing to do with any of it… right?

83 posted on 04/15/2025 12:19:05 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Oh.. So it was those DamnYankee tariffs that were bad evil, ugly and worth going to war over. But the Confederate tariffs were good and dog gone it and pure as snow.,/P>

The first were purely for SELF INTEREST....to line their own pockets at the expense of Southerners. The second were for self defense. It sucks when a country has to raise taxes to pay for a war of self defense it did not want but that's not at all the same as special interests lobbying for and getting a tax on others that will benefit themselves.

Is that it? Slavery had nothing to do with any of it… right?

Slavery was an issue. It was even an important issue. It was not THE issue. It was not the thing they could not reach a compromise over. That issue was money...tariffs and corporate welfare from the federal government.

84 posted on 04/15/2025 1:04:55 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Slavery was an issue. It was even an important issue. It was not THE issue. It was not the thing they could not reach a compromise over.

You know that’s total BS. The tariff was easy to compromise on. They did it all the time. Hell, in 1860 when the Southern states began seceding, we had the lowest tariffs in history and they would have stayed that way if the Southern states had stayed in the union. Tariffs were not the issue even if you want to pretend they were. The issue was slavery, and with abolitionists on one side pushing to end it and fire eaters on the other pushing to expand it, there was no room left for compromise. As many members of the founding generation feared, it finally came to blows.

85 posted on 04/16/2025 4:59:52 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
You know that’s total BS.

You know the denial of it is total BS.

The tariff was easy to compromise on. They did it all the time. Hell, in 1860 when the Southern states began seceding, we had the lowest tariffs in history and they would have stayed that way if the Southern states had stayed in the union.

False. The Walker Tariff was relatively low but it was still higher than would have been desirable to serve the needs of the Southern States. There is a reason a tariff for revenue (ie maximum 10%) was all that was allowed under the Confederate Constitution barring national emergency like war. Tariffs were the issue Lincoln and the Republicans refused to compromise on.

The Morrill Tariff passed the US House in 1860. All that was needed for it to pass the US Senate was to pick off 1 or 2 Senators which could be accomplished by the standard log rolling....ie give a sop to this or that Senator by exempting some key product from his state and threaten that if he doesn't make a deal with you before somebody else does, he'll get left out in the cold. "Protection of home industry" was one of the key slogans of the Lincoln campaign and with the House, Senate and White House aligned, passage of the Morrill tariff which would go on to TRIPLE tariff rates was certain to pass. Furthermore, everybody knew that.

Tariffs were not the issue even if you want to pretend they were.

Tariffs were the issue even if you want to pretend they weren't.

The issue was slavery, and with abolitionists on one side pushing to end it and fire eaters on the other pushing to expand it, there was no room left for compromise. As many members of the founding generation feared, it finally came to blows.

The issue was not slavery. The abolitionists were a tiny minority and could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in election after election. As for the expansion of slavery being the issue, in 1860, in the New Mexico Territory, an area which encompassed the area presently occupied by the States of New Mexico and Arizona, there were a grand total of 22 slaves, only 12 of whom were actually domiciled there. If the South intended to be a “Slave Power,” spreading its labor system across the entire continent, it was doing a pretty poor job of it.

Commenting on this fact, an English publication in 1861 said, “When, therefore, so little pains are taken to propagate slavery outside the circle of the existing slave states, it cannot be that the extension of slavery is desired by the South on social or commercial grounds directly, and still less from any love for the thing itself for its own sake. But the value of New Mexico and Arizona politically is very great! In the Senate they would count as 4 votes with the South or with the North according as they ranked in the category of slave holding or Free soil states”. This is why I pointed out from the beginning that arguments over the spread of slavery were a power struggle which was all about votes in the Senate...which was really about the economic policy of the federal government. This is what Jefferson Davis was talking about when he accused Northerners of wanting to limit the spread of slavery solely to turn the federal government into "an engine of Northern aggrandizement". This is why the Southern states were happy to not claim one square inch of Western territory when they seceded. Once they were out of the US and no longer needed votes in the US Senate to protect themselves, they were no longer interested in expanding slavery to areas that were completely unsuited to cotton or tobacco anyway.

86 posted on 04/16/2025 6:00:21 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Ya, that spread of slavery was no big deal. That’s why they were killing each other in Kansas, and bludgeoning people into near death in the US Senate. No big deal.. That’s why the south called Lincoln “Black Lincoln” and the Republicans “The Black Republicans”..

Yet you say slavery was no big deal, even though your own Vice President, (who was pro tariffs BTW) called slavery the Cornerstone of the Confederacy. You think he would have said 10% Tariff in the Cornerstone. But no, he said slavery.

87 posted on 04/16/2025 7:24:59 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
When, therefore, so little pains are taken to propagate slavery outside the circle of the existing slave states, it cannot be that the extension of slavery is desired by the South on social or commercial grounds directly, and still less from any love for the thing itself for its own sake.

So little pain taken… talk about total BS. I’d say Kansas was painful. I’d say the debates over Missouri, over The Fugitive Slave Act, over popular soverenty, or the admission of Texas, or the Wilmount Proviso, or the southern filibusters into Mexico and Central America, or the desire to annex Cuba or Dred Scott… I’d say they were are part of very painful preview of the war.

Your British journalist didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.

88 posted on 04/16/2025 7:33:39 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Ya, that spread of slavery was no big deal. That’s why they were killing each other in Kansas, and bludgeoning people into near death in the US Senate. No big deal.. That’s why the south called Lincoln “Black Lincoln” and the Republicans “The Black Republicans”.. Yet you say slavery was no big deal, even though your own Vice President, (who was pro tariffs BTW) called slavery the Cornerstone of the Confederacy. You think he would have said 10% Tariff in the Cornerstone. But no, he said slavery.

Who said it was "no big deal?" Certainly not I. I said it was an issue and was even a major issue but that it wasn't "THE" issue. Much of the drive to expand slavery or to prevent the expansion of slavery was all about the power struggle between the two sides specifically in the US Senate. Just like today if I know your view on one issue, I can pretty accurately guess your views on many other issues most of the time so it was back then. If you were pro slavery you were against high tariffs and against centralized power. If you were against the spread of slavery or an abolitionist, you were pro tariff (which economically benefitted the North and hurt the South) and you were for centralizing ever more power in Washington DC (since you knew your side had more people and thus would have more power over the Southern states).

As for Ye Olde Cornerstone speech every PC Revisionist trots out, firstly Stephens was not very influential and held no real power. This was so much the case that he spent most of the war at home in Georgia. Nobody in the Davis administration listened to him. Next, if we are to take Stephens' word as gospel on this, what did he say about the North's motivation for starting a war?

“Their philanthropy yields to their interests. Notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor…The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after – though they come from the labor of the slave.”

What did he say about centralizing power in the federal government and usurping power from the states?

"If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity."

What did the powerful and influential president of the CSA, Jefferson Davis say about the causes of the war?

Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.

"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83

“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess

“No, it is not, 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. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis

Davis rejects peace with reunion

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/

89 posted on 04/16/2025 7:38:46 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
So little pain taken… talk about total BS. I’d say Kansas was painful. I’d say the debates over Missouri, over The Fugitive Slave Act, over popular soverenty, or the admission of Texas, or the Wilmount Proviso, or the southern filibusters into Mexico and Central America, or the desire to annex Cuba or Dred Scott… I’d say they were are part of very painful preview of the war. Your British journalist didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.

Firstly he was talking about the New Mexico territory - ie New Mexico and Arizona. Next, individual filibusters into Mexico or Central America did not have popular support and were not an expression of the political will of the people of the South or indeed of the whole country. Several of them were much more motivated nationalist sentiments than concerns over slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act and the constitutional fugitive slave provision weren't really about the expansion of slavery.

If the expansion of slavery were truly desired for its own sake or because of economic reasons, why were the Southern states perfectly content to secede without claiming any of the Western territory? The very act of secession meant giving up any chance to spread slavery there. That would hardly seem like a reasonable solution if their real concern were spreading slavery. If however they were far more motivated by a power struggle over federal economic policy in Washington DC then suddenly it would all make sense.....

90 posted on 04/16/2025 7:47:34 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
“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.”

91 posted on 04/16/2025 8:12:25 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
So now we're just repeating ourselves. OK.

“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”

"The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.

The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

92 posted on 04/16/2025 8:37:08 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
So now we're just repeating ourselves. OK.

Well on that we agree albeit you are significantly more long winded than me. But we will never agree on this so let it stand as is… you think 700,000 men died over a few percentage points of tariffs. I say they died over something’s far more important than that… union, the constitution, and the true fact that all men were created equal.

93 posted on 04/16/2025 10:06:44 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Well on that we agree albeit you are significantly more long winded than me. But we will never agree on this so let it stand as is… you think 700,000 men died over a few percentage points of tariffs. I say they died over something’s far more important than that… union, the constitution, and the true fact that all men were created equal.

We're not just talking about a few percentage points as you would have it. The Tariff of Abominations in the 1820s was crushing the Southern economy. People in the South remembered what that was like from a generation earlier and did not want to see it again. Furthermore, unlike the compromise the Nullification Crisis brought about, they knew there would be no way they could get those crushing tariffs lifted this time. Them declaring independence was a matter of economic survival for them. Otherwise, they would be reduced to the status of being colonies to Northern interests....which is what actually happened.

Its quite clear to anybody who studies the issue, both sides did not go to war over slavery. They both said so at the time and the North did not even choose to make slavery an issue in the conflict until it had been ongoing for 2 years already. The whole "dying to make men free" propaganda was pushed after the fact to try to cover for the fact that a war Lincoln started thinking it would be a walkover (only 75,000 men for 90 days) ended up being an extremely costly 4 year + bloodbath. They couldn't very well tell Northern voters who had lost family members or seen loved ones mangled and crippled for life that they had paid such a high price for money and empire....even though that was the reality.

94 posted on 04/16/2025 10:14:51 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

I have studied the issues and it is quite clear to me that the only thing that drove the sections to war was in fact the slavery issue. You can keep screaming the Lost Cause nonsense all you want, but it does not change the facts. Slavery split the sections, not tariffs. The higher percentage of slaves in an area, the more they supported secession. That is a fact.


95 posted on 04/16/2025 12:14:54 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
have studied the issues and it is quite clear to me that the only thing that drove the sections to war was in fact the slavery issue.

The first 7 states, maybe. The last 4 to secede were in support of states rights.

Arkansas:

AN ORDINANCE

To dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other states united with her under the compact entitled "The constitution of the United States of America".

Whereas, In addition to the well founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th March, A. D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power at Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention, pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any state that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such states, until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this, have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshalled to carry out this inhuman design, and to longer submit to such rule or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas.

96 posted on 04/16/2025 12:19:28 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I have studied the issues and it is quite clear to me that the only thing that drove the sections to war was in fact the slavery issue. You can keep screaming the Lost Cause nonsense all you want, but it does not change the facts. Slavery split the sections, not tariffs. The higher percentage of slaves in an area, the more they supported secession. That is a fact.

I've studied the issue judging by the lack of original source material, far more thoroughly than you have and its quite clear to me that the only thing that drove secession and war was in fact the Tariff/government largesse issue. You can keep spouting the Leftist PC Revisionist dogma to your hearts' content, but it does not change the facts. Tariffs split up the country, not slavery. Slavery was something they were perfectly prepared to compromise over. Slavery was something both sides said explicitly that they were not fighting over.

97 posted on 04/16/2025 1:39:18 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Even of the original 7, only 4 issued declarations of causes. I've gone on at length about how Georgia and South Carolina took great pains to lay out the economic case even though this was not unconstitutional and Northern refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional. Texas had additional grievances.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

ie intentionally refusing to provide border security which was an obligation of the federal government undertook when it signed the accession treaty....kinda like the Biden regime which refused to protect the border and all those Lefties in places like NYC and New England who were more than happy to see Texas saddled with the huge burden of trying to take care of all the illegals who flowed in. Sound familiar?

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States.

ie they expressly violated the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have engaged in what we today would call state sponsored terrorism. People who financed John Brown's raid and equipped it with very modern and expensive Sharps rifles publicly proclaimed they had done so. The raid had murdered Southern civilians and had the express purpose of murdering many more.....AND state governments in New England refused to prosecute them for it. What would America's reaction have been had people proudly stood up in Saudi Arabia and proclaimed they financially backed Bin Ladin in his attack on America and the Saudis refused to prosecute them for it? We would have regarded that as an act of war and we would have gone to war with them for it. Why would anybody expect Southerners to have felt any differently about this?

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

See this??????????? "They're passing sky high tariffs they know will crush our economy and they've lavished all the money raised by those tariffs on themselves. They did this before and saw the effect ruinous effect on our economy and now that they have the political power to do so, they're determined to impose crushing tariffs like that on us again." That's what they're saying.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

Their refusal to provide border security is done out of malice.

Clearly, the grievances of even the original 7 seceding states ran way beyond slavery. Had protecting slavery or even enforcement of the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution been their main concern, they could have had that by simply accepting the Corwin Amendment. They refused.

98 posted on 04/16/2025 1:55:38 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
I've studied the issue judging by the lack of original source material, far more thoroughly than you have and its quite clear to me that the only thing that drove secession and war was in fact the Tariff/government largesse issue.

You mean your posting filibusters. Rather than fill FR with endless posts, I’ll just post this link To The Declaration of Causes of the five states with the decency to explain why they were going to war.

I post this not with any hope of changing your mind (you have convinced yourself of a historical fiction) but for anyone else who might want to understand what caused that war. Those five did not include tariffs in their reasons.

99 posted on 04/17/2025 6:59:00 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
You mean your posting filibusters.

No. What I mean is I've posted direct quotes and sources from the people involved at the time. Its just very inconvenient for the political dogma you wish to cling to.

Rather than fill FR with endless posts, I’ll just post this link To The Declaration of Causes of the five states with the decency to explain why they were going to war.

And I've shown how 3 of the 4 states (there were only 4) which issued declarations of causes for secession (it was secession....Lincoln started the war) went on at length about their economic grievances even though these were not unconstitutional and refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional.

I post this not with any hope of changing your mind (you have convinced yourself of a historical fiction) but for anyone else who might want to understand what caused that war. Those five did not include tariffs in their reasons.

Obviously you have swallowed the Leftist PC Revisionist dogma hook, line and sinker. As such, you are immune to actual facts, quotes and sources from the people involved at the time. I posted all the evidence I did not because it would ever be possible to persuade you, but instead so that others who care to examine the evidence for themselves rather than just gullibly swallow whatever their Leftist history profs said.

100 posted on 04/17/2025 9:48:18 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson