Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Lincoln holiday on its way out

By Phil Kabler Staff writer

A bill to combine state holidays for Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays into a single Presidents’ Day holiday cleared its first legislative committee Wednesday, over objections from Senate Republicans who said it besmirches Abraham Lincoln’s role in helping establish West Virginia as a state.

Senate Government Organization Committee members rejected several attempts to retain Lincoln’s birthday as a state holiday.

State Sen. Russ Weeks, R-Raleigh, introduced an amendment to instead eliminate Columbus Day as a paid state holiday. “Columbus didn’t have anything to do with making West Virginia a state,” he said. “If we have to cut one, let’s cut Christopher Columbus.”

Jim Pitrolo, legislative director for Gov. Joe Manchin, said the proposed merger of the two holidays would bring West Virginia in line with federal holidays, and would effectively save $4.6 million a year — the cost of one day’s pay to state workers.

Government Organization Chairman Ed Bowman, D-Hancock, said the overall savings would be even greater, since by law, county and municipal governments must give their employees the same paid holidays as state government.

“To the taxpayers, the savings will be even larger,” he said.

The bill technically trades the February holiday for a new holiday on the Friday after Thanksgiving. For years, though, governors have given state employees that day off with pay by proclamation.

Sen. Sarah Minear, R-Tucker, who also objected to eliminating Lincoln’s birthday as a holiday, argued that it was misleading to suggest that eliminating the holiday will save the state money.

“It’s not going to save the state a dime,” said Minear, who said she isn’t giving up on retaining the Lincoln holiday.

Committee members also rejected an amendment by Sen. Steve Harrison, R-Kanawha, to recognize the Friday after Thanksgiving as “Lincoln Day.”

“I do believe President Lincoln has a special place in the history of West Virginia,” he said.

Sen. Randy White, D-Webster, said he believed that would create confusion.

“It’s confusing to me,” he said.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, suggested that the state could recognize Lincoln’s proclamation creating West Virginia as part of the June 20 state holiday observance for the state’s birthday.

Proponents of the measure to eliminate a state holiday contend that the numerous paid holidays - as many as 14 in election years — contribute to inefficiencies in state government.

To contact staff writer Phil Kabler, use e-mail or call 348-1220.

[Gianni]

Oh by the way could you explain Douglas' meaning of "protecting public property"

I would have to explain the whole sentence, apparently. He's saying that Lincoln's war has nothing to do with either protecting public property or enforcing the laws.

It truly is amazing that on a website entitled 'Free' Republic, defenders of slavery in America are still spouting their 'confederate' propaganda

Now Douglass is a confederate? You people really don't know when to quit.

"Stonewall" was your man.

Stonewall Jackson was the man, but stonewall was also what your man King Lincoln did when Congress asked what he was doing in Charleston Harbor, and again when congress asked why he arrested the Maryland legislators.

stone·wall ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stnwôl)

To refuse to answer or cooperate with; resist or rebuff: “I want you to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment” (Richard M. Nixon).

Oh no, I've offended you with the term monkeyboy for making the rediculous statement:

The treasonous cotton upper crust first had to attempt to overthrow the United States government and install Davis & poster boy Stephens in the White House,

M. Espinola

It's always difficult to be civil with someone who's incessantly accusing me of racism and defense of slavery, so I'm not going to bother trying. You're a liar and a pig. Broadside & broad-brush with accusations of racism and make up outlandish crap like the above, then pretend offense when someone dishes it back. Spoons like you are plenty good at dishing it out, but apparently I'm supposed to remain Mr Nice guy.

What was your source for the supposed overthrow of the Washington government?

[Gianni]

I guess I don't know how this post advances your argument.

[Gianni]

I never thought that I would hear anybody in the 21st century expressing approval for the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act, two of the most noxious blights on the history of America.

Defense of such is defense of the Constitution and the rule of law.

It is understandable that you hate both as you hate hell, given your heroes.

[PeaRidge]

"I'll bet you a plate of spaghetti that the major dredging of Charleston harbor Coker talks about in his book was a FEDERAL project not a State one."

Pull out your pot and get ready to cook.

From P. C. Coker's "Charleston's Maritime Heritage", page 185...parenthesis is mine.

"With a contract from the city (Charleston) to dredge the channel, Charleston machinists James and Thomas Eason had the experimental dredgeboat General Moultrie built in New York...General Moultrie began operating in Charleston in February 1857...General Moultrie cleared 190,000 cubic yards of silt from the channel at a price of 66 cents per cubic yard. Her success made her the forerunner of modern dredges used by the Army Cours of Engineers... Maffitt's Channel was cleared and ships of full draft were using the port on a regular basis by 1860."

[M. Espinola]

"I never thought that I would hear anybody in the 21st century expressing approval for the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act, two of the most noxious blights on the history of America."

I guess you have encountered 'Gianni' the same guy to this day attacks anyone & everyone who agreed with the abolition of slavery, while at the same time states the Confederates and their pro-slavery agenda could do no wrong.

Each time this backward element in question types anything on these neo-confederate threads they show their true colours, loud and clear.

[mac_truck]

[mac] the South was in no way prohibited from any of the activities promoted by either the Warehousing Act or the Navigation Act. Failure to do so leaves a rather large hole in your 'unfair economic practices led the South to leave' paradigm.

[G]That's like saying the North was in no way prohibited from taking advantage of the cotton gin or the slave system, and their failure to do so left a rather large hole in the 'unfair economic practices led to separation' paradigm.

Nonsense Gianni. Take a look at what the Warehousing Act of 1854 says.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That all goods, wares, and merchandise, which may be hereafter duly entered for warehousing under bond, and likewise all merchandise [not] now remaining in warehouse under bond, may continue in warehouse, without payment of duties thereupon, for a period of three years from the date of original importation, and my be withdrawn for consumption on due entry and payment of duties and charges, or upon entry for exportation, without the payment of duties, at any time within the period aforesaid; in the latter case, the goods to be subject only to the payment of such storage and charges as may be due thereon: Provided, however, that where the duties shall have been paid upon any goods, wares, or merchandizes entered for consumption, said duties shall not be refunded on exportation of any such goods, wares, or merchandizes, without the limits of the United States: and provided further, That there shall be no abatement of the duties, or allowance made for any injury, damage, deterioration, loss or leakage sustained by any goods, wares, or merchandise, whilst deposited in any public or private bonded warehouse established or recognized by this act.

The Warehousing Act didn't specify that the imported merchandise must reside in the North or the South, and Charleston [like New Orleans] was an active seaport involved in international trade. All that was required was a warehouse to store the imports AND an economic reason for doing so.

Either Southern businessmen lacked the business acumen [or carpentry skills] to take advantage of the Warehousing Act, or warehousing large quantities of imports in the South did not make economic sense to them. If the latter is true, then the assertion that the South was a huge consumer of imported goods and by consequence paid a disproportionate amount of the tariff on them is false.

The same logic may be applied to the phony premise that the Navigation Act was detrimental to the South. Even casual research on Southern seaports of that time would reveal that they were ship builders in their own right, especially of smaller craft that could be used in domestic traffic. A requirement that merchandise delivered from one domestic port to another be done on an American built and owned vessel in no way prevented the South from building, buying or owning such vessels.

[G] is there anything, today, preventing North Dakota from taking advantage of coal subsidies? Or gaining benefit from a steel tariff? It seems those would be acts tartgeted to benefit states like West Virginia or Pennsylvania, regardless of where they apply.

Another poorly drawn analogy that doesn't fit the circumstances here. In addition to their own seaports, the South enjoyed the competitive advantage of having the major export product [cotton] grown closer to their own seaports than any in the North. If they had been a bit more diligent about developing a diverse economy that included storage and distribution facilities, they could have benefited quite well from the Navigation and Warehousing Acts. Failure to do so was no one's fault but their own.

[M. Espinola]

"It's always difficult to be civil with someone who's incessantly accusing me of racism and defense of slavery, so I'm not going to bother trying."

Difficult? You're the one on here cheering on the 'loser' Confederates. Remember what one of your heroes wrote:

"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."

Do you disagree with Confederate front man #2?

Let us proceed --->"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

Wow, the "moral truth"

Slavery is the "moral truth" - how interesting. Are you going to attempt to say Stephens really didn't mean what he stated while issuing these words of hate in front of a frenzied mob of White supremacists representing Plantation Inc.?

[PeaRidge]

"Actually South Carolina didn't mind spending FEDERAL dollars on deepening the Charleston Harbor. Those appropriations had been ongoing for almost a decade. H.R.585."

Coker stated that those appropriations were made. I do not have any information to indicate if the funds were spent or not.

However it is clear from Coker's work that the project was not completed with Federal Funds. In fact, Coker reported that city and state money had to be obtained for the completion of the project. See above post.

"...Several decades if you go back to the FEDERAL appropriations to develop and improve a system of forts for the defense of Charleston Harbor."

Yes, that came about as a result of the War of 1812, with the permission of the Constitution..."...to provide for the common defense..."

"I haven't been able to uncover any evidence that those independent minded South Carolinians eschwed any of that FEDERAL largess however."

Have you uncovered any evidence that the New Yorkers eschewed the Federal largess that built the Erie Canal?

"Pea, rather than focusing you attention on what you perceive to be arrogant bashing"

You mean perceptions such as this:

Mac truck post 80--"How dare you suggest that Southern gentlemen actually take responsibility for this sort of enterprise. Why that would require...hard work, sweat, and mingling with mud-sills. Not to mention, skill and ingenuity..."

"why don't you try presenting a cogent rebuttal to the charge that the South was in no way prohibited from any of the activities promoted by either the Warehousing Act or the Navigation Act."

Prohibition is your word. Protection is mine.

Beginning in 1789 American shipping companies in the Northeast were protected against foreign shipping competition by laws that required domestic importers and exporters to pay a fee to the Customs department if they used foreign ships for trade. These fees were then disbursed to private shipping companies as compensation

Other protectionist laws were arranged to the advantage of Northeastern shipping interests. To discourage competitive shipping, no person or company was permitted to purchase a fully rigged ship from foreign sources.

[Gianni]

Another poorly drawn analogy that doesn't fit the circumstances here.

A perfectly drawn analogy.

The South was as geographically challenged in the area of European trade as mondern-day Iowa or Kansas are in the mining of coal. As such, any federal subsidy or favoritism to the coal industry is bound to favor West Virginia more than Iowa or Kansas; no different from favorable trade laws in the mid-1800s.

Combine that with generations of infrastructure development in Northeastern shipping, and it did not make economic sense for the South to invest in trying to catch up. It has already been stated that investment of the Southern dollar saw a higher return when invested in the plantation & slave labor system, so it should be no surprise that's where their dollars went, and their rhetoric focused on it's justification as our friends MEspinola, Colonel Kangaroo have pointed out. I'm sure if one looked, one could find similar (but not as well-publicized) quotes from Northeasterners with respect to the slave trade, but history has chosen to bury them.

[Gianni]

I guess you have encountered 'Gianni' the same guy to this day attacks anyone & everyone who agreed with the abolition of slavery, while at the same time states the Confederates and their pro-slavery agenda could do no wrong

You're confusing legality with moral right.

Unless you're going to say that Lincoln acted as an agent of God and argue this from a religious standpoint (and others here have done so before...), you've got no argument to make.

[Gianni]

Each time this backward element in question types anything on these neo-confederate threads they show their true colours, loud and clear.

I have asked you to knock off the acusations of racism.

What are my true colors, Espinola?

[Gianni]

Do you disagree with Confederate front man #2?

I disagree with him, and also disagree with Union front-man #1:

"To the dismay of his biographers and Lincoln Day Orators everywhere, Lincoln was indiscreet enough to say on public platforms that he believed in the Illinois Black Laws that Douglass and other Blacks deplored. It was in Charleston, Illinois, on Saturday, September 18, 1858, a day that will live in infamy to all those condemned to the unenviable task of denying the undeniable, that Lincoln defined himself for the ages, announcing:" ~ Lerone Bennett, Jr. ~

While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

So there he is, then, everybody's, or almost everybody's, favorite President, confessing his racial faith and giving unimpeachable test­imony before some fifteen thousand Whites that he was opposed to equal rights and that he believed there was a physical difference between the Black and White races that would FOR EVER forbid them living together on terms of political and social equality.

The Charleston speech in which Lincoln said these terrible things is not in a foreign language. It is not in Latin or Swahili or Greek-it is in short, blunt Anglo-Saxon words, and no literate person can mis­understand the man or his meaning. Who was he? He was, he said, a racist who believed, as much as any other White man, in White supremacy and the subordination of Blacks.

How do the defenders of the faith deal with this smoking-gun evidence? They deny, first of all, that the gun is smoking or that it is even a gun. Few Lincoln defenders, for example, quote that para­graph in its entirety or in context. The usual practice is to paraphrase the offending paragraph without telling us what Lincoln said.

Another technique is to give us the paragraph or parts of the para­graph, en passant, and to smother the harsh words with great Mahlerian choruses of affirmation. Neely, in fact, praises Lincoln for his restraint, saying that in this statement Lincoln went as far as he was going to go in denying Black rights (1993, 53). But a man who denies Blacks equality because of their race, and who denies them the right to vote, sit on juries or hold office, couldn't have gone much further.

All who report the statement in whole or in part give Lincoln instant absolution (see pages 122-3). Fehrenbacher and Donald say Lincoln was forced to make the statement. "The whole texture of American life," Fehrenbacher says, "compelled such a pronouncement in 1858... (1962, 111, italics added). Fehrenbacher, a sophisticated scholar who added to our knowledge of the nineteenth century, didn't mean that, for he knew that sticks and stones can break bones but that a texture can't compel a grown man to say anything.

Donald, like Fehrenbacher, said it was politically expedient and perhaps "a necessary thing" for Lincoln to say he was a racist in a state where most Whites were racist, adding, to his credit, that the statement "also represented Lincoln's deeply held personal views." Having conceded the main point, Donald says paradoxically that it was not Lincoln's true feeling and that Lincoln was not "personally hostile to blacks" (221). But here, once again, an attempt to prove that Lincoln was not a racist backfires and ends up proving the opposite. For what could be more hostile than an attempt by any man to deny a whole race of people equal rights because of race?

Almost all Lincoln specialists blame not Lincoln but Stephen Douglas who, they say, made Lincoln say it. According to this theory, Lincoln, pressured by Douglas, said he was a racist because he, wanted to get elected to office. The proof, they say, is that he was ashamed of what he said at Charleston and didn't say it again.

If Lincoln was ashamed, he had a strange way of showing it. For he traveled all over Illinois and the Midwest, proudly quoting the Charleston Confession, even to people who couldn't vote for him. Nineteen days after the Charleston speech, he quoted the same words to an even larger crowd at Galesburg. A month later, he pre­pared an extract of his best speeches on the subject and listed the Charleston Confession (CW 3:326-8). A year later, in Columbus, Ohio, he was still quoting the Charleston speech to prove that he was opposed to equal rights.

The most ingenious -- and startling -- explanation of what Lincoln said at Charleston comes from the Bogart School (see page 211), which praises the aesthetics of the Charleston Confession while deploring its sentiments. At least one interpreter, Pulitzer Prize-winner Garry Wills, said there was poetry or potential poetry in the passage, which he scanned:

I will say then/that I am not/nor ever have been/in favor of bringing about/in any way/ the social and political equality/of the white and black races ....

In a triumph of style over content, Wills said that what Lincoln said was indefensible but that he said it "in prose as clear, bal­anced, and precise as anything he ever wrote;" a view that de­pends, of course, on one's perspective and one's understanding of prose and clarity (92).

What shall we call the scanned Lincoln lines? The poetics of racism or the racism of any poetic that subordinates any man or woman to any other man or woman because of race, color, or religion?

And to understand the truth of Lincoln's poetic, and how one racism invokes and includes all racisms, one must make another transposition and ask what Lincoln's words would sound like in another language and another color:

I will say then...
that I am not
nor ever have been
in favor of
making voters
or jurors
of Irishmen
or Italians
or Albanians.

It's the same principle, and Lincoln pressed that principle from one end of the state to the other from the 1830s to the 1860s.

Between 1854 and 1860, Lincoln said publicly at least two times that America was made for the White people and "not for the Negroes."

At least eight times, he said publicly that he was in favor of White supremacy.

At least twenty-one times, he said publicly that he was opposed to equal rights for Blacks.

He said it at Ottawa:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (CW 3:16)

He said it at Galesburg:

I have all the while maintained that inasmuch as there is a physical inequality between the white and black, that the blacks must remain inferior.... (Holzer 1993,254)

He said it in Ohio. He said it in Wisconsin. He said it in Indiana. He said it everywhere:

We can not, then, make them equals. (CW 2:256)

Why couldn't "we" make "them" equals?

There was, Lincoln said, a strong feeling in White America against Black equality, and "MY OWN FEELINGS," he said, capitalizing the words, "WILL NOT ADMIT OF THIS..." (CW 3:79).

Are you going to attempt to say Stephens really didn't mean what he stated while issuing these words of hate in front of a frenzied mob of White supremacists representing Plantation Inc.?

No, I admit of Stephens disgusting racism.

Your entire argument is that The Good King Lincoln put down the evil slavers who thought as Stephens did. The problem you can't circumvent is that Lincoln's own opinions were indistinguishible from those of Stephens, Davis, or any of the others with respect to equality. He went so far as to be more harmful in his intentions to the blacks, keeping them out of the territories because:

If slavery was allowed to spread to the territories, he said "Negro equality will be abundant, as every White laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n-----s"

Lincoln, CW 3:78 [Lincoln uses the N-word without elision]

Get that, Espinola? Let's look at it again. Lincoln says that, if slaves are allowed in the territories, there is no fear of the spreading of slavery, as you and Colonel Kangaroo have repeatedly implied with your lying, weaseling posts. Spreading of slavery was not the issue at all. What did King Lincoln say the issue was again?

"Negro equality will be abundant, as every White laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n-----s"

--Abraham Lincoln

Now, where is that source for the supposed coup which Davis was to lead in Washington?

[M. Espinola]

As stated previously, you are the one on these threads supporting the confederate insurrection based on maintaining slavery and expanding their empire.

[M. Espinola]

You are the one promoting the pro-slavery Confederate cause in 2005 on this thread. When called on the carpet you go crying to the Admin like a little snitch, which you have also done in the past. Very typical.

[Gianni]

You are the one promoting the pro-slavery Confederate cause in 2005 on this thread.

If you can't respond to the facts I present, at least point out where I do the things you claim.

'Till then, it's obvious who's trolling.

FYI, since you claim I'm a racist... what race am I, and against whom have I demonstrated racism?

[M. Espinola]

"The South was as geographically challenged.."

That sounds like a PC pinko term is there ever was one.

"I'm sure if one looked, one could find similar (but not as well-publicized) quotes from Northeasterners with respect to the slave trade, but history has chosen to bury them."

The North had treasonous Copperheads and other pro-slavery rabble, but it was the center of Plantation Inc in South Carolina which triggered the Civil Wa, since they thought their slave based cotton empire was threatened. You know, the side you continue to support, the "Confederates".

"It has already been stated that investment of the Southern dollar saw a higher return when invested in the plantation & slave labor system.."

Is that the method of investment return the Confederate leadership was involved with?

"so it should be no surprise that's where their dollars went, and their rhetoric focused on it's justification as our friends MEspinola, Colonel Kangaroo have pointed out."

Truth hurts?

Are you going to go crying to Admin again like a little rat?

[Gianni]

That sounds like a PC pinko term is there ever was one.

Huh? Are you trying to argue that Charleston or New Orleans is not farther away from London? Are you arguing that passage to New York didn't take half the time? Is the layout of the globe a communist plot?

The North had treasonous Copperheads and other pro-slavery rabble, but it was the center of Plantation Inc in South Carolina which triggered the Civil Wa, since they thought their slave based cotton empire was threatened.

It would be contrary to the spirit of the American government ot use armed force to subjugate the South. If the people of the south want to stay out of the Union, if they desire independence, let them have it.

-- April 4, 1861. William Seward to London Times correspondent Russell.

We confess that we intend to trample on the Constitution of this country. We of New England are not a law-abiding community, God be thanked for it! We are disunionists; we want to get rid of this Union.

-- Wendell Phillips, Boston, May 1849.

A great many people raise a cry about the Union and the Constitution. The truth is, it is the Constitution that is the trouble; the Constitution has been the foundaton of our trouble.

-- Henry Ward Beecher

No act of ours do we regard with higher satisfaction than when several years ago, on the rth of July, in the presence of a great assembly, we committed to the flames the Constitution of the United States and burned it to ashes.

-- The Boston Liberator, April 24, 1863

Resolved, That we seek the dissolution of this Union, and that we hereby declare ourselves the friends of a new Confederacy of States, and for a dissolution of the Union.

-- Meeting in Faneuil Hall, Boston, January 2-4, 1854.

If the church is against disunion, I pronounce the church of the devil! Up with the flag of disunion!

-- William Lloyd Garrison

A dissolution of the Union is what a large portion of the Republicans are driving at.

-- Parson Brownlow, 1858

Why preserve the Union? It is not worth preserving. I hate the Union as I hate hell!

-- Mr. Langdon of Ohio

All this twaddle about preserving the Union is too silly and sickening for anything.

-- The True American, Republican newspaper of Erie, Pennsylvania.

Let us sweep away this remnant which we call a Union.

-- Senator Wade of Ohio, 1855.

Disunion is the sweetest music! What if a State has no right to secede? Of what consequence is that? A Union is made up of willing States, not of conquerors and conquered. Confederacies invariably tend to dismemberment. The Union was a wall built up hastily; its cement has crumbled hastily. Why should we seek to stop seceded States? Merely to show we can? Let the south go in peace.

-- Wendell Phillips, after the first state had seceded, 1860.

From this time forth I consecrate the labor of my life to the dissolution of the Union, nd I care not whether the bolt that rends it shall come from heaven or from hell!

-- Frederick Douglass

In 1848, Seward voted to receive a petition to dissolve the Union.

In 1854, John P. Hale, Chase and Seward voted to receive and consider a petition demanding the dissolution of the Union.

August 23rd, 1851, the New Hampton, Massachusetts Gazette announced that a petition was circulating in that region for the dissolution of the Union, nd that more than one hundred and fifty names of legal voters had signed it. In 1854 New England sent to Congress a petition, numerously signed, prayer for the dissolution of the Union, using these words:

We earnestly request Congress to take measures for the speedy, peaceful, equitable dissolution of the Union.

Gianni note: These are the abolitionists, the good guys. The racist, segregationists, those promoting ethnic cleansing of the North American continent were for military subjugation (or as they called it, enforcing the laws and holding government property).

Truth hurts?

Truth is just that - truth. It doesn't hurt me, and I don't refuse to acknowledge it, like you.

Are you going to go crying to Admin again like a little rat?

Are you going to call me a racist again?

[M. Espinola]

"Are you going to call me a racist again?"

You do a fine job on your own, attacking ex-slaves such as Frederick Douglass. What's your reason for so disliking Frederick Douglass?

What's the matter does it bother you men like Douglass escaped from your 'honoured Southern slave empire', along with thousands of others slaves who used the Underground Railroad, fleeing the living Hell of forced labour on those cotton plantations. The beastly system you continue defending via countless pro-Confederate posts, plus repeatedly attack 'Abolitionists'.

Were not 'Abolitionists' those in the North & South attempting to do way with slavery in the South?

There would have never been 'Abolitionists' if the Southern cotton interests did away with slavery long before the Civil War, a conflict Cotton Inc began after not getting their way in the election of 1860.

How come you hate everyone who tired to end slavery in the South?

[PeaRidge]

"If the south imported such massive quantities of goods then why weren't those goods delivered directly to them"

I have it on good authority that 100% of the imported goods to Memphis, Tennessee were delivered directly to them.

[Non-Sequitur]

I have it on good authority that 100% of the imported goods to Memphis, Tennessee were delivered directly to them.

Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk. PeaRidge cracked a joke! An intentional one this time. Not unintentional, like the rest of his posts.