Posted on 04/12/2022 2:53:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
It was in this month, one hundred and fifty-seven years ago, that the Civil War ended. I have seen afficionados of both sides lament what happened, while they might argue over who was right, and what was lost.
I am not an aficionado of the Lost Cause Theory. While some defenders of Dixie claim the issue was states’ rights, the chief underlying cause of the war was slavery. In his "Cornerstone Speech" of March 21, 1861, Confederate VP Alexander H. Stephens' stated bluntly that slavery was the very foundation of Southern society. Four states: Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, even listed slavery among their reasons for leaving.
Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes"…
Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights. -- Battlefields.org
The usual reply is that the South rejected the proposed Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the south, hence the issue was states’ rights.
The problem with that argument is that the South did not want slavery to be “protected.” Rather, the South wanted slavery to expand to the Pacific. They wanted New Mexico, Arizona, and even Southern California to allow slavery. In their minds, the Corwin Amendment wasn’t enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
👍
BS. Nobody was threatening slavery. Quit lying.
Just like the "insurrection" of April 12, 1861 was a Liberal created myth.
Many have observed that Mr. Madison's private communications, primarily later in life, seem to diverge from his public statements in previous years. Obviously, each reader must decide how to treat such differences. Some may give additional weight to his later, private comments, on the assumption that later comments chronologically supersede those made earlier in life.
I choose instead to focus on the purpose of Madison's written comments, and their affect on these United States - I therefore give additional weight to his public writings, over his private letters. In many ways, Mr. Madison 'sold' the proposed Constitution to the American people (via his public writings in The Federalist Papers and elsewhere), and I therefore think it is reasonable to consider those public communications as forming a part of the 'foundation' of the Republic. In contrast, his personal correspondence in later years not only had no affect on the establishment of the constitutional union, but was never intended to have such affect, being addressed only to individual friends or acquaintances.
With regard to Mr. Rawle, once again, a judgment must be made by each reader. Some might prefer to give weight to any specific details offered ("There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions"). Others might suggest that his foundational principle - the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed - carries greater weight. Indeed, if the people of a State are sovereign, and free to discard representative government entirely in favor of some other form (as Rawle clearly states), is their sovereignty then somehow subject to the presence or absence of specific language in the compact they are discarding? (Or was Rawle's comment regarding an "express provision" perhaps a professional preference, offered by an attorney who helped found one of the oldest law firms in America? ;>)
As noted, each reader may interpret or prioritize the same written words in different ways...
May be?
You are a history student but you are not sure if slavery is implied in the United States Constitution? Previously you have gone on record as flatly stating: Slavery is not mentioned AT ALL in the U. S. Constitution.” (emphasis added)
I appreciate your knee-jerk reaction to historical comments of slave owners George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others from the original 13 slave states - but why are you repudiating the words of Union President Abraham Lincoln?
“There is nothing defensible in this - to argue that anything done to continue and extend slavery was ‘right’ shows a terribly damaged moral character.”
That is an interesting comment.
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
We should have picked our own cotton.
“And it wrote into it’s Constitution that no state could secede from it.”
That is an interesting comment. May we see your data?
Same here with my relatives and ancestors. My original ancestor came here from Scotland in the mid-1700’s. My grandmother’s ancestors came here from Ireland. My Scottish ancestors landed in N.C. and migrated South to TN and GA from there. They were all very self-sufficient and clannish. The first thing my Scottish ancestors did was set up a moonshine still and start making whisky the way they had always done in Scotland.
A friend of mine from Wisconsin came to visit several years ago and wanted to see some real mountain hillbillies. I had a hard time finding any. I took them way back in the mountains to some small, isolated communities. One thing they noticed was that although the mountain people were friendly enough, they felt like the only reason they were friendly was because I was there. Still, they weren’t exactly what my Wisconsin friends thought they would be.
Other things they noticed was that few women here wear a lot of makeup or have tattoos. LOL I explained that in the extremely conservative religious areas, both of those were frowned on. They were also amazed at how well whites and blacks get along together. The only trouble they had with a lot of our black people was that they couldn’t understand their manner of speech. I had to translate a lot. They went on and on about the local radio stations that gave out the addresses of people that were arrested. They were amazed at the religious things they saw. Our local Wal-Mart was hosting a tent revival in the parking lot at the time and had hung a Jesus Saves over the Wal-Mart Saves sign on the front of the store. There were loud speakers blasting out gospel music that could be heard all over town.
They went home with a heavy load of culture shock.
in what way?
It produced nothing, it's leading defenders hated the free market.
Entirely false. It produced the vast majority of US exports. Its leading defenders wholeheartedly supported the free market. They were against big government.
It's government trampled on states rights.This is the exact opposite of reality.
It Socialized whole industries,
It nationalized resources while fighting a war of national survival. All governments will do so under similar circumstances.
it violated civil rights beyond what Lincoln did
Once again, this is the exact opposite of the truth.
And it wrote into it's Constitution that no state could secede from it. Texas would have left, and formed it's own nation again.
Cite the provision of the Confederate Constitution that prevented a state from seceding. We both know you can't. There is no such provision.
That map shows cotton in Alabama as a “minor crop”. True now, but before boll weevil, and especially before 1865, it was very much a MAJOR—in some case an only—crop.
My land still bears the scars of cotton cultivation more than 150 years ago.
Hear, hear!
I hope this is a sentiment we all here can agree on.
Read the Confederate Constitution.
Read it, and read “Look away.” Of course you will call it Yankee propaganda.
“The South also fired first.”
And the United States fired first at Pearl Harbor. So what?
That alone doesn’t mean a thing.
“Read the Confederate Constitution.”
I thought since you were quoting the Confederate Constitution you might have it at your finger tips.
Perhaps you are just going from what you remember reading on the Internet several years ago.
I think your claim is wrong but if you have data to share I’ll consider it.
I had a Great grandfather from Sevierville, TN who fought as a Sgt. in the Union and died at Andersonville. I also had a Great Grandfather and Three Great Uncles who fought and provided support to William Quantrill. In fact, one of these Great Uncles was one of Quantrill’s inner circle (Ves Akers). He was with Quantrill and Frank James when Quantrill was killed in KY. After being captured and walked to the gallows to be “fake” hanged two times (in order to get him to talk), he somehow escaped the Union prison and went back to Missouri.
After all of this, I harbor no hatred for either side and honor all of these men.
I have no idea if that is a pen name or not. If so that is not my business, and neither is it yours. So there.
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.