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 ...
Agreed.
Either way, the South of the past is not the South of today. The South of today is heavily Republican. We learned our lesson. According to my great-grandfather, the slave owners in the South were mostly wealthy Southern Democrat plantation owners, politicians, and wealthy business owners. There were Republicans in the South at that time, but most were NOT in favor of slavery. They didn’t like being told what to do. We still don’t.
The reason we are hated today is because of our stand against abortion and other perversions that liberal Democrats try to force on us. We still don’t like to be “ruled” and told what to do.
My great-grandparents and grandparents in the South saw changes. My Republican grandmother was terrified of the Southern Democrats in the 60’s. She lived in fear of the clan. If you were even seen being friends with a black person in the 60’s and before, you were targeted and threatened. She wasn’t a racist. She was afraid.
That’s where so many in the liberal North are today. They use threats and intimidation to force their way on others. The people of the South, whose ancestors have been here since the forming of the country, that suffered through the same intimidations and threats, aren’t having it.
Past Southerners have made mistakes choosing a President but usually it was because the alternative was worse in their eyes. My dad always said, “never vote for a Democrat or a Catholic”. I don’t know what he had against Catholics, but I don’t share his opinion on that. He broke his own rule when he voted for Carter. He said he only did it because Carter was a Baptist and a Southern farmer. He regretted that vote for the rest of his life.
Democrats will always have their slave class. In the Civil War, it was blacks. Today it is moving from blacks to Hispanics, illegals, and any other minority group that they can exploit.
It’s the Southerners that have stood against the liberals and Democrats through history that will save the country today, if it can be saved.
Abraham L.
---------------------
Preserving the Union (ie the all-powerful central federal government that we all know and "love" today) was the overriding goal.
Incidentally, the internal revenue code all by itself (not to even mention all the other outrageous laws on the Union books) should be a cause for violent revolution among a truly freedom loving people.
Am I? Where does it specifically mention slavery?
Nope. That's just the propaganda lie spread to justify an invasion that killed 750,000 people so that Washington DC could continue exerting economic control over the very lucrative Southern export trade.
The cause of the war was *MONEY* which would have been lost to New York and Washington DC (the corrupt "establishment") if the South governed themselves.
At stake was about 700 million dollars per year in a 4.5 billion dollar economy, and the Northern states launched that war to prevent the loss of that money to their economy.
Excellent summation of the "war was caused by slavery" lie.
The war was caused by hundreds of millions of dollars that would be lost to the powerful elite of New York and Washington DC. The same corrupt bastards who are running the nation today.
“The Second American Revolution was about slavery in the same way the First American Revolution was about tea.”
Slavery was the excuse, robbery was the motive.
Excellent.
...just wow, the DoodleBug has the weakest tea (and arguments) I’ve ever seen on a thread... and he thinks he’s convincing! He must also believe all the CoupFlu crapola,
but it’s not worth anyones time to research his useless posts! ... ymmv
No, the ‘root’ of the civil war was the irresponsible ‘fire breather’ democrats led by Vice President John C Breckenridge.
The Republicans bent over backwards (Corwin amendment) to maintain the Union.
Think how different those four years had the Democrats used their incredible levels of power in Federal government to peacefully secede.
The belligerent democrats had more than sufficient power in the House, Senate and Judiciary to force the Federal government to accept the their leaving.
The elected not to go that route, but to secede. Then the belligerent democrats forced the issue (on dithering Virginia) by starting a shooting war at fort Sumpter.
You need to stop believing crap just because people tell you it is true.
Washington DC passed the Corwin Amendment which would have guaranteed permanent slavery in the US.
Slavery was not the reason why Washington DC invaded the South. The reason Washington DC invaded the South was because the South was going to remove their trade with Europe from the corrupt control of the "establishment" which was receiving around 700 million dollars per year from Southern production.
The war was about *money* and "slavery" is a lie they tell to justify the killing of 750,000 people in a war fought for economic supremacy.
The enslaved in the South DID NOT GIVE THEIR CONSENT!
The US Constitution did not mention slavery directly...
One major difference between the two documents - one mentions it ten times and one doesn't mention it at all.
...but it had the 3/5ths compromise as well as a Fugitive Slave Clause.
As it happens the first was applicable only to slavery but the Fugitive Slave Clause also covered indentured servants and apprentices.
It also allowed for the African Slave trade to continue for 20 years. The Confederate Constitution kept the ban on the African slave trade. The only imports it allowed were from the US. In other words, it kept the status quo ante and nothing more.
But unlike the U.S. Constitution specifically protected slave imports. One major difference.
It did not prevent any non slave state. In fact that was voted down.
Article 2, Clause 1: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." Where a state in the U.S. could prohibit slaves within its borders entirely no state in the Confederacy could be slave-free. Any slave owner could enter the state and remain as long as they wished with their property and there was nothing the state could do about it.
As for the claim that it "required any territories acquired to permit slavery" that was the same as the US post Dred Scot.
Except that the Confederate Constitution specifically protected slavery in the territories while the Dred Scott decision comments on slavery were made in dicta and were not binding. They certainly would have been challenged.
You say it made it impossible to amend the constitution to end slavery. No it did not.
The amendment process for the Confederate Constitution required Congress to act. Either to submit the amendment itself or, if it initiated in the states, "Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made..." Yet Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 says "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Such a call or such an amendment would certainly "impair the right of property in negro slaves" and would be, on the face of it, unconstitutional. It would have made an interesting question for the Confederate Supreme Court...had such an institution been allowed to exist.
“Am I? Where does it specifically mention slavery?”
First it was “mentioned”.
Now, it is “specifically mention”.
As you retreat, what will be your next rally point?
I am coming; and I’m bringing Union President Abraham Lincoln with me.
And this is the lie told by their Rich Wealthy powerful corrupt DC controlling Liberal elite enemies.
The evil people in that conflict were the rich Northerners who launched a war against them to keep that Southern money flowing into their own pockets.
"Slavery" is the lie. The North passed the Corwin Amendment which would have guaranteed permanent slavery in the US.
The Northern power brokers are the liars and the people who were motivated by evil greed.
Slavery had not a d@mn thing to do with why Northern armies invaded the South.
And yet here you are.
Not quite. The Battle of Palmito Ranch, the last land battle of the war--and a Confederate victory--was fought in May, 1865. And during the summer, the raider CSS Shenandoah wiped out the Yankee whaling fleet in the Bering Sea.
Now, it is “specifically mention”.
Can you show me where it was mentioned then?
Of course they do.
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.