Posted on 10/15/2020 10:58:01 PM PDT by robowombat
I wish FR had a 'Like' button, as there are amazing posts. Since you and I have nothing to say to each other. I equally wish there was a 'Block' button so I would never see your posts again.
“no, we never owned any slaves.”
Are you 160 years old?
“I am of southern heritage and my people fought for the south. It was a hundred years before I was born”
Me too.
Doesn’t make them right. They acted like Democrats after Trump won.
Confederate leaders lead their people in to disaster and death and poverty for no reason other than the belief they could own other humans.
The Democrats today do not see us as human. It was then and is now hubris and arrogance and disrespecting the humanity of others.
“States are sovereign and have the right to unilaterally secede. That is precisely what each of the 13 colonies did just 8 years before the constitution was ratified”
You’re calling the revolution secession?
The Founding Fathers knew well they were committing treason.
It was justified.
“Southerners were fighting against everything today’s conservatives hate: centralized power”
No they weren’t. They were exactly like today’s Democrats using the courts to force their will on other states, Dred Scott for example.
More broadly there is no greater centralized power than keeping others in bondage under the aegis of government force, which is what they were doing.
You too, and it's 'led' not 'lead' but you knew that, right, since you know everything else. Your's is merely an uninformed opinion, adding nothing but obfuscation to the casual reader.
make sure it never happens again.
Why?
Seems we are getting close again...but without the armies and thousands maimed and killed.
Sever the NE and West coast, if thats what they want, and squeeze the blue in the middle.
Larry is here on FR
Have you read his history books?? He is a valued historian of note. I don’t know what Beck does with him
A EE with an MBA us not a historian. His opening premise is incorrect and his follow through us wrong. Don’t buy the List Cause arguendo if the democrat party. That’s where that analysis started to justify their insurrection. They promised if Lincoln was elected they would revolt. Their founding documents explain that they were doing so to sustain slavery first last and always
Don’t be fooled by the pathetic democrat party
South got burned out pretty good.
Worked out well for them.
Democrats always destroy people and lives they claim to represent.
the most curious question I'm dying to have answered is, why did Lincoln want South Carolina back soo badly?
I think he was an egotistical maniac who was put in his place when the south left, and afraid the south would attack to take Maryland back, because Maryland at the time was pro confederate. He arrested the Maryland house of reps before they could vote on joining the confederate states of America. jailed and held all without charges or access to any legal counsel!. . Ol honest abe trampled on the constitution horribly and was one of the worst presidents we have ever had in that regard.
Did not Lincoln admit that “I Fear I have destroyed the Republic in preserving the union”? Or words to that effect.
Wonder what he meant?
Democrats in the South were thugs...they talked the same way about blacks then that today’s democrats talk about us.
They discouraged any speech they disagreed with... and they rigged the vote by denying the vote to millions of black citizens.
Democrats in the Jim Crow South were the same as democrats today...thugs.
It's kind of like "war crimes", I guess; the winning side gets to call these things.
Yes, South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes does go on about Slavery. The Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett aka “the father of secession” who was an important South Carolina political leader was attached to and sent out with South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes. It went on at length about the economic grievances South Carolina and the Southern states had.
Why did Lincoln want South Carolina (and several other Southern states) back so badly? Because it was a cash cow! Its exports were extremely valuable. The North made a lot of money servicing those exports (banking, insurance, shipping, acting as wholesalers, etc) and the federal government made a lot of money on tariffs imposed on the goods those exports were exchanged for. Indeed, that is how the federal government got most of its money back then given that there was no federal income tax.
Here is what the leading newspaper in South Carolina said:
“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.” Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
Here is what several other prominent South Carolina political leaders said:
“The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ... The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue,” John C Calhoun Speech on the Slavery Question,” March 4, 1850
George McDuffie of South Carolina stated in the House of Representatives, “If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberties subverted, historians who record these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government, nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation.” While the Northern manufacturer enjoyed free trade with the South, the Southern planter was not allowed to enjoy free trade with those countries to which he could market his goods at the most benefit to himself. Furthermore, while the six cotton States — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas — had less than one-eighth of the representation in Congress, they furnished two-thirds of the exports of the country, much of which was exchanged for imported necessities. Thus, McDuffie noted that because the import tariff effectively hindered Southern commerce, the relation which the Cotton States bore to the protected manufacturing States of the North was now the same as that which the colonies had once borne to Great Britain; under the current system, they had merely changed masters.
“The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.” - Robert Barnwell Rhett
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, “I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself.” James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, “I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy.”
“Next to the demands for safety and equality, the secessionist leaders emphasized familiar economic complaints. South Carolinians in particular were convinced of the general truth of Rhett’s and Hammond’s much publicized figures upon Southern tribute to Northern interests.” (Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, Ordeal of the Union, Volume 2, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1950, p. 332)
South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. When in the Course of Human Events: Charles Adams
South Carolinians in particular had been screaming about how the federal government/Northern states had been screwing them over economically for decades. Remember the Tariff of Abominations and the Nullification Crisis in the 1830s centered on South Carolina. This was the same argument 30 years later. This is what Leftists do not want you to mention. This is why they try to lie and claim it was “all about slavery”. If you look at the economic causes, suddenly you understand why the other 94% of Southerners who did not own slaves wanted out and were willing to fight to protect their homes.
Nicely put. People dont want to talk about the south paying 70% of the federal governments expenditures. Or the south had been railroaded by northern tariffs on cotton.
Because it would have been a violation of his oath to accept secession. The constitution gives the executive branch zero authority to determine the status of a state. Even spineless James Buchanan understood that.
“Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government, involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is therefore my duty to submit to Congress the whole question in all its beatings. The course of events is so rapidly hastening forward that the emergency may soon arise when you may be called upon to decide the momentous question whether you possess the power by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty were I not to express an opinion on this important subject.”
George Washington was most certainly a traitor, to England. He, and the rest of the founding fathers, knew this. That is why Ben Franklin so famously said; “We must all hand together, or we will, most assuredly, all hang apart.”
However, I give two figs about someone being a traitor to England. I do care about someone being a traitor to America, which all of those that supported the southern rebellion were.
You’re talking about the post war period.
Its true the Southern states adopted the “Black Codes” that were on the books in Northern States already. Furthermore, its true that there was lawlessness and violence and repression in that period.
Of course its also true that during so-called “Reconstruction” Southern voters were disenfranchised and hopelessly corrupt Republican carpet bagger governments manipulated then relatively unsophisticated Black voters to steal everything they possibly could from White Southerners.
This is typified by the likes of State Representative John Patterson, a white Pennsylvania transplant, who, when questioned about corruption flippantly replied, “Why there are still 5 good years of stealing left in South Carolina”.
An essential element of early “Reconstruction” was the disenfranchisement of all of the adult white males in the South, coupled with the voter registration of every last adult male ex-slave. The ex-slaves assisted in the continued plundering of the South by voting en masse to raise taxes that provided precious little in the form of government services. Untold millions were simply stolen by Republican Party “officials.” (Property taxes in South Carolina, for example, were 30 times higher in 1870 than they were in 1860, and a punitive federal tax was imposed on cotton at a time when what the South needed was tax amnesty).
The Ku Klux Klan was created to terrorize the ex-slaves out of participating in this political plundering racket operated by the Republican Party. The Republicans kept promising to share the property of white southerners with the ex-slaves, which of course they never did and never intended to do. Had the Republicans not used their victory and their monopoly of political power to line the pockets of the thousands of political hacks and hangers on who were the backbone of the party (the “carpetbaggers”) the Ku Klux Klan would never have existed. This in fact was the conclusion of the minority report of an 1870 congressional commission that investigated the Klan. “Had there been no wanton oppression in the South,” the congressmen wrote, “there would have been no Ku Kluxism” (Congressman Fernando Wood, “Alleged Ku Klux Outrages” published by the Congressional Globe Printing Office, 1871, p. 5). The report continued that when southern whites saw that “what little they had saved from the ravages of war was being confiscated by taxation . . . many of them took the law into their own hands and did deeds of violence . . . . history shows that bad government will make bad citizens.”
That’s the part that somehow never gets talked about, what gave rise to groups like the KKK. That’s no defense of them, but this did not come from nowhere. The Occupation and massive theft and oppression of the carpetbagger governments did a lot to cause the problems that went on to bedevil the Southern states until the Civil Rights Movement.
The revolution was secession. Yes it was justified. So was the secession of the Southern states in 1860-61. Both were caused by the same thing - taxation without representation.
(and yes the British offered the colonies some seats in Parliament - just not enough to protect themselves from being economically exploited for the Mother Country’s benefit).
When people feel that they are being taxed for others’ benefit and that they do not have effective representation - that is enough representation to protect themselves against ever more money grabs by a government, its hardly surprising that they then decide they’d be better off going their own way.
No they weren’t. Dred Scot was a Supreme Court decision. It was not a policy the Southern states insisted on. What the Southern states most wanted was relief from paying for the vast majority of the federal government’s revenue even while they got only a small portion of the federal government’s outlays. They furthermore wanted some kind of limit on how much the federal government would tax them. The Northern states were not willing to give any such guarantee.
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.