Posted on 03/10/2019 7:34:32 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
It's pretty ironic to make that argument in the defense of slaveowners.
I think it is less likely, but I would have to read up on it more. My recollection is that there were elements agitating to leave for years before.
But again, it doesn't matter why they wanted to leave. People have a right to self determination. Having a bad reason for wanting independence is not justification for denying them their rights.
It's like policing speech. Arguing that only people who say the "right" speech can have "freedom of speech" is missing the point. The right exists for "bad" speech too.
The right to independence also applies to "bad" reasons for wanting independence.
What is really Ironic is the use force to subjugate people and claim you did it to stop subjugation.
Especially when your side was okay with subjugation when it was funneling money through the right hands in New York and Washington DC.
“People have a right to self determination. Having a bad reason for wanting independence is not justification for denying them their rights.”
So a massive slave insurrection in the deep south could be justified on those principles.
I'm not going to indulge everyone's efforts to keep making the people nobody gave a sh*t about for "four score and seven years" of Union slavery, the focus of the discussion.
I am also not going to attempt to justify murder, which is what would have happened in such a circumstance.
The black people had a right to freedom, but one does not prove subjugation is wrong by forcing subjugation on others. That proves subjugation is "right", if you have enough power. It is the same foundation on which slavery is built.
The plantation owners were wrong to compel labor from others, but this isn't the reason why the Union went to war with those states. That is the excuse used to justify what they did after the fact of already launching the war for other reasons. Monetary reasons.
If his peculiar form of logic is to be followed, it would also by extension legitimize John Brown and his band of merry men.
Lord, he points to some of the wealthiest people on the planet at the time and laments their “subjugation”. Unbelievable!
“That proves subjugation is “right”, if you have enough power. It is the same foundation on which the Union is built.”
Was busy with other things and didn’t realize that you (much like myself) had stumbled onto bird-brain’s alter-ego, “FLThunderbird”. Looks like he ran outta juice there in 2015. Likely from the same rectal-cranial inversion he exhibits here.
Oh of course they can't accept it - even though its quite clear in the words of the people who lived at the time. Protection of slavery effectively forever was the very first bargaining chip the North offered up. It was obvious to everybody that by specifically citing it in his inaugural address as well as by sending letters to the governors of the original 7 seceding states - not to mention it was common knowledge Lincoln had orchestrated it himself - that Lincoln was OFFERING the original 7 seceding states slavery effectively forever if they would only agree to come back in. He even publicly offered strengthened fugitive slave laws. So the grand "noble" cause talk was all a sham right from the start. The North and Lincoln and particular, were only too happy to bargain away slavery if anybody thought it was actually threatened, which it obviously was not. The original 7 seceding states TURNED IT DOWN. They have no indication that this would satisfy them. What they wanted was independence and for the very same reason the North wanted to keep them in - MONEY. It was all about money. It was never about slavery. But some who claim to be conservatives will nevertheless line up with the most strident Leftists in Academia who have propagated the "all about slavery" revisionist BS to suit their LEFTIST politics today.
Had roksinhishead ever bothered to read, he would have noticed that the Southern states were quite content to leave without ever claiming any of the Western territories. Obviously they weren’t interested once they no longer needed votes in the Senate to prevent themselves from being exploited even more than they already were by the Northern state.
I have to admit you have the patience of a saint though I don’t know why you bother with the same utterly obsessed 2-3 PC Revisionists who spring up in EVERY thread in which the subject is mentioned.
The funnies of all is rocksinhishead who doesn’t even bother trying to make arguments instead just spewing bile nonstop just like the standard Leftists you see on DU or Huffpo or some other such cyber cesspool.
So according to you, the New York money power took the United States to war in order to preserve the wealth that flowed to their coffers through the slave-powered cotton economy. And naturally, at the end of that war, they freed the slaves because why again?.
Just out of curiosity, do the Rothschilds or the Queen of England figure into your beliefs?
There should be some way of using the NY Times archive to find the quote if it was in the paper. I haven't been able to find it myself. One needs the context to figure out what one-line quotes like this mean. Very often writers use "indirect speech" to convey what they think other people are thinking and saying (They are saying this, not that I necessarily agree with them"). Or they speak hypothetically ("If we do this, that will happen"). So one can't always take such one-sentence quotes at face value.
Here are some from the NY Times. You won’t have to search too hard. I’ll provide the dates for you.
“The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.” New York Times March 30, 1861
......Similarly, the economic editor of the NY Times, who had maintained for months that secession would not injure Northern commerce or prosperity, changed his mind on 22 March 1861: “At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States.”
Here’s the Old Gray Lady on slavery:
(opposed abolition of slavery….. proposed slaves should be allowed to marry and taught to read and invest their money in savings accounts...)which would “ameliorate rather than to abolish the slavery of the Southern States.”...and would thus permit slavery to be “a very tolerable system.” New York Times Jan 22 1861
LOL! I would say they’d like to have that one back and their articles about how it was all about money.....but remember this is the paper that employed and never gave back Walter Duranty’s apologia for Stalin and efforts to cover up the Holodomor and now there’s the whole Russia Collusion conspiracy theory. So you see the NY Times has been an embarrassment for quite some time.....
I now avoid these threads like a plague. You can’t put up one single post about the South without some nut responding. Sad, as our president would say.
I also looked for that quote & couldn't find it.
So I made a small investment in a book of New York Times Civil War reports.
When it arrives we'll see what might be there.
I suspect the full context will show those words simply report what "some people" might say.
Many of these same nuts were nevertrumpers
It’s a segment of culture I didn’t know existed till I came here
Obnoxious
Well... "nut" or not, nobody ever put up a single post "about the South".
What they do instead is trash the United States, trash Republicans, trash "the Nawth" and anyone who dares to defend that devil-in-chief, "Ape" Lincoln.
So we all owe you sincere thanks for not piling on.
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.