Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
Many breathed a sigh of relief when President Biden was elected, not for policy but for a reunification of the country after four years of tumult and fiery division under President Trump. But eight months into the new presidency, America's deep disunity might not be letting up.
A new poll has revealed that political divisions run so deep in the US that over half of Trump voters want red states to secede from the union, and 41% of Biden voters want blue states to split off.
According to the analysis from the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, 52% of Trump voters at least somewhat agree with the statement: 'The situation is such that I would favor [Blue/Red] states seceding from the union to form their own separate country.' Twenty-five percent of Trump voters strongly agree.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
President Lincoln had to deal with a population in the North that wasn't all in for abolishing slavery, and as a politician he talked out of both sides of his mouth. Yes I admit it. Not everyone in the North was the good guys.
Frederick Douglas understood this, and explained it better than I ever could, so I'll let him speak. If you don't want to read the entire document, the 14th paragraph will do.
Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln
The bottom line, the CSA was defeated, and slavery was abolished. Pointing out anything else is nothing more than wasting bandwidth.
Slavery forever was in fact the first bargaining chip the North/Republicans/Federal Government offered up. It was rejected - because slavery wasn't really what anybody was fighting about.
Right. They just accidentally abolished it in this country forever, at least until the free traitors brought it back.
It was really about controlling their tariffs and setting their own trade policy.....about not being taxed for the benefit of others.
Here are some of the comments from those documents.
From Texas: "They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition."
From Mississippi: "It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction."
There's your "state's rights" argument.
Just search for "slaves" and "Negro" in these documents for many more.
So why would they damn themselves in the eyes of history by saying all of this, if they didn't think it was right?
Do you agree with these statements? No? Then you would have been assaulted or lynched in the Confederacy for it.
And that's what's so frustrating. You would never agree with any of this, yet instead of disavowing it you want to pretend it didn't happen. Well, there is your "state's rights".
Certainly Virginia did not say they were leaving because of slavery.
They said they were leaving because of the treatment of slave holding states. What did the other four say they were leaving over? Their states rights and Constitutional rights to own slaves, so yes, it was about slavery.
And even if only four of the states said it was about slavery, then it was about slavery.
They were not founded to abolish slavery. Unless you can prove otherwise. Oh wait, you can't. You were simply wrong when you claimed that.
He himself did not favor abolishing slavery and he wanted to deport all Blacks.
The bottom line, the CSA was defeated, and slavery was abolished. Pointing out anything else is nothing more than wasting bandwidth.
That is what happened. Claiming slavery is the WHY for secession or the war however is simply wrong.....and "wasting bandwidth."
Right. They just accidentally abolished it in this country forever, at least until the free traitors brought it back.
The Northern Republicans thought Lincoln's war would be quick and easy. They thought it would be a walkover. It ended up being a bloodbath with over 350,000 Yankees killed and many more left maimed and crippled for life. They needed to try to claim some "noble purpose" for all that blood and carnage other than just lining the pockets of their corporate lobbyist supporters. So they chose the fig leaf of ending slavery. That's not what they went to war for as their actions and their own words made perfectly clear.
Here are some others:
The two largest newspapers in the original 7 seceding states:
"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
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
How about some of the top political leaders in the South?
"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
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions." Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" wrote the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.
"The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain.
To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North.
This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
In a speech delivered in the Virginia Convention of 1788, Patrick Henry had predicted that the South would eventually find itself economically subjugated to the North once the latter had secured to itself a majority in the new federal Government: "This government subjects every thing to the Northern majority. Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest?... How can the Southern members prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States?" Henry's prediction was not long in being realized. As early as 1789, the first impost bill was introduced in Congress which protected the New England fishing industry and its production of molasses, and exhibited, in the opinion of William Grayson, "a great disposition... for the advancement of commerce and manufactures in preference to agriculture." Thus, when the Union under the Constitution was but two months old, many Southerners felt that their States were already being obliged to serve the North as "the milch cow out of whom the substance would be extracted."
In a pamphlet published in 1850, Muscoe Russell Garnett of Virginia wrote: The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 30, 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was $927,050,097. Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the free States only $215,850,097. Had the same amount been paid by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of their federal population, the South would have paid only $394,707,917, and the North $532,342,180. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid $316,492,083 more than their just share, and the free States as much less.
According to John Taylor of Virginia, a high protective tariff system, like that which existed in Great Britain, was "undoubtedly the best which has ever appeared for extracting money from the people; and commercial restrictions, both upon foreign and domestick commerce, are its most effectual means for accomplishing this object. No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of people, has ever been discovered."
Nevertheless, the North clung tenaciously to its protectionist policy and managed to push through the tariff legislation of 1828 which provoked South Carolina to resistance to the general Government and nearly to secession from the Union during the Administration of Andrew Jackson. It should be noted that, by 1828, the public debt was near to extinction and, at the current rate of taxation on imported goods, a twelve to thirteen million dollar annual surplus would have been created in the Treasury. Thus, the excuse for a high tariff system as a source of Government revenue was a flimsy one at best; the so-called "Tariff of Abomination" really served no other purpose than to "rob and plunder nearly one half of the Union, for the benefit of the residue." James Spence of London explained the effects of such a high tariff on the Southern economy:
"This system of protecting Northern manufactures, has an injurious influence, beyond the effect immediately apparent. It is doubly injurious to the Southern States, in raising what they have to buy, and lowering what they have to sell. They are the exporters of the Union, and require that other countries shall take their productions. But other countries will have difficulty in taking them, unless permitted to pay for them in the commodities which are their only means of payment. They are willing to receive cotton, and to pay for it in iron, earthenware, woollens. But if by extravagant duties, these be prohibited from entering the Union, or greatly restricted, the effect must needs be, to restrict the power to buy the products of the South. Our imports of Southern productions, have nearly reached thirty millions sterling a year. Suppose the North to succeed in the object of its desire, and to exclude our manufactures altogether, with what are we to pay? It is plainly impossible for any country to export largely, unless it be willing also, to import largely. Should the Union be restored, and its commerce be conducted under the present tariff, the balance of trade against us must become so great, as either to derange our monetary system, or compel us to restrict our purchases from those, who practically exclude other payment than gold. With the rate of exchange constantly depressed, the South would receive an actual money payment, much below the current value of its products. We should be driven to other markets for our supplies, and thus the exclusion of our manufactures by the North, would result in a compulsory exclusion, on our part, of the products of the South.
This is a consideration of no importance to the Northern manufacturer, whose only thought is the immediate profit he may obtain, by shutting out competition. It may be, however, of very extreme importance to others — to those who have products they are anxious to sell to us, who are desirous to receive in payment, the very goods we wish to dispose of, and yet are debarred from this. Is there not something of the nature of commercial slavery, in the fetters of a system that prevents it? If we consider the terms of the compact, and the gigantic magnitude of Southern trade, it becomes amazing, that even the attempt should be made, to deal with it in such a manner as this."
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.
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
"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."
US Senator from South Carolina James H. Hammond stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
Now let's look at the declarations of causes. They did mention slavery. We've already discussed what the Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett which was attached to and sent out with South Carolina's declaration of causes said about economics. How about Georgia's declaration of causes?
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
How about Texas' declaration of causes?
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
So you see, there was FAR more than slavery motivating even the original 7 seceding states.
Even after secession they were saying the same things.
"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
So much for the false claims that States' rights or secession were "about slavery."
This has nothing to do with the civil war - it’s a divorce. It’s NOT based on race. One in six black men voted for Trump - they and their families will likely go with us. Same with the almost 40% of Hispanics who supported Trump.
Day ONE (PUS) Progressive United States can outlaw all guns. In their mind that will stop all ‘gun violence’...
Day ONE (PUS) Progressive United States can end the debate on abortion... Abortion can be legal up to 5 days AFTER BIRTH.. in case the kid’s ugly..
Day ONE <PUS) Progressive United States can arrest people who aren’t vaccinated or kill them.
THEY CAN HAVE IT ALL - AND SO CAN WE....
Some couples split by murder/suicide.
Some by hate filled fights that go on for years..
AND SOME COUPLES REALIZE THEY HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON AND SPLIT AMICABLY... That’s what we want. A negotiated divorce from white liberal ‘elite’ control freaks. PUS gets the Clintons, the biased press, union commie thugs, millions of diseased illegals flooding the borders, people who think they should be able to force medicine into people against their will - vaccines, soma, drugged compliance...whatever.
There’s NO REASON for violence.
Both sides hate each other and would be happier dissolving the ‘marriage’. That’s where we are now. It’s over. Both sides will benefit from moving on - we have ZERO respect for liberal ‘elites’ and their toadies and thugs... and they hate us back.
Just end it. It’s NOT a civil war it’s a sane divorce.
I can’t think of one reason any American would want to live in a country where they have nothing in common with the other half of the county.
I'm sure I can trust their press when they tried to make it about something other than slavery, as much as I can trust our press when it comes to honest reporting. Here are the declarations of secession.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
They were not founded to abolish slavery. Unless you can prove otherwise. Oh wait, you can't. You were simply wrong when you claimed that.
The reason the Republican Party formed was to abolish slavery.
"that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.
I've been saying that for years. Nice to know I'm not alone.
Why would they have reason to lie about the economic case for secession? It was obvious the Southern states would be economically better off were they able to set their own tax and trade policies. Southerners had been talking about it for generations as the numerous quotes I cited show.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
We've discussed this already. Only 4 of the 7 original seceding states issued declarations of causes. 3 of the 4 went on at length about their economic exploitation by the Northern states even though this was not unconstitutional. What was unconstitutional was what they cited - the Northern states violation of the compact by refusing to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.
If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
Do I believe they were being economically exploited by the Northern states? Yes, of course. The evidence is irrefutable. Do I believe the Northern states violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution? Yes, of course they did. That too is irrefutable.
The reason the Republican Party formed was to abolish slavery.
False. They said so themselves over and over again.
Republican Platform of 1856 "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein."
They were against the spread of slavery to the western territories possessed by the United States. They were not for abolishing slavery. You do understand that these are two different things, right?
They would have had plenty of reason to lie about it being about something other than slavery.
Do I believe they were being economically exploited by the Northern states? Yes, of course. The evidence is irrefutable.
I'll repeat, if you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
Do I believe the Northern states violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution? Yes, of course they did. That too is irrefutable.
Just wow. Would you have rescued the slaves if you were in a position to do so?
They were against the spread of slavery to the western territories possessed by the United States. They were not for abolishing slavery. You do understand that these are two different things, right?
positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.
A county’s CO gov’t just gave itself emergency powers to seize pretty much everything, guns and water included, if needed.
If above link doesn’t work
Your link goes to:
Hi-Ho Silver, Away!
By Jim Hoft
Published June 26, 2006 at 5:44pm
do you have a different link?
Yes. My next post….post #170.
Also see the order I’m it’s entirety
Why? Most people - as in the overwhelming majority - did not own slaves. The issue of slavery hardly touched them. What did touch them directly however were tariff and taxation policies which sucked money out of their wallets and lined the pockets of Northern industrialists.
I'll repeat, if you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
What are you driving at here? Do I believe the Northern states violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution? Yes, I do. If you want something else be specific.
Just wow. Would you have rescued the slaves if you were in a position to do so?
What do you mean "just wow"? They plainly did violate the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. What would I have done had I lived in the mid 19th century? I have no way of knowing that. I would have a very different worldview had I been born and raised in that time. We are all products of our time and place. We don't pop out of the womb with brains full of knowledge. What we are taught, those around us, what the world is like, what information and influences we have shape all of us.
positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.
Yes, they were against THE SPREAD of slavery to new territories. They were not against the EXISTENCE of slavery where it already existed. Do I need to post all the quotes from Lincoln about this? He said it many times. Publicly. So did just about every other Republican who was around then.
*in its entirety
Apologies
That's one reason why. Not everyone in the South supported slavery, and wouldn't have been on board for going to war to defend it.
It was the same thing in the North where not everyone supported abolition - there, I've admitted it again - and President Lincoln had to talk from both sides of his mouth.
What are you driving at here?
I was clear. If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
They plainly did violate the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. What would I have done had I lived in the mid 19th century? I have no way of knowing that.
That's fair enough, but with your worldview now, would you have returned the slaves to their "owners"?
This should make you appreciate what the abolitionists in the South had to deal with, those whom you say violated the Constitution on returning slaves.
Yes, they had good guys in the South who took great risks to free slaves. I admit that too. Why you'd choose to associate with the confederates over them is beyond me.
Yes, they were against THE SPREAD of slavery to new territories.
prohibiting its existence or extension therein
Do I need to post all the quotes from Lincoln about this? He said it many times. Publicly. So did just about every other Republican who was around then.
I've already answered that with Frederick Douglas's oration here, but if you feel the need to waste more bandwidth at FR, then go ahead.
Correct! Which is why they did not go to war to defend slavery - which....I'll type this slowly....W.A.S. N.O.T. T.H.R.E.A.T.E.N.E.D. What was threatened was ever higher tariffs which would suck even more money out of Southerner's pockets in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods and lower sales of their cash crops abroad.
It was the same thing in the North where not everyone supported abolition - there, I've admitted it again - and President Lincoln had to talk from both sides of his mouth.
There is no reason to believe Lincoln didn't believe exactly what he said when he said over and over again he was not an abolitionist, had no desire to threaten slavery and did not have the power to do so anyway.
I was clear. If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
For the last time. You need to be clear about what it is specifically you want me to affirm. I have already made it very clear I think the Northern states did violate the compact. If you want some kind of nebulous blanket endorsement of everything, I'm not going to give that. I'm done playing these games with you.
That's fair enough, but with your worldview now, would you have returned the slaves to their "owners"?
Well of course not but I was born in the late 20th century at a time when every country in the Western world - even all of Asia too - had outlawed slavery. I was taught from birth that it was contrary to human rights etc etc etc. The world was a different place in the mid 19th century. People's views were very different then.
This should make you appreciate what the abolitionists in the South had to deal with, those whom you say violated the Constitution on returning slaves.
No, I said the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. They had. There's no question about it. You may agree with what they did morally with your 21st century views. That's fine. But it is not consistent with the Constitution.
Yes, they had good guys in the South who took great risks to free slaves. I admit that too. Why you'd choose to associate with the confederates over them is beyond me.
Confederate does not equal "pro slavery". These are two different things.
prohibiting its existence or extension therein
ie "the territories"
I've already answered that with Frederick Douglas's oration here, but if you feel the need to waste more bandwidth at FR, then go ahead.
I haven't wasted one tiny bit of bandwidth. I've refuted PC Revisionist falsehoods. Its important that we not allow political dogma to distort history.
From Georgia: "or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
Also from Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."
From Mississippi: "It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."
From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery".
All taken from The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
There is no reason to believe Lincoln didn't believe exactly what he said when he said over and over again he was not an abolitionist
I've read those quotes, and that isn't exactly accurate. He only said that when he was in no position to end slavery. Once he got the opportunity, he did it.
For the last time. You need to be clear about what it is specifically you want me to affirm
If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
The world was a different place in the mid 19th century. People's views were very different then.
Now you're the one painting with a broad brush. Abolitionists were around long before the CW, and they could see the evil of slavery.
As for the slave owners, if they could whip a slave and not realize they wouldn't want anyone to do that to them (although maybe some did), then what does that say about them?
No, I said the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. They had. There's no question about it. You may agree with what they did morally with your 21st century views.
I would say my views align with the 19th century abolitionists.
But it is not consistent with the Constitution.
The Holocast was legal too.
ie "the territories"
"that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.
I've refuted PC Revisionist falsehoods.
You haven't refuted anything. You just keep regurgitating the same revisionist nonsense.
Its important that we not allow political dogma to distort history.
You mean like President Lincoln didn't want to abolish slavery even though that's what he did? Or the secession wasn't about slavery even though at least four of their articles of secession spelled that out? That's revisionism.
As I've already said, the Northern states violated the compact over the Fugitive Slave Clause. On that issue, the Southern states had an airtight legal argument. No matter how much they hated their economic exploitation by the Northern states, that was not unconstitutional. They could not therefore claim the Northern states violated the compact when they enacted very unfair sectional legislation that sucked money out of Southernsers' pockets and lined Northerner's pockets. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned down the offer. That tells you everything. Slavery was not what really motivated them. It was merely the legal pretext to do what they wanted to do ie secede to gain economic independence.
I've read those quotes, and that isn't exactly accurate. He only said that when he was in no position to end slavery. Once he got the opportunity, he did it.
OK. I see you need some educating on the subject.
"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . . 'I think Sumner [abolitionist Charles Sumner] and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way,' he told the Radicals. . . . 'We didn't go into this war to put down slavery . . . and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith.' Vindication of the president's view came a few weeks later, when the Massachusetts state Republican convention--perhaps the most Radical party organization in the North--defeated a resolution endorsing Fremont's proclamation." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76)
"The problem with this lofty rhetoric of dying to make men free was that in 1861 the North was fighting for the restoration of a slaveholding Union. In his July 4 message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated the inaugural pledge that he had 'no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.'" (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 265),/p>
"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois December 22, 1860
Lincoln was no exponent of equality either - hardly anybody in the North was. If anything they seemed to detest Black people more than Southerners did. That's why several Northern states passed laws making it impossible for Blacks to settle there and driving out the ones who did live there. That's also why they adopted the "Black Codes" from which later Jim Crow laws descended.
“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. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 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. Abraham Lincoln
"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” -Abraham Lincoln
“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . 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. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States. and far from preserving slavery via secession, secession was guaranteed to end slavery all the faster. None other than Lincoln himself pointed this out.
"But secession, Lincoln argued, would actually make it harder for the South to preserve slavery. If the Southern states tried to leave the Union, they would lose all their constitutional guarantees, and northerners would no longer be obliged to return fugitive slaves to disloyal owners. In other words, the South was safer inside the Union than without, and to prove his point Lincoln confirmed his willingness to support a recently proposed thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which would specifically prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery in states where it already existed." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 32-33)
If You don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
OK, you're not serious. You refuse to give me specifics. I'm not playing these games with you.
Now you're the one painting with a broad brush. Abolitionists were around long before the CW, and they could see the evil of slavery.
and they were a teeny tiny minority that couldn't even get their candidates into double digit percentages of the vote in elections.
As for the slave owners, if they could whip a slave and not realize they wouldn't want anyone to do that to them (although maybe some did), then what does that say about them?
It says they were products of their time. The world was a very different place. Our concepts of human rights did not exist then. Blacks were not viewed as equals anywhere in the West at the time - racism was the rule the world over. Nowhere could you have gone in the world at that time where you would find the people anything other than extremely racist by our modern standards. Sexist too. "The Past is a different country" - as the famous saying goes.
I would say my views align with the 19th century abolitionists.
and I would say abolitionists were an absolutely tiny minority North and South at that time. The facts support what I'm saying.
The Holocast was legal too.
Chattel slavery was not equivalent to the holocaust. Specious Analogy.
"that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery IN THE TERRITORIES of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.
You keep deliberately trying to gloss over the "IN THE TERRITORIES" part. That did not apply to the states - only the western territories.
You haven't refuted anything. You just keep regurgitating the same revisionist nonsense.
Oh yes I have. I've refuted your regurgitation of the usual PC revisionist nonsense.
You mean like President Lincoln didn't want to abolish slavery even though that's what he did?
YES! That is PC Revisionist nonsense. He was crystal clear that he had no desire to abolish slavery.
Or the secession wasn't about slavery even though at least four of their articles of secession spelled that out? That's revisionism.
YES! Secession obviously wasn't about slavery. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes (only about 1/3rd of the states which seceded) and 3 of those 4 cited reasons other than slavery. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned down that offer. Clearly slavery was not what was motivating them. To say otherwise is revisionism.
Restore the rights the stats currently have, then Red and Blue will eventuate.
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.