Figured that out about three years ago. Power... and money, which is usually the end goal of chasing power.
This map made me realize it was always about power and money.
3/4ths of that money came from the south.
Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
Figured that out about three years ago. Power... and money, which is usually the end goal of chasing power.
This map made me realize it was always about power and money.
3/4ths of that money came from the south.
Oh but there was something to offer. It passed both houses of Congress, was signed by the president and was set to go to the states for ratification with the understanding by everybody that the Republicans would work fervently to ensure its passage in enough Northern states to have it ratified. You claiming "mostly Democrats" is laughable. A Republican wrote it. Republicans backed it. A Republican president endorsed it in his all important inaugural address. No. The Republicans owned it.
It did not get close to ratification because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. At that point there was no sense in pushing it. The Northern position by the way was that the Southern states never legitimately left. That was their whole basis for starting the war. Therefore their ratification of it very much would count.
So keep posting the Corwin Amendment if you have nothing better to do. You're only wasting FR bandwidth.
Keep trying to deny it. You're only wasting your breath. It destroys your entire argument. I'm going to keep bringing it up as long as you keep pushing your false "all about slavery" narrative.
Most of them were kicked out in 1864 after voting against the 13th Amendment, and the Buchanan administration is considered one of the biggest failures of all time.
Most Democrats at that time were Southerners. They left when their states seceded.
IOW, make slavery legal, and rescuing slaves will be illegal by classifying the slaves as fugitives. Is that your point?
US Constitution Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 “No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
It was for the escaped slaves who joined the Union forces.
That was not why the Southern states seceded nor was it why the North chose to start a war to prevent them from leaving nor was it why the vast majority of people on each side fought.
Your claims about what happened AFTER the war are irrelevant to what the two sides originally went to war over. Your claim that those from the South who chose to fight for the union did so because of slavery are for the most part patently false.
That in no way refutes the fact that the democrats used "states rights" as an argument against ratifying the 13th Amendment.
And?
No one disputes that. Why you keep dredging that up is beyond me. Part of the problem is it was blocked by the Democrats before the voters in the North elected enough Republicans to get it ratified.
I keep bringing up the timeline because you keep trying to claim what happened after the war was what was motivating people before the war. It was not.
Not really. The Republicans favored abolishing slavery but understood they couldn't do it within the framework then in place. They said that. Lincoln said it. You've quoted him on it, even below.
No they did not. The Republicans and Lincoln were quite explicit that they had no desire to abolish slavery where it existed. I've provided numerous quotes showing this.
That is among the quotes you keep trying to prove your point with, but they prove just the opposite. When they got the power they did it, and that was with the full support of the Northern voters."
Here you fail. It was not just that they knew the constitution did not give them the power to abolish slavery. It was that they had "no inclination to do so" in Lincoln's own words. That was the overwhelming sentiment of the Republican party and of Northerners.
That was from his letter to Alexander Stevens. You can find it here. It's called diplomacy, or talking out of both sides of your mouth.
LOL! No. No sale. He said the same thing over and over and over again. He said it in public. He said it in private. He never said anything to the contrary. He had no desire to abolish slavery in the states where it existed. You cannot find any quote from him to the contrary prior to the war.....or indeed well into the war.
This was during his debate with Stephen Douglas. Not that I would excuse this, but it clearly conflicts with his comments I posted above, so I see it as another example of politicking, or talking out of both sides of his mouth. Frederick Douglas acknowledged in his oration that I posted to you earlier.
He said such things many times. No sale on your desperate attempt to claim he didn't really mean it although he said it over and over again.
According to this, "No transcripts or reports exist indicating that he ever actually used this expression in any of his speeches." I know, wiki, so I'll leave it to you to find the transcripts.
“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 in notes for speeches in September of 1859. https://afrospear.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/quotations-from-abraham-lincoln/
also: Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, [New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953], v. 3, p. 399. Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 6, 1859
Second link that popped up on a duckduckgo search. LOL! at using Wikipedia as a source.
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Did Lincoln Really Say That?
Yes. He did.
(address delivered at Washington, D.C.; in Roy P. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume V, pages 371-375).
This was in 1858, when he clearly had no power or ability to abolish slavery.
He not only had no power to abolish slavery, he had no INCLINATION to do so as he himself said.
He was commenting on the racist attitudes at the time.
LOL! No he was not. He was expressing his own flamingly racist views.
Yes there were people in the North who were racist too. There are people who are racists now, and there always will be. The question is, how do we overcome it?
It was the norm in the world at the time....among all people. Everywhere.
We've been over this.
Yes we have. Did you see where he said he had no inclination to interfere with slavery? Read it again. Read it as many times as it takes for you to finally understand it.
Then why did the North convincingly vote out the Democrats who voted against ratifying the 13th Amendment, in favor of Republicans who would vote to ratify it?
That was the only issue of the entire campaign in 1864? You can prove that that's what was motivating the voters in the Northern states and not other issues?
Given the cost of the war and the fact that slavery was abolished afterwards AS A RESULT of the people of the North giving the Republicans a solid majority in the House with which they used to ratify the 13th Amendment, he was wrong.
No he was not wrong. You are once again trying to conflate a result with a cause. They are not the same. The North did not go to war to put down slavery. They themselves said so numerous times.
We've also been over the fact that they couldn't have done it until the confederacy was defeated. You posted excerpts to that effect yourself.
They didn't even try. They didn't even do so in the slaveholding states that remained in. They were not motivated by abolitionism.
It was Grant who issued the infamous General Order #11 which called for Jews to be ethnically cleansed from 3 states.
They don’t like it when you expose their sources of “authority” are almost all hardcore Leftists in Academia.
You need the exercise...bro and his mini me and this newbie retread need your subtle deft
I’m only half joking
Are you a professor too?
Of course, anyone who admires Forrest hates Jews because... reasons.
Of course, you have taken that out of context. Let me help.
Kevin M. Levin tweetI must have blocked close to 300 people over the weekend. It turns out that people who admire Nathan Bedford Forrest don't like Jews. Who would have thought?
7:45 AM · Sep 19, 2021·Twitter Web AppOf course, anyone who admires Forrest hates Jews because... reasons.
Of course, anyone who admires U.S. Grant must really, really hate Jews. Because, Grant is the General who ordered all Jews expelled from his military district.
Had such progressive garbage not been served up as an appeal to authority, it would not have needed a cleanup.
That is palpably dripping enough sarcasm you cannot seriously make believe otherwise. It is very obviously pointing out the rampant stupidity of the remark by Kevin Levin. Perhaps you could point out the rational basis for Levin concluding that if one admires Nathan Bedford Forrest, it means a dislike of Jews.
Attempting to take your straightman act about Grant having Jewish friends seriously, in the old days white people had colored friends.
Grant not only had Jewish friends, he had black slaves, and during the war, his wife would come to visit accompanied by one of her slaves.
But, it must be admitted he did not act friendly like to Jews in his military district, although it is not apparent anti-semism was the cause.
- - - - - - - - - -O.R. 17, p.330
LA GRANGE, TENN., November 9, 1862.
Major-General HURLBUT, Jackson, Tenn.:
Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out.
What troops have you now, exclusive of Stevenson's brigade?
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.- - - - - - - - - -
O.R. 17, p. 337
LA GRANGE, November 10, 1862.
General WEBSTER, Jackson, Tenn.:Give orders to all the conductors on the road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it; but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them.
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.- - - - - - - - - -
O.R. 17, p 424
GENERAL ORDERS,
HDQRS. 13TH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,Numbers 11.
Holly Springs, December 17, 1862.The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.
No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
By order of Major General U. S. Grant:
JNO. A. RAWLINS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.- - - - - - - - - -
O.R. 17, p. 421-2
HDQRS. THIRTEENTH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Oxford, Miss., December 17, 1862.Honorable C. P. WOLCOTT,
Assistant Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the spice regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel everywhere. They will land any wood-yard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves they will act as agents for some one else, who will be at military post with a Treasury permit to to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.
There is but one way that I know that I know of to reach this case; that is, for Government to buy all the cotton at a fixed rate and sent it to Cairo, Saint Louis, or some other point to be sold. Then all traders (they are a curse to the army) might be expelled.
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.- - - - - - - - - -
O.R. 17, p 424
GENERAL ORDERS,
HDQRS. 13TH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,Numbers 11.
Holly Springs, December 17, 1862.The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.
No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
By order of Major General U. S. Grant:
JNO. A. RAWLINS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.- - - - - - - - - -
O.R. 26, p. 9
Washington,
January 21, 1863.Major-General GRANT,
Memphis:GENERAL: The President has directed that so much of Arkansas as you may desire to control be temporarily attached to your department. This will give you control of both banks of the river. *
In your operations down the Mississippi you must not rely too confidently upon any direct co-operation of General Banks and the lower flotilla, as it is possible that they may not be able to pass or reduce Port Hudson. They, however, will do everything in their power to form a junction with you at Vicksburg. If they should not be able to effect this, they will at least occupy a portion of the enemy's forces and prevent them from re-enforcing Vicksburg. I hope, however, that they will do still better and be able to join you.
It may be proper to give you some explanation of the revocation of your order expelling all Jews from your department. The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers, which, I suppose, was the object of your order; but, as it in terms proscribed an entire religious class, some of whom are fighting in our ranks, the President deemed it necessary to revoke it.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. W. HALLECK,
General-in-Chief.* See telegram from Halleck to Grant, same date, quoted in Grant to Gorman, January 22, Part III, p. 5.
- - - - - - - - - -
Of course, Grant was infuriated at the carrying on of the cotton trade across military lines, authorized by the Treasury Department and President Abraham Lincoln. Grant was incensed at this maner of feeding the army of the rather destitute Cnfederate government.
O.R. Series I, vol 46, Part 2, Page 445CITY POINT, VA., February 7, 1865-10 a.m.
Honorable E. M. STANTON,
Secretary of War:
A. M. Laws is here with a steamer partially loaded with sugar and coffee, and a permit from the Treasury Department to go through into Virginia and North Carolina, and to bring out 10,000 bales of cotton. I have positively refused to adopt this mode of feeding the Southern army unless it is the direct order of the President. It is a humiliating fact that speculators have represented the location of cotton at different points in the South, and obtained permits to bring it out, covering more than the entire amount of the staple in all the cotton-growing States. I take this to be so from statements contained in a letter recently received from General Canby. It is for our interest now to stop all supplies going into the South between Charleston and the James River. Cotton only comes out on private accounts, except in payment for absolute necessities for the support of the war.
U. S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General.
CW 8:221
Cotton Permit for Mrs. R. I. Ward [1]Executive Mansion January 18 1865.
An authorized agent of the Treasury Department having with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, contracted for the cotton above mentioned and the party having agreed to sell and deliver the same to such agent.
It is ordered, that the cotton moving in compliance with and for fulfilment of said contract, and being transported to said agent, or under his direction, shall be free from seizure or detention by any officer of the Government, and commanders of military departments, districts posts and detachments naval stations, gunboats flotillas and fleets, will observe this order and give the said Mrs. R. I. Ward her agents and transports, free and unmolested passage, for the purpose of getting the said cotton, or any part thereof through the lines other than blockaded lines, and safe conduct within our lines while the same is moving in strict compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury and for fulfilment of said contract with the agent of the Government.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
In this one, the cotton permit was for 1,000 bales. Eventually, the Union government was trading meat for cotton.
But why are you posting to me when I haven't been active on this thread and have already told you not to post to me?
I am unaware that you have posted any such thing to me. I do not recall that you have posted anything to me.
Your handle came to be included in the addressee line as I was responding to #497 by BroJoeK, and BroJoeK put you there:
To: woodpusher; wardaddy; TwelveOfTwenty; x; jmacusa; rockrr; DiogenesLamp
BroJoeK was responding to FLT-bird #492 with an addressee line of:
To: woodpusher
You may ask BroJoeK why he put you in one of his neighborhood addressee lines. I replied to BroJoeK with the address line he created.
I have only had one poster request me to not post to him, but under a different handle.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3818237/posts?page=253#253To: woodpusher
Please take me off any of these posts.
253 posted on 3/9/2020, 6:58:35 PM by Vermont Lt
If you have made any post to me, please identify it.
Then it was nothing.
...because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
The remaining Union states could have ratified it without help from the slave holding states if they had intended to. They didn't. The only states that did ratify it did so after the slave holding states had seceded and the war had already started.
It never became law, or came close to becoming law. It was nothing.
Most Democrats at that time were Southerners. They left when their states seceded.
And?
US Constitution Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 “No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Yes, I've admitted this. Lincoln admitted this. The Republicans admitted this, which they tried to change in 1864 and succeeded in 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Frederick Douglas acknowledged this.
Now that you've posted this, I'll ask again. Was calling "the negro" "inferior" whose "best use" was as slaves "Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution"?
Yes or no?
That was not why the Southern states seceded nor was it why the North chose to start a war to prevent them from leaving...
Here we go again.
Selected Quotations from 1830-1865
I'll repost the comments from the declarations of secession again.
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."
Also from Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
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."
Also from Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery"
From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
There are three themes here. The first is the inferiority of "the negro". The second is the Republicans support for abolition.
The last are their claims based on the then current law. In 1864 the Republicans attampted to change that law with the 13th Amendment, but the Democrats blocked them. In 1865 the Republicans had enough votes to pass the 13th Amendment, which they did.
nor was it why the vast majority of people on each side fought.
After the Republicans were blocked by the Democrats from passing the 13th Amendment, the Northern states voted in enough Republicans to pass the law.
Your claim that those from the South who chose to fight for the union did so because of slavery are for the most part patently false.
Here's my reference.
CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL: Unionism
If slavery wasn't the issue for them, then why did they choose the Union over their own states?
No they did not. The Republicans and Lincoln were quite explicit that they had no desire to abolish slavery where it existed. I've provided numerous quotes showing this.
From the Republicans in 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." Clearly they are speaking out against slavery, regardless of whether you think "all our national territory" meant "all our national territory".
From Lincoln in 1854. "If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another..."
In 1864 the Republicans voted to ratify the 13th Amendment, but were stopped by the democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, over arguments of "states rights". Americans in the North responded by voting in more Republicans, who were able to pass it the following year.
Go ahead and post your comments showing some of them talking out of both sides of their mouths. In the end, they abolished slavery, and none of your twisting can change that.
Here you fail. It was not just that they knew the constitution did not give them the power to abolish slavery. It was that they had "no inclination to do so" in Lincoln's own words. That was the overwhelming sentiment of the Republican party and of Northerners.
From your previous post, "US Constitution Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 “No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
You allow the slave holding states to use this as legal justification for seceding, but refuse to acknowledge the Republicans couldn't abolish slavery until this was changed.
To look at this another way, I have no inclination to fly around like Superman because I can't. If I could, then I would have the inclination to do so. See how that works?
LOL! No. No sale. He said the same thing over and over and over again. He said it in public. He said it in private. He never said anything to the contrary...He had no desire to abolish slavery in the states where it existed. You cannot find any quote from him to the contrary prior to the war.....or indeed well into the war.
His quote above from 1854, the EP, the 13th Amendment which would have been passed in 1864 if the Democrats hadn't blocked it are just a few.
“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 in notes for speeches in September of 1859. https://afrospear.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/quotations-from-abraham-lincoln/
One of the comments posted there: "Those quotes from Lincoln, when he was debating Douglas, are out of context. He was trying to get elected in a country that was extremely conservative compared to today’s standards. Its not like he could get up on the podium and say “if im president, black people will be equal with whites and they can even run for office”. This site is a sham and you should be ashamed of yourself."
also: Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, [New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953], v. 3, p. 399. Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 6, 1859
"Fragments" could mean anything. What is the evidence he even wrote it, and what was the context? Look at all of the racist comments President Trump was accused of making. Remember the Steele dossier? The phone call? You don't think the Democrats could have been up to the same tricks back then?
Or he could have jotted down his opponent's point of view to analyze it, much like when you copy and paste my comments when you're working on replies to my posts, but with less technology of course. Just because you're putting my comments in your posts doesn't mean you are agreeing with them.
That's why I asked for a transcript.
"https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:133?rgn=div1;view=fulltext"
That also lists the quote as a "fragment".
Second link that popped up on a duckduckgo search. LOL! at using Wikipedia as a source.
I said that myself and asked for a transcript. Can you produce one?
That was the only issue of the entire campaign in 1864? You can prove that that's what was motivating the voters in the Northern states and not other issues?
All of the Republicans voted to pass the 13th Amendment in 1864. The Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, voted to prevent its passage citing states' rights.
The voters in the North responded by replacing the Democrats with Republicans. Regardless of what you think their motivations were, the possibility that they would pass the 13th Amendment didn't stop them from voting Republican.
On the other hand, the slave holding states said in their declarations of secession that preserving slavery was one of their reasons for seceding, used racist terms that had nothing to do with the law, and held on to their slaves, hunting those who escaped like animals, until forced to free them by the North. According to you it wasn't about preserving slavery, but that's what they tried to do regardless of what you think they really wanted.
False. It was a bona fide offer.
The remaining Union states could have ratified it without help from the slave holding states if they had intended to. They didn't. The only states that did ratify it did so after the slave holding states had seceded and the war had already started.
They didn't because the original 7 seceding states turned it down....then 5 more states seceded after Lincoln started the war.
It never became law, or came close to becoming law. It was nothing.
False. It got supermajorities in both houses of Congress, the signature of the president and was endorsed by the ruling party in the North. It only failed because the original 7 seceding states were not interested.
And?
You can't blame Democrats for the 13th amendment not passing sooner. The Republicans could have passed it had they wanted to. They did not.
Yes, I've admitted this. Lincoln admitted this. The Republicans admitted this, which they tried to change in 1864 and succeeded in 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Frederick Douglas acknowledged this. Now that you've posted this, I'll ask again. Was calling "the negro" "inferior" whose "best use" was as slaves "Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution"?
Now that you've acknowledged the blindingly obvious ie that it was the Northern states which violated the Constitution, I'll answer. No, what we all would acknowledge are blatantly racist sentiments expressed in some of the seceding states' declarations of causes were not in and of themselves citing the actual violations of constitution by the Northern states. They were irrelevant statements which we all today would disagree with and object to.
Here we go again......and spam
OK. Here we go again. If you're going to spam, I'm going to counter spam.
"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
"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
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
“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……”
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.
"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
There are three themes here. The first is the inferiority of "the negro". The second is the Republicans support for abolition. The last are their claims based on the then current law. In 1864 the Republicans attampted to change that law with the 13th Amendment, but the Democrats blocked them. In 1865 the Republicans had enough votes to pass the 13th Amendment, which they did
As I have already demonstrated your three themes claim is obviously false. You conveniently omitted the numerous economic complaints they had.
You finally get around to sort of admitting that yes indeed it was the Northern states which violated (you falsely try to call it "the current law").....no, it was the Constitution the Northern states were violating. Then you throw in a red herring about changing the constitution later. The Southern states had a perfectly valid legal argument - the Northern states violated the constitution. There is no question that they did violate the constitution. Though it was not necessary in order to make their case legally which they already had, the seceding states also pointed out that the Northern states were screwing them over economically. Again, there is no question that the Northern states were doing this. As much as it angered Southerners, this was not unconstitutional. It was however a sound rational and moral basis upon which to exercise their sovereign right to secede from what was always understood to be a voluntary union of sovereign and equal states.
After the Republicans were blocked by the Democrats from passing the 13th Amendment, the Northern states voted in enough Republicans to pass the law.
Not true once again. The democratically elected congressional representatives of the Southern states who were exclusively (Jeffersonian) Democrats returned to Congress. They agreed to pass the 13th amendment and that is what got it passed.
Here's my reference. CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL: Unionism If slavery wasn't the issue for them, then why did they choose the Union over their own states?
Having read that, nowhere in that does he claim that antislavery sentiments were what was motivating them. What would motivate them? The same thing that motivated most Yankee farmboys and others - good old fashioned nationalism. Not everybody welcomes radical change. Ever.
From the Republicans in 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." Clearly they are speaking out against slavery, regardless of whether you think "all our national territory" meant "all our national territory".
TERRITORY. Read that word as many times as you need for you to finally grasp the meaning. This did not apply to states in which slavery already existed - As Lincoln made clear over and over again. It only applied to the Western Territory.
From Lincoln in 1854. "If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another..."
"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)
"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 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
The same Congress that imposed Reconstruction on the South after the war also imposed racist policies on the American Indians "The same Congress that devised Radical Reconstruction . . . approved strict segregation and inequality for the Indian of the West." (Catton, editor, The National Experience, p. 416)
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ... Abraham Lincoln
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
"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
In 1864 the Republicans voted to ratify the 13th Amendment, but were stopped by the democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, over arguments of "states rights". Americans in the North responded by voting in more Republicans, who were able to pass it the following year.
As we've already discussed, this is false. The 13th amendment was passed after the duly elected Southern congressional delegation returned to washington DC and agreed to pass the 13th amendment.
Go ahead and post your comments showing some of them talking out of both sides of their mouths. In the end, they abolished slavery, and none of your twisting can change that.
Nobody has argued that the 13th amendment was not passed. Read more carefully.
You allow the slave holding states to use this as legal justification for seceding, but refuse to acknowledge the Republicans couldn't abolish slavery until this was changed.
You mean I cite the US Constitution and note that the Northern states violated it? Yes. I do. They did violate it. Had Republicans in the North wanted to pass a constitutional amendment prior to 1865 they could have - but to do so would have been to admit the Southern states were out of the union. Denying that was their whole premise for launching their war of aggression.
To look at this another way, I have no inclination to fly around like Superman because I can't. If I could, then I would have the inclination to do so. See how that works?
The Republicans had no inclination to abolish slavery in 1861. They did not elect abolitionists. Lincoln himself said he had no inclination....get it? We're not talking legal authority. We're not talking couldn't russell up enough votes for. He clearly said no INCLINATION to abolish slavery. He said that many times.
His quote above from 1854, the EP, the 13th Amendment which would have been passed in 1864 if the Democrats hadn't blocked it are just a few.
In his numerous quotes he said over and over again he had no inclination to abolish slavery where it existed. The EP was a war measure - it did not emancipate any slaves in areas the union army controlled. The 13th amendment did not pass until after he was dead. I don't know why you cling to this fantasy that abolitionism was common in the North (it was not) that Republicans were abolitionists (they were not), or that Lincoln supported abolition (he expressly did not). I guess you have to believe this in the face of all facts and numerous clear statements to the contrary to believe in the myth of the virtuous North.
One of the comments posted there: "Those quotes from Lincoln, when he was debating Douglas, are out of context. He was trying to get elected in a country that was extremely conservative compared to today’s standards. Its not like he could get up on the podium and say “if im president, black people will be equal with whites and they can even run for office”. This site is a sham and you should be ashamed of yourself."
He said it. He said similar things numerous times. He never said anything to the contrary. There is no reason to believe he did not mean what he said. I provided another citation for the above. You are trying to spin anti-historical fairy tales.
"Fragments" could mean anything. What is the evidence he even wrote it, and what was the context? Look at all of the racist comments President Trump was accused of making. Remember the Steele dossier? The phone call? You don't think the Democrats could have been up to the same tricks back then?
Or he could have jotted down his opponent's point of view to analyze it, much like when you copy and paste my comments when you're working on replies to my posts, but with less technology of course. Just because you're putting my comments in your posts doesn't mean you are agreeing with them.
R-E-A-C-H. He said those things. Publicly. He said similar things over and over and over again. He never recanted nor said anything to the contrary. There is no reason to believe he did not mean what he said many times. You are clinging to fairy tales here when you try to deny Lincoln's unambiguous statements.
That's why I asked for a transcript. "https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:133?rgn=div1;view=fulltext" That also lists the quote as a "fragment".
I provided sources. They are numerous. Nobody but a desperate PC Revisionist would even attempt the deny he said those things publicly and he said them many times. The evidence and the sources are overwhelming.
I said that myself and asked for a transcript. Can you produce one?
I provided you numerous credible sources. I have done all that good faith requires.
All of the Republicans voted to pass the 13th Amendment in 1864. The Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, voted to prevent its passage citing states' rights. The voters in the North responded by replacing the Democrats with Republicans. Regardless of what you think their motivations were, the possibility that they would pass the 13th Amendment didn't stop them from voting Republican.
You obviously haven't read much history....I mean real history - not the hopelessly slanted PC Revisionist crap. The few Democrats there were in the North were advocating a negotiated settlement. Their argument had a lot of traction with the war weary Northern populace. Events in the war turned in the union's favor shortly before the election and swung the election in the Republicans' favor. I haven't heard anybody even suggest that passage or non passage of the 13th amendment was THE burning issue for the voters in the North. THE issue was obviously the war.
On the other hand, the slave holding states said in their declarations of secession that preserving slavery was one of their reasons for seceding, used racist terms that had nothing to do with the law, and held on to their slaves, hunting those who escaped like animals, until forced to free them by the North. According to you it wasn't about preserving slavery, but that's what they tried to do regardless of what you think they really wanted.
The only 4 of the original 7 seceding states which actually issued declarations of causes listed the Northern states violations of the US Constitution. They also listed their economic grievances. In the case of Texas they also listed a malicious refusal to secure the border. They also had some racist language in their declarations and some claimed the Republicans were interested in equality of the races. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment by the North, they turned down that offer. Then Lincoln started a war of aggression to force them back in. Then 5-6 more states seceded over Lincoln's war of aggression. You then claim it was "all about slavery". That sums it up.
Alright, you’ve had your say — at pointless and excruciating length. You aren’t worth wasting the time going back through old posts. Don’t post to me again.
False. It was a bona fide offer.
Did it become law, yes or no?
Could the Northern states have ratified it and made it law, yes or no?
False. It got supermajorities in both houses of Congress, the signature of the president and was endorsed by the ruling party in the North. It only failed because the original 7 seceding states were not interested.
And there weren't enough states in the North to ratify it, if they had any intention of doing so?
You can't blame Democrats for the 13th amendment not passing sooner. The Republicans could have passed it had they wanted to. They did not.
They didn't have the votes in 1864. They had them in 1865, and the 13th Amendment was passed
Now that you've acknowledged the blindingly obvious ie that it was the Northern states which violated the Constitution, I'll answer. No, what we all would acknowledge are blatantly racist sentiments expressed in some of the seceding states' declarations of causes were not in and of themselves citing the actual violations of constitution by the Northern states. They were irrelevant statements which we all today would disagree with and object to.
I really appreciated your brutally honest reply, enough so that I'll overlook the part I didn't agree with (for now).
OK. Here we go again. If you're going to spam, I'm going to counter spam.
And if you're going to spam, then I'm going to summarize.
All of these make the point that secession was for reasons in addition to slavery. None make the point that slavery wasn't a reason. Here are the sources.
10 were from Southern government officials and news sources taking the spotlight off of slavery.
One was from a border state Democrat, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton.
The one from Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter could have been written in 2021.
The three paragraphs from Georgia's declaration stated other reasons but also mentioned slavery.
South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett mentioned slavery at the end of his speech.
As I have already demonstrated your three themes claim is obviously false. You conveniently omitted the numerous economic complaints they had.
I never claimed no other reasons were given. I just stated the three main points from the text I posted.
You finally get around to sort of admitting that yes indeed it was the Northern states which violated (you falsely try to call it "the current law").....no, it was the Constitution the Northern states were violating.
By current law I meant that slavery was legal at the time, until the 13th Amendment was passed. I didn't see the need to go into details about what the Constitution says.
BTW, the slaves who escaped to the North and the abolitionists in the South who helped them escape also "violated...The Constitution".
Then you throw in a red herring about changing the constitution later.
Meaning the 13th Amendment.
The Southern states had a perfectly valid legal argument...
The question is, was that one of their real reasons. Since they held on to their slaves when they could have taken that issue off the table if they had intended to release them, killed abolitionists who tried to free them, and tracked down slaves who escaped, the answer based on their actions is yes.
[My previous] "After the Republicans were blocked by the Democrats from passing the 13th Amendment, the Northern states voted in enough Republicans to pass the law."
Not true once again. The democratically elected congressional representatives of the Southern states who were exclusively (Jeffersonian) Democrats returned to Congress. They agreed to pass the 13th amendment and that is what got it passed.
You're correct in that some Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass the 13th Amendment, but many still resisted. The Republicans needed their gains to get it passed.
House passes the 13th Amendment
Having read that, nowhere in that does he claim that antislavery sentiments were what was motivating them. What would motivate them? The same thing that motivated most Yankee farmboys and others - good old fashioned nationalism. Not everybody welcomes radical change. Ever.
I'll grant I inferred that, but if it was nationalism, then they saw the Union as their nation. Of course we don't know. Many could have been abolitionists or sympathizers. The South had them too.
TERRITORY. Read that word as many times as you need for you to finally grasp the meaning. This did not apply to states in which slavery already existed - As Lincoln made clear over and over again. It only applied to the Western Territory.
First of all, my point was that the Republicans opposed slavery. I tried to take the territory part out of the discussion, but since you insist, "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in "all our National Territory".
The South understood what this meant.
To the readers, you can see my replies to the latest set of quotes on slavery in my previous post.
So the question remains, since Lincoln was clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth, which side was telling the truth?
House passes the 13th Amendment
As Frederick Douglas said years later, "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
I snipped the repeats.
I provided sources. They are numerous. Nobody but a desperate PC Revisionist would even attempt the deny he said those things publicly and he said them many times. The evidence and the sources are overwhelming.
The sources you provided all said the quote was from a fragment. We don't know what that fragment was. None offered a transcript.
You obviously haven't read much history....I mean real history - not the hopelessly slanted PC Revisionist crap. The few Democrats there were in the North were advocating a negotiated settlement. Their argument had a lot of traction with the war weary Northern populace. Events in the war turned in the union's favor shortly before the election and swung the election in the Republicans' favor. I haven't heard anybody even suggest that passage or non passage of the 13th amendment was THE burning issue for the voters in the North. THE issue was obviously the war.
House passes the 13th Amendment
You then claim it was "all about slavery". That sums it up.
I never said it was all about slavery, but only that it was an issue.
You mean laws like the Confiscation Acts passed in 1861 and 1862?
A law that violates constitutional law is not a law.
The constitutionality of the law was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Prize Cases.
I was also aware that Lincoln overturned Grant's orders regarding Jews, but I didn't realize that it was done for political reasons and that it still allowed Grant to continue doing it.
92,000 illegals just crossed our border in September alone. There are already about 40-50 million here and more coming. They will reproduce and triple in less than 20 years. They vote Democrat and do not assimilate as other immigrants have done. They cling to their culture. Muslims are another example. America is gone unless Red states secede and try to save what’s left of our Republic.
I have woodpusher to thank for my response to you on this particular point.
" In 1863, Congress raised the number of justices to ten (10), so Lincoln could pack the Court with a fifth Lincoln appointee to ensure against legal disaster. After Andrew Johnson took office, in 1866 Congress reduced the number of justices to seven (7) by attrition, although never fell below eight (8), ensuring Democrat Johnson never got to appoint anybody. After Johnson left and Grant took office, Congress returned the number of justices to nine (9) in 1869, and enabled Grant to make an appointment.That about took care of Court opinions condemning Lincoln administration actions for much of his administration. "
[x] But why are you posting to me when I haven't been active on this thread and have already told you not to post to me?I do not recall that you have posted anything to me.I have only had one poster request me to not post to him, but under a different handle. ... If you have made any post to me, please identify it.
[x] Alright, you’ve had your say — at pointless and excruciating length. You aren’t worth wasting the time going back through old posts.
I searched every post I have sent or received and found no record of x saying anything whatsoever to woodpusher about anything prior to your post #536 of 10/27/2021. Nor did woodpusher communicate to x prior to my post #533 of 10/26/2021. There are no old posts between x and woodpusher. You can stop making believe that there are.
Don’t post to me again.
Now that you have actually asked, your wish is granted.
[DiogenesLamp #491] Law is law, and you cannot create law by Presidential diktat.[Doodledawg #551] You mean laws like the Confiscation Acts passed in 1861 and 1862?
[DiogenesLamp #552] A law that violates constitutional law is not a law.
[Doodledawg #553] The constitutionality of the law was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Prize Cases.
[DiogenesLamp #556] I have woodpusher to thank for my response to you on this particular point.
On the very specific point of the Prize Cases, I do not believe that opinion has ever had the effect revisionist historians claim for it.
"THE PRIZE CASES"U.S. Supreme Court
THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635, 670 (1862)
67 U.S. 635 (Black)THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.December Term, 1862
* * *
Mr. Justice GRIER.
* * *
And finally, in 1861, we find Congress "ex majore cautela" and in anticipation of such astute objections, passing an act "approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c., as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States."
Without admitting that such an act was necessary under the circumstances, it is plain that if the President had in any manner assumed powers which it was necessary should have the authority or sanction of Congress, that on the well known principle of law, "omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato equiparatur," this ratification has operated to perfectly cure the defect.
That looks good, but what does it say? One needs to ignore 20th century revisionists and apply 19th century English to expose the glaring revision. Bear in mind, in 1862 the Court only quoted what it considered necessary for the issue before it. Be prepared to enter the twilight zone and see what revisionist historians did with it. Revisionist historians made an effort, largely successful, to fob this off as validating all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President. It does not.
Think of it as [14 words] &c. [22 words].
Whatever is that &c.? In the 19th century, an ellipsis was indicated by &c., while today an ellipsis is indicated by [. . .], with or without the brackets. Sometimes it is indicated by * * *. An ellipsis means something is left out.
Separate the first 14 words from the last 22 words and you get the idea. But how much was edited out? One must identify and compare the legislative text to the Supreme Court quote.
The original attempt to save all of Lincoln's bacon was S.R. 1, the first bill of the session entered in the Senate.
Congressional Globe, Senate, 37th Congress, 1st Session, pg. 393
Proposed Senate Resolution S.R. 1, July 6, 1861
Mr. GRIMES. I ask that the resolution be read.The Secretary read it, as follows:
Joint resolution to approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebellion.
Whereas, since the adjournment of Congress on the 4th day of March last, a formidable insurrection in certain States of this Union has arrayed itself in armed hostility to the Government of the United States, constitutionally administered; and whereas the President of the United States did, under the extraordinary exigencies thus presented, exercise certain powers and adopt certain measures for the preservation of this Government—that is to say: First. He did, on the 15th day of April last, issue his proclamation calling upon the several States for seventy-five thousand men to suppress such insurrectionary combinations, and to cause the laws to be faithfully executed. Secondly. He did, on the 19th day of April last, issue a proclamation setting on foot a blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Thirdly. He did, on the 27th day of April last, issue a proclamation establishing a blockade of the ports within the States of Virginia and North Carolina. Fourthly. He did, by an order of the 27th day of April last, addressed to the Commanding General of the Army of the United States, authorize that officer to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington. Fifthly. He did, on the 3d day of May last, issue a proclamation calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand and thirty-four volunteers, increasing the regular Army by the addition of twenty-two thousand seven hundred and fourteen men, and the Navy by an addition of eighteen thousand seamen. Sixthly, he did, on the 10th day of May last, issue a proclamation authorizing the commander of the forces of the United States on the coast of Florida to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, if necessary. All of which proclamations and orders have been submitted to this Congress: Now, therefore—
Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders, hereinbefore mentioned, be, and the same are hereby, approved and declared to be in all respects legal and valid, to the same intent, and with the same effect, as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed asf authorizing a permanent increase of the Army or Navy.
S.R. 1 was impressive in its scope. It was shot down in flames. Notice the hereinbefores did not include the Confiscation Act, but did include habeas corpus and the callup of 75,000 troops with no funding authorization. The Congress flatly refused to approve Lincoln's acts to suspend habeas corpus, or to pretend to approve his delegation of his imaginary power to do so to military officers. The Senate struggled with that resolution from the opening day, but was unable to pass it. In the end, Senator Trumbull refused to permit a vote on the resolution. There were no votes for or against. It crashed and burned on August 5, 1861 in the Senate, as shown at Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 1st Sess, pg 453:
Mr. WILSON. Let us have a vote.Mr. TRUMBULL. Now my friend is clamorous. He cannot keep still. He says "let us have a vote." I am not disposed to vote upon the resolution, and it not going to pass without consideration. It is not going to pass in the shape it is by my approbation.
Mr. Lincoln's allies could not allow a vote on S.R. 1 as it would have greatly embarrassed the President. In view of what the Senate flatly refused to even take to a vote on August 5, 1861, despite the session about to close on August 6, it is not rationally possible to conclude they passed something immediately thereafter which ratified all the acts, proclamations and orders of the President. As S.R. 1 could not pass, we must examine what did pass.
S. 72, to increase the pay of the privates in the regular army, and in the volunteers in the service of the United States was, in Obamacare fashion, amended to repurpose it to save at least a strip or two of Lincoln's bacon. The amendment shown here was brought up after S.R. 1 failed.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873
MONDAY, August 5, 1861.
Page 186 | Page imageMr. Wilson asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill (S. 72) to increase the pay of the privates in the regular army, and in the volunteers in the service of the United States; which was read the first and second times, by unanimous consent, and considered as in Committee of the Whole.
On motion by Mr. Wilson, to amend the bill by inserting as an additional section the following--
- Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the fourth of March, 1861, respecting the army and navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States,
- It was determined in the affirmative,
- Yeas ... 37
- Nays ... 5
On motion by Mr. Breckinridge,
The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the senators present,
Those who voted in the affirmative are,
Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Browning, Carlile, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Johnson, of Tennessee, King, Lane, of Indiana, Lane, of Kansas, Latham, McDougall, Morrill, Pomeroy, Rice, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilmot, Wilson.
Those who voted in the negative are,
Messrs. Breckinridge, Bright, Kennedy, Pearce, Powell.
No further amendment being proposed, the bill was reported to the Senate, and the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was concurred in.
Ordered, That the bill be engrossed and read a third time.
The said bill was read the third time by unanimous consent.
Resolved, That it pass.
On motion by Mr. Wilson, the title was amended to read: An act to increase the pay of the privates in the regular army and in the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes.
Ordered, That the Secretary request the concurrence of the House of Representatives therein.
On August 6th, in the House, there was some consternation as they had passed S. 72 the day before, without the amendment.
Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 1st Sess., August 6, 1861 (House), pg. 456
INCREASE OF PRIVATES’ PAY.Mr. STEVENS. I move to take from the Speaker’s table Senate bill No. 72, to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and in the volunteers in th£ service of the United States, and for other purposes.
Mr. CRISFIELD. I object to the consideration of that bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope gentlemen will not object. If the bill cannot be passed now, there will be a called session within twenty-four hours.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I desire to ask the chairman of tho Committee of Ways and Means a question in reference to this bill. I desire to knowhow this bill comes back here, after the House passed it yesterday?
Mr. STEVENS. This is a new bill.
The SPEAKER. It is an original Senate bill.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I do not understand the matter yet.
The SPEAKER. The Senate has just sent this bill to the House, and asks the concurrence of the House in it.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. We concurred in a similar bill yesterday.
Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I will inform the gentleman, by leave of the House. I believe this is identically the bill that passed the House, with this exception: that, instead of increasing the pay of privates four dollars per month, this bill increases it but two dollars per month. I suppose that if this bill should not pass, Congress would be called back.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. It is very easy for the House to recede from its amendment to the bill passed yesterday; and that will leave it all right.
Mr. STEVENS. That bill, with the amendments, was lost in the Senate.
Mr. CRISFIELD. I have objected to it.
The House figured it out and passed the bill. Some sort of authorization was needed to keep the 75,000 troops in the army.
Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 1st Sess., August 6, 1861 (House), pg. 457
INCREASED PAY OF PRIVATES, ETC.Mr. STEVENS. I again appeal to the gentleman who objected to the consideration of the bill for increasing the pay of privates in the regular Army and of volunteers, to withdraw that objection. I understand the bill passed by this House was laid on the table in the Senate. This is a new bill which has passed the Senate, and if we adjourn without passing it, it will cause very great inconvenience, and perhaps create the necessity of our being called back in another extra session.
Mr. CRISFIELD. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. JOHNSON. I object.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to suspend the rules.
The question was taken; and the rules were suspended, (two thirds having voted therefor.)
The bill was thereupon taken up for consideration. It proposes to increase the pay of the privates to thirteen dollars a month; and also extends the provisions of the act “for the relief of the Ohio and other volunteers” to all volunteers, no matter for what term of service they may have been accepted. It also directs that all the acts, proclamations, and orders, of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
The bill was read a first and second time, and was ordered to a third reading. It was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
The Supreme Court in the Prize Cases stated:
And finally, in 1861, we find Congress "ex majore cautela" and in anticipation of such astute objections, passing an act "approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c., as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States."
S. 72 stated (as amended and passed):
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the fourth of March, 1861, respecting the army and navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States,
Remember [14 words] &c. [22 words]?
You may now think of it as [14] words [52 words left out] [22 words].
What was ratified after the fact were the orders issued after the 4th of March respecting the army and navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States. The crucial item was the military as Lincoln kept Congress out of session from March until July while activating troops with no funding authorization. He almost lost his 75,000-man army.
What Congress explicitly refused to ratify was the habeas corpus actions.
At issue before the Court in the Prize Cases was whether the war was lawful and whether the callup of troops, absent a funding authorization from Congress, was lawful.
The Court quote in the Prize Cases was sufficient for the purpose of the Court in that case. What the revisionists did was seize upon the Court quote, ignore the legislation, and make believe the 52 words elided by the Court were never there, and that the &c. was merely an odd decoaration in the middle of the text. The elided words were not important to the Court in The Prize Cases. However, they are deadly to the claims of the revisionist historians claims that the legislation extended to all the acts, proclamations and orders of the President.
Also, S. 72 of August 6, 1861 12 Stat. 326 could hardly have been considering the Confiscation Act of August 6, 1861 12 Stat. 319.
The Prize Cases was an 1862 decision.
Did it have to pass and become a constitutional amendment in order to have been offered? Yes or no.
And there weren't enough states in the North to ratify it, if they had any intention of doing so?
The effort to get it passed lost a lot of steam once the original 7 seceding states said they were not interested. As to the question of whether the remaining states could have passed this constitutional amendment without the original 7 seceding states, yes they could have. Even if one incorrectly assumes states cannot secede, there were still more than 3/4s of the states in the union when Lincoln offered it in his inaugural address.
They didn't have the votes in 1864. They had them in 1865, and the 13th Amendment was passed
Everybody including Southern Democrats voted for its passage in 1865.
All of these make the point that secession was for reasons in addition to slavery. None make the point that slavery wasn't a reason. Here are the sources. 10 were from Southern government officials and news sources taking the spotlight off of slavery. One was from a border state Democrat, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton. The one from Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter could have been written in 2021. The three paragraphs from Georgia's declaration stated other reasons but also mentioned slavery. South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett mentioned slavery at the end of his speech.
These are a sample. There were more such statements by others. On another point, I have never argued that slavery was not AN issue. I have gone so far as to agree it was an IMPORTANT issue. What I have objected to is the claim made by PC Revisionists that it was "all about" slavery......or at least that it was THE big issue...the sine qua non of secession and the war. That I disagree with. The vast majority even in the original 7 seceding states were not slave owners. The Upper South seceded over the right of self determination and the sovereignty of the states.
Had the slaves all been freed and been sharecroppers as they were after the war, the economics would not have changed - the South would still have wanted low tariffs and the North would still have wanted high tariffs and they still would have been bitterly arguing about who gets all the federal government gravy. People almost always fight over money, not moral issues....though they're very fond of claiming its the latter.
The question is, was that one of their real reasons. Since they held on to their slaves when they could have taken that issue off the table if they had intended to release them, killed abolitionists who tried to free them, and tracked down slaves who escaped, the answer based on their actions is yes.
Was it "real"? I'm sure for some it was. Some genuinely believed it a better system than the horrible unsafe and unsanitary working/living conditions for the immigrant poor in Northern factories. I'm sure some just got their backs up because Northerners were pointing an accusatory finger at them - this always happens, its human nature. I don't think a large majority in the Southern states thought it important. They didn't have any slaves after all. So it was a "real" reason, it just wasn't one of the main reasons to most people. I have no doubt the Southern states cited it because legally, they had an ironclad case. The Northern states really had violated the constitution in a way that injured them. In the tradition of the train of abuses cited against the King in the Declaration of Independence, they could cite this as abusive behavior by the Northern states justifying secession.
You're correct in that some Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass the 13th Amendment, but many still resisted. The Republicans needed their gains to get it passed.
It was pretty much understood by everybody that the 13th amendment had to pass. As such, Southerners were willing to pass it since they all had to live in one country after the war so it was time to concede the point - which they did in good faith. What happened next ie the 14th amendment, the disenfranchisement of Southern voters, the unseating of democratically elected Southern leaders, the Occupation and exploitation of the Southern states for 12 years was unconstitutional, foolish and sowed a legacy of bitterness that lasted for well over a century - and gave rise to the KKK and Jim Crow laws.
I'll grant I inferred that, but if it was nationalism, then they saw the Union as their nation. Of course we don't know. Many could have been abolitionists or sympathizers. The South had them too.
Before the war and even a couple years into the war, there weren't many abolitionists. They could not win elections. It was undoubtedly nationalism. The French unleashed it in the early part of the 19th century under Napoleon. Italy unified for the first time since the Roman Empire in 1860. Germany reunified in 1871 for the first time really since the Landfrieden (Treaty) of Mainz in 1250. Manifest Destiny had been the driving force in American politics in the 1840s and 50s. It was a nationalist age.
First of all, my point was that the Republicans opposed slavery. I tried to take the territory part out of the discussion, but since you insist, "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in "all our National Territory".
Republicans were not opposed to slavery. They were opposed to the SPREAD of slavery. They just didn't want it in the territories. They wanted to keep that reserved for Whites only.
"The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." William Seward.
[the Republican Party's stance] "all the unoccupied territory shall be preserved for the benefit of the white caucasian race -a thing which cannot be but by the exclusion of slavery." New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley
So the question remains, since Lincoln was clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth, which side was telling the truth?
He wasn't talking out of both sides of his mouth. He may well have disliked slavery conceptually (though he was happy to represent a slaveowner in a successful lawsuit to recover his escaped slaves). But he was willing to protect slavery where it existed and was even willing to strengthen fugitive slave laws and to support a constitutional amendment to protect slavery. He just didn't want it to spread. He also did not want to see mixed race children and he wanted to deport all Blacks.
The sources you provided all said the quote was from a fragment. We don't know what that fragment was. None offered a transcript.
The quotes were from him in his handwriting in a folder he kept from the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
I never said it was all about slavery, but only that it was an issue.
For the record, I have never denied it was an issue or even that it was an important issue. I just don't agree that it was "all about" or that it was "the" big issue or that secession and war would not have happened "but for" slavery.
My own view is that had puritanical Yankees not used it as a wedge issue, had they not used it solely as a means of bashing the South......as a means of trying to win their power struggle over national policy and the goodies to be had from the federal government....as a way of not only accusing Southerners of not being at the forefront of economic developments (industrialization) but also of being morally defective, this issue could have been resolved the way it was resolved in practically all other Western countries. ie it could have been gotten rid of before too long via a compensated emancipation scheme.
But with their roots in puritanical zealotry, the Northeast just could not help itself. They just had to be the worst kind of arrogant judgmental (and massively hypocritical) busybodies dishonestly pushing this argument when their real goal was of course lining their own pockets as usual. Naturally, this pissed Southerners off royally and washed the ground right out from under Southern moderates' feet. The Northeast acted then just as they always had and just as they still do today. Its just as popular with others today as its always been.
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.