America thinks the unthinkable: More than half of Trump voters and 41% of Biden supporters want red and blue states to SECEDE from one another and form two new countries, shock new poll finds

UK Daily Mail ^ | October 1 2021 | MORGAN PHILLIPS

[FLT-bird]

You haven't answered it. The question is, why didn't the states ratify it if they intended to preserve slavery, which they could have done regardless of what the seceding states did? And the answer is because they never had any intention of preserving slavery.

Oh but I have. The North offered it. The original 7 seceding states rejected it. At that point, there was no need to continue. What the North wanted was their cash cow to stay in and keep paying. They were perfectly happy to keep slaves in chains forever to get that. But the Southern states wanted out so they could stop having the North suck their wallets dry. The issue of slavery was a bargaining chip - not the main interest of either side.

You don't need to answer this again, because I've done it for you.

I've answered yet again for you because you obviously failed to grasp the answer given to you.

1858, 1860, 1864.

Abolitionists did not win any elections in 1858 or 1860.

The war didn't start until after the slave holding states had seceded, and it was the Confederacy who fired the first shots regardless of what their justification was.

Lincoln started the war by invading South Carolina's sovereign territory with a heavily armed fleet.

McPherson "admitted"? Here's an interview with him, where he is clearly trying to tie those who opposed abolition with "the right wing in American politics", his words. This interview is from the World Socialist Web Site, so the readers can draw their own conclusions from that.

He's doing exactly what you're doing, which is tying slavery to the modern right.

He openly said it was because of the EP in the quote I cited above. As I've told you McPherson is a PC Revisionist. pssssst.......these guys are all Leftists. Those who parrot their BS are either Leftists themselves or are dupes.

How many times do I have to answer this? He made those comments to audiences that wanted to hear what he was saying. The 4th debate with Douglas in 1858 was a prime example, where he made appalling comments to cheering crowds. If you read how the audience responded, you see what he was working with.

How many times do I have to respond that he said such things in public and in private. He said them consistently. He never said anything to the contrary. There is no reason to think he did not mean them.

That didn't stop those sympathetic to slavery from accusing him of being an abolitionist, because they saw through this. JD said so in 1858 without giving any other reason for secession. Some of the declarations of secession said so. You want to believe Lincoln when he said this even though he pushed to get abolition done, but you don't what to take the Confederacy's word when they accused him of being an abolitionist.

He pushed for slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Lincoln did not "push to get abolition done". The most he did was the EP and that was a war measure. He openly said it was a war measure and he went to great pains to make sure it did not free any slaves where the Union Army was in control.

[NetAddicted]

Whoa!

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Oh but I have. The North offered it....

I stopped there, because the North offered nothing. It was a last ditch effort to prevent secession and the CW that was never ratified by the states, and many of those who voted for it were out of work the following year. The president who signed it was a Democrat who is considered one of the biggest failures in history, and he lost his job in 1861 as well. It was never ratified, and ever would be, which the Confederacy knew.

Even if it had passed, it wouldn't have given slavery any protections that weren't already in place at that time.

Repeat snipped.

Abolitionists did not win any elections in 1858

"A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

or 1860.

According to JD and the declarations of secession, they did.

Lincoln started the war by invading South Carolina's sovereign territory with a heavily armed fleet.

So you want to start that agin? OK.

The oceans and Fort Sumter were under Federal control. SC seceded, but they couldn't take Federal property or the oceans with them.

Furthermore, enslaving millions of people IS an act of war against the people you're enslaving, and I don't care who helped. You can post all of the "tribal kings", "slave traders", and "other nations bought more slaves" nonsense you want, because the slave holding states were the driver behind enslaving those people

BroJoeK, check out the following. You can see my previous post here for context.

He openly said it was because of the EP in the quote I cited above. As I've told you McPherson is a PC Revisionist. pssssst.......these guys are all Leftists.

Then we can all agree he is wrong.

Good, because he did exactly what you're doing, which is tying slavery to the right. He came out and said that in the interview I posted to you in my previous post here. The only difference is that in your case, it's the Confederacy you're tying to the right, but it's the same effect because the Confederacy and slavery are effectively synonymous.

If he's a PC Revisionist, then so are you.

Those who parrot their BS are either Leftists themselves or are dupes.

And which are you? It's clear by now that you and he have the same goals, which is to tie slavery to the modern right.

How many times do I have to respond that he said such things in public and in private. He said them consistently.

You don't. We all know what he said, and why.

He never said anything to the contrary. There is no reason to think he did not mean them.

Not true. He often spoke out against slavery, but granted it couldn't be abolished within the framework in place at the time. In 1865, when they finally had the power the GOP passed abolition, and the states followed suit in ratifying it.

Lincoln did not "push to get abolition done". The most he did was the EP and that was a war measure. He openly said it was a war measure and he went to great pains to make sure it did not free any slaves where the Union Army was in control.

13th Amendment ratified

[BroJoeK]

"BroJoeK, check out the following. You can see my previous post here for context."

Hmmmm... is the question here Union Army desertions following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?
Is it being alleged that desertions increased following the Emancipation Proclamation?

Here's what we know about Union Army desertions:

1. 1861 through 1862 -- 180,000 Union Army desertions before the Emancipation Proclamation.

2. 1863 through 1865 -- 150,000 Union Army desertions after the Emancipation Proclamation.

3. Total = 330,000 desertions or roughly 15% of total Union forces.

4. Official Union records say desertions totaled only 200,000 (8%) -- so what was the difference?
   It's in the definition of "desertion", meaning many (>1/3) "deserters" eventually returned to their units and whether those were counted as "deserters" explains the difference between historians' 330,000 versus the official 200,000.

The percentage of Confederate army desertions is roughly the same = 10% or 103,000 though some historians say it should be much higher, maybe 1/3, but again, how do we define the word "desertion"?

Regardless, I can't find any evidence of increased Union (or Confederate) desertions resulting from Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

[central_va]

In the last few months of the ware CSA “desertions” were actually NoVa soldiers going back to GA and SC to try to stop the carnage.

[x]

In the last few months of the ware CSA “desertions” were actually NoVa soldiers going back to GA and SC to try to stop the carnage.

Sure, like in "Cold Mountain." How did that work out?

[Cowman]

THEN can we have a border wall?

[FLT-bird]

I stopped there, because the North offered nothing.

I stopped there. The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

"A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

Getting rid of a constitutional provision that bans all Blacks IS NOT abolitionism.

According to JD and the declarations of secession, they did.

According to the Republicans themselves, they were not.

So you want to start that agin? OK. The oceans and Fort Sumter were under Federal control. SC seceded, but they couldn't take Federal property or the oceans with them.

False. South Carolina lawfully seceded. Their territorial waters were part of their sovereign territory. Ft. Sumter was claimed by the state under its authority as sovereign. The federal troops there were illegal squatters.

Furthermore, enslaving millions of people

There's no such thing as an act of war against people. Acts of war are against sovereign governments.

BroJoeK Has nothing worth listening to. He just repeats the same PC Revisionist drivel.

it's the Confederacy you're tying to the right, but it's the same effect because the Confederacy and slavery are effectively synonymous.

No its not.

If he's a PC Revisionist, then so are you.

Clearly you don't know what the term means.

And which are you? It's clear by now that you and he have the same goals, which is to tie slavery to the modern right.

You've lost the plot entirely and are just embarrassing yourself now. McPherson and other Leftist PC Revisionists try to tie slavery exclusively to the Confederacy/South AND try to claim that this somehow belongs to the modern Right.

You don't. We all know what he said, and why.

All you have to do then is to stop repeating the false claim that he was just playing to the crowd. He wasn't. He was not an abolitionist. He supported slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. He even supported strengthened fugitive slave laws.

Not true. He often spoke out against slavery, but granted it couldn't be abolished within the framework in place at the time. In 1865, when they finally had the power the GOP passed abolition, and the states followed suit in ratifying it.

Oh but its quite true. One can be against slavery and yet not be an abolitionist. That was his position. He just did not want to see slavery spread. He was perfectly willing to protect it where it existed.

13th Amendment ratified

After he was dead.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I see nothing here I haven't already refuted in my previous post. I'll let the readers decide.

Nice talking to you, "Mr. McPherson".

[FLT-bird]

I haven’t seen anything in any of your posts I haven’t refuted months ago. Your ignorance is on display for all to see. You didn’t even know who your fellow Leftist James McPherson was. LOL!

[TwelveOfTwenty]

You never refuted anything. You just repeated the same false statements throughout. But since you can't move on, and since FR is willing to give you the bandwidth to repeat your garbage, we'll do it again.

You didn’t even know who your fellow Leftist James McPherson was. LOL!

Here's an interview with him, where he is clearly trying to tie those who opposed abolition with "the right wing in American politics", his words.

This is exactly what you're doing. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly by accepting the Confederacy's history as ours, but it's the same effect.

The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

Wrong, some representatives in the North made a last ditch effort to prevent secession and the CW by drafting the amendment. Some of those representatives and the president who signed it were out of work the following year.

It was never ratified by more than five states, because no one else was interested in preserving slavery even at the risk of secession and the CW.

Much like reality in your posts, it was nothing.

Getting rid of a constitutional provision that bans all Blacks IS NOT abolitionism.

"A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

Of course Kansas couldn't abolish slavery because they were already a free state, but the first constitution was used to pass proslavery laws by the "Bogus Legislature". More here.

The Four Kansas Constitutions: Topeka

The voters showed the "Bogus Legislature" what they thought of their proslavery laws in 1858.

According to the Republicans themselves, they were not.

Some Rpublicans made questionable statements to audiences who wanted to hear them, but JD and the writers of the declarations of secession saw through this, and said so several times.

And they were right. When the Republicans finally got the votes they needed in 1865, they passed abolition.

False. South Carolina lawfully seceded. Their territorial waters were part of their sovereign territory.

Both sides had their legal claims to the waters. Since both sides had claims to the territory, the CW was the only way to resolve this.

Ft. Sumter was claimed by the state under its authority as sovereign. The federal troops there were illegal squatters.

It was also claimed by the Federal government.

There's no such thing as an act of war against people. Acts of war are against sovereign governments.

Does this mean bombing civilians aren't acts of war as long as they leave the governments alone? Who knew?

No its not (the same effect because the Confederacy and slavery are effectively synonymous).

It most certainly is. Most of the people in this country who don't buy your revisionism know secession was about slavery, regardless of any other reasons the slave holding states made up for seceding. When you tie the Confederacy to the right, you are tying slavery to the right.

All you have to do then is to stop repeating the false claim that he was just playing to the crowd.

The 4th debate with Douglas in 1858, where he made appalling comments to cheering crowds. These were some of the people Lincoln had to work with. You have even stated that not everyone in the North supported abolition and you are correct, yet you can't understand that this was what Lincoln had to work with.

He wasn't. He was not an abolitionist. He supported slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. He even supported strengthened fugitive slave laws.

Two policies that were never ratified.

(13th Amendment ratified) After he was dead.

By a Confederacy supporting democrat, who made the decision to assassinate Lincoln after Lincoln gave a speech on granting slaves citizenship.

Who Assassinated Abraham Lincoln?

[FLT-bird]

You never refuted anything. You just repeated the same false statements throughout. But since you can't move on, and since FR is willing to give you the bandwidth to repeat your garbage, we'll do it again.

Yes I did. I refuted all of your BS, lies and ignorance. I will keep refuting your BS for as long as you post it.

Here's an interview with him, where he is clearly trying to tie those who opposed abolition with "the right wing in American politics", his words.

Yeah....cuz he's a South hating Leftist. That's why he and his fellow Leftists revived wartime Yankee propaganda to claim "it was all about slavery"....to try to put the South at a moral disadvantage so he and they could smear the region, its culture, its history and its current overwhelmingly conservative political views.

This is exactly what you're doing. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly by accepting the Confederacy's history as ours, but it's the same effect.

You have no idea what you're talking about. My view is the view of the majority in this country even in Academia before the Leftist Revisionists came along in the 1980s to push the "it was all about slavery" narrative. That view is that it was overwhelmingly about money - which it was. BTW, the South's history IS American history. The South provided almost all of the intellectual horsepower behind the secession from the British Empire as well as the Constitution as well as leadership in the early formative years of the Republic.

Wrong, some representatives in the North made a last ditch effort to prevent secession and the CW by drafting the amendment. Some of those representatives and the president who signed it were out of work the following year.

Your denial is just an outright lie. The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Far from being "all about" slavery, slavery was in fact the very first bargaining chip they were prepared to give away. SO much for the myth of the virtuous North.

It was never ratified by more than five states, because no one else was interested in preserving slavery even at the risk of secession and the CW.

It was not ratified by more than 5 states because it was a dead letter once the original 7 seceding states indicated protecting slavery forever was not really what they wanted. There was no point in passing it after that.

Much like reality in your posts, it was nothing.

This is what shrinks call "projection". It was damned inconvenient for you PC Revisionists. It destroys your entire argument. I can see why you are so desperate to pretend it didn't happen even though it obviously did.

blah blah blah repeated BS that does not address the point.

As I said, removing a ban on all Blacks from a state constitution is NOT abolitionism. That is obvious no matter how desperately you try to spin.

Some Rpublicans made questionable statements to audiences who wanted to hear them, but JD and the writers of the declarations of secession saw through this, and said so several times. And they were right. When the Republicans finally got the votes they needed in 1865, they passed abolition.

No, it was not "some Republicans" as you would like to claim. ALL the ones who actually got elected said they were NOT ABOLITIONISTS. This wasn't a "some people said something" moment a la Ilhan Omar either. They were quite explicit in saying they were not abolitionists and were not trying for abolition. They were just fine with slavery where it existed. They were simply against the spread of slavery. They wanted to preserve the western territories for White people only which they said many times.

Both sides had their legal claims to the waters. Since both sides had claims to the territory, the CW was the only way to resolve this.

Both sides claimed it but only South Carolina's claim was legitimate. States are sovereign. They never agreed to bind themselves forever when they ratified the Constitution. In fact, all the evidence at the time says they explicitly did not intend to bind themselves forever but instead preserved the right of unilateral secession.

It was also claimed by the Federal government.

Yes, but the US Federal government had no legitimate claim to property in another sovereign country which that country could not seize under its power of eminent domain. It would be like the Chinese government owning a piece of land in the US and then trying to claim the US could not claim that land under its power of eminent domain. Obviously the US would never accept such a claim by a foreign government - anymore than South Carolina would accept such a claim by a foreign government.

Does this mean bombing civilians aren't acts of war as long as they leave the governments alone? Who knew?

No it means bombing the civilians of a country would be an act of war against that country. Get it. That country. Not a people. A country....a sovereign entity. Buying something a government is willing to sell is not an act of war. It may be something we find abominable, but it is not an act of war if that government willingly sold it. "Act of War" has a specific meaning. Learn it.

It most certainly is. Most of the people in this country who don't buy your revisionism know secession was about slavery, regardless of any other reasons the slave holding states made up for seceding. When you tie the Confederacy to the right, you are tying slavery to the right.

No its not. Most Southerners have not been taken in by the Leftist PC Revisionism currently fashionable in Academia. Secession was not "about" slavery. Had it been so, the original 7 seceding states could have simply accepted the North's offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. They rejected it. The Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln chose to start a war. They were obviously not seceding over slavery. The efforts to revise history by Leftists in Academia in the last generation are obviously intended to denigrate and delegitimize the South which is the heart of the modern Conservative Movement. Those like you who claim to be Conservative while supporting Leftists in this are nothing more than useful tools of the Left.....or Leftists trolls claiming to be Conservatives.

The 4th debate with Douglas in 1858, where he made appalling comments to cheering crowds. These were some of the people Lincoln had to work with. You have even stated that not everyone in the North supported abolition and you are correct, yet you can't understand that this was what Lincoln had to work with.

I fully realize abolitionism was not popular in the North. After all, Abolitionists could not only not get elected, they couldn't even come close to getting elected. They routinely got low single digit percentages of the vote in various elections. What you refuse to grasp in the face of all evidence is that Lincoln wasn't just "playing to the crowd". He shared their views....the overwhelmingly majority view in the North - which was not in favor of abolitionism. He made such statements in public far more often than just the Lincoln-Douglas debates and he made them in private. He made such statements over the course of many years. There is no reason to doubt he believed what he was saying.

Two policies that were never ratified.

The fact that they were never ratified does not mean he did not support them - he clearly did.

Who assassinated Abraham Lincoln?

A Southern Patriot who should have done so several years earlier. He might have saved many lives had he killed the tyrant Lincoln much earlier.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Yes I did. I refuted all of your BS, lies and ignorance. I will keep refuting your BS for as long as you post it.

The only BS, lies and ignorance in my posts to you are in italics.

Yeah....cuz he's a South hating Leftist. That's why he and his fellow Leftists revived wartime Yankee propaganda to claim "it was all about slavery".

It's you who associate the South with slavery by defending the Confederacy. Here's what the Confederacy said on the issue.

Correspondence between Gov. A. B. Moore and Alabama's Commissioner to Delaware

"Its animus, its single bond of union, is hostility to the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States. Its members, numbering nearly two millions of voters, as evidenced by the late Presidential election, have been collected from all the other various political organizations, and although disagreeing totally upon other important political principles, have nevertheless ignored all these, and been molded into a compact mass of enmity to this particular institution, upon which depend the domestic, social, and political interests of fifteen States of the Union, and which institution was recognized, respected, guarded, and protected by the convention which framed the Constitution and by the people of the States by whom it was ordained and established."

Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky

"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as a change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions --- nothing less than an open declaration of war --- for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. Especially is this true in the cotton-growing States, where, in many localities, the slave outnumbers the white population ten to one.".

These are just excerpts. There's plenty more where that came from.

My view is the view of the majority in this country even in Academia before the Leftist Revisionists came along in the 1980s to push the "it was all about slavery" narrative.

The letters above were written in 1861 and 1860 respectively.

The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment

The North made no such offer. Some attempted to prevent secession by passing a bill that gave the slave holding states what they already had. Some of those who voted for it and the president who signed it were out of work the following year, because most in "the North" wanted nothing to do with it.

As I said, removing a ban on all Blacks from a state constitution is NOT abolitionism. That is obvious no matter how desperately you try to spin.

And I accepted your point. I'll restate mine in the hopes you'll understand it if I post it again.

"A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

Of course Kansas couldn't abolish slavery because they were already a free state, but the first constitution was used to pass proslavery laws by the "Bogus Legislature". More here.

The Four Kansas Constitutions: Topeka

The voters showed the "Bogus Legislature" what they thought of their proslavery laws in 1858.

They were quite explicit in saying they were not abolitionists and were not trying for abolition. They were just fine with slavery where it existed. They were simply against the spread of slavery.

At that time, they had no legal grounds or ability to abolish slavery, but they also knew that free territories would ultimately tip the scales against slavery. Both letters I posted above made that point.

I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade, but you can't see it even knowing abolition was passed in 1865 after they got enough votes.

Yes, but the US Federal government had no legitimate claim to property in another sovereign country which that country could not seize under its power of eminent domain. It would be like the Chinese government owning a piece of land in the US and then trying to claim the US could not claim that land under its power of eminent domain. Obviously the US would never accept such a claim by a foreign government - anymore than South Carolina would accept such a claim by a foreign government.

Your comparison doesn't work, because both sides have already sold us out to the Chicoms. :(

But to your point, clearly ownership of the land was in dispute. The Union couldn't stop SC from seceding, but SC couldn't take Federal property with them.

No its not. Most Southerners have not been taken in by the Leftist PC Revisionism currently fashionable in Academia. Secession was not "about" slavery.

You've already conceded that slavery was one of their reasons. What's more, JD said it in 1858.

Those like you who claim to be Conservative while supporting Leftists in this are nothing more than useful tools of the Left.....or Leftists trolls claiming to be Conservatives.

Then the Confederacy must have been run by Democrat trolls, given their statements above. But then again, as it turns out they were. That's why they want to tie the Confederacy's history to the right. I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you're giving them.

The fact that they were never ratified does not mean he did not support them - he clearly did.

The first letter I posted above addresses that point.

A Southern Patriot (assassinated Abraham Lincoln) who should have done so several years earlier. He might have saved many lives had he killed the tyrant Lincoln much earlier.

Now who is making the South look bad? He was provoked by Lincoln's speech calling for full citienship for former slaves. Judging from your comment here, it seems you agree with him.

[FLT-bird]

The only BS, lies and ignorance in my posts to you are in italics.

No, pretty much all of your arguments are BS, lies and ignorance.

It's you who associate the South with slavery by defending the Confederacy.

THIS for example is a laughable pile of pure BS.

Here's what the Confederacy said on the issue. Correspondence between Gov. A. B. Moore and Alabama's Commissioner to Delaware "Its animus, its single bond of union, is hostility to the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States. Its members, numbering nearly two millions of voters, as evidenced by the late Presidential election, have been collected from all the other various political organizations, and although disagreeing totally upon other important political principles, have nevertheless ignored all these, and been molded into a compact mass of enmity to this particular institution, upon which depend the domestic, social, and political interests of fifteen States of the Union, and which institution was recognized, respected, guarded, and protected by the convention which framed the Constitution and by the people of the States by whom it was ordained and established." Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky "Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as a change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions --- nothing less than an open declaration of war --- for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. Especially is this true in the cotton-growing States, where, in many localities, the slave outnumbers the white population ten to one.". These are just excerpts. There's plenty more where that came from.

Here is what the Confederacy said on the issue:

"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

"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

This is but a sample. There is far more of where this came from.

The letters above were written in 1861 and 1860 respectively.

The quotes above were said before and during the war.

The North made no such offer. Some attempted to prevent secession by passing a bill that gave the slave holding states what they already had. Some of those who voted for it and the president who signed it were out of work the following year, because most in "the North" wanted nothing to do with it.

The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment

Of course Kansas couldn't abolish slavery because they were already a free state, but the first constitution was used to pass proslavery laws by the "Bogus Legislature". More here. The Four Kansas Constitutions: Topeka Blah Blah Blah Blah

What's the point? They were not abolitionists. Abolitionists could not get elected anywhere in the US prior to late in the war. Before the war they routinely got single digit percentages of the vote. Abolition was NOT popular prior to late in the war.

At that time, they had no legal grounds or ability to abolish slavery, but they also knew that free territories would ultimately tip the scales against slavery. Both letters I posted above made that point.

It was not against slavery that they wanted to tip the scales. They wanted to tip the scales in favor of the North's business interests - namely they wanted a high protective tariff which would line the pockets of their corporations and which would be paid disproportionally by the South, and they wanted federal government subsidies and infrastructure funds to keep going disproportionally to the North. They wanted in the words of Jefferson Davis, to use the federal government as an engine of Northern aggrandizement.

I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade, but you can't see it even knowing abolition was passed in 1865 after they got enough votes.

I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade but you can't see it even knowing how similar the political corruption of the mid 19th century was to modern political corruption. Special interests use the federal government to line their pockets. They have armies of lobbyists (K Street anyone?). They buy politicians. They get special favors and tax breaks and subsidies and exemptions to certain laws, etc etc to favor themselves and if possible to screw over competitors (for example mom and pop stores have to close during the pandemic but big companies like Walmart, Target, etc get to stay open and of course Amazon makes a killing). It was EXACTLY the same back then. The difference was it was an entire region getting screwed over because the South's economy was based on export-import.

Your comparison doesn't work, because both sides have already sold us out to the Chicoms. :(

As I've said several times, the RINOS are bigger enemies than the Democrats and must be defeated and driven from office first. They must be purged from the modern Republican Party. They are open borders/corporate shills/China sellouts and globalist nation building warmongers.

But to your point, clearly ownership of the land was in dispute. The Union couldn't stop SC from seceding, but SC couldn't take Federal property with them.

Any sovereign government can take possession of any real estate within their domain. They must compensate the owner at fair market value but that is all.

You've already conceded that slavery was one of their reasons. What's more, JD said it in 1858.

I agree it was an issue and even an important issue in the long running strife between the regions, but I do not agree that secession or the war were "about" slavery.

Though Experiment: suppose the Southern states upon seceding had banned slavery and adopted share cropping as they did after the war. Would the South's economic interests have changed? No. They would still have had an export-import based economy. They still would have wanted low tariffs and they still would have resented sending their money up North for the benefit of Northerners for purely political rather than economic reasons. The North still would not have wanted its cash cows to leave. Remember that the North was not only getting all that tariff money (there were no federal income taxes. The vast majority of the money the federal government raised was via tariffs). They were also getting all that shipping, banking, insurance, warehousing, wholesale and shipbuilding business based on servicing Southern cash crops for export and the manufactured goods those crops were exchanged for abroad. Shift all that tariff revenue and all that business to the South and take away that captive market for their manufactured goods and the North's economy would suffer a titanic blow. They would have still been desperate to prevent their cash cows from leaving.

Then the Confederacy must have been run by Democrat trolls, given their statements above. But then again, as it turns out they were. That's why they want to tie the Confederacy's history to the right. I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you're giving them.

psssst....the South has long been Conservative and still is. That is, they have long believed in the Jeffersonian vision of decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets. Those used to be majority Democrat positions. The PC Revisionists who are overwhelmingly Yankees just want to try to denigrate the South because the South is the heart of the modern Conservative movement. You are of course helping them.

The first letter I posted above addresses that point.

I've posted direct quotes form Lincoln showing he did support them both.

Now who is making the South look bad? He was provoked by Lincoln's speech calling for full citienship for former slaves. Judging from your comment here, it seems you agree with him.

He was provoked by the war of aggression launched by Lincoln, his tyranny and all the lives lost as a result of his war of aggression and the overthrow of the original constitution. I agree with him on the idea - Death to tyrants. I do not agree on his timing. He should have done it much sooner. Doing it at that point didn't make a difference as the damage was already done.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

No, pretty much all of your arguments are BS, lies and ignorance.

Oh, the pain.

Here is what the Confederacy said on the issue:

Followed by a bunch of quotes from the Confederacy and a border state Democrat, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who to his credit went against his party on the issue of slavery.

Why do I need to believe what the Confederacy said about themselves on this, when they still had slavery and said on numerous occasions that secession was about slavery?

"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

As I said the last time you flooded FR's bandwidth with this, he could have written this today.

This is but a sample. There is far more of where this came from.

You can post 10 times this. Unless you can give a good reason why I should believe the leaders of the slave holding states that secession wasn't about slavery, you'll get the same reply.

The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment

Some representatives in the North tried to offer it, failed to get it ratified, and lost their jobs the following year.

What's the point? They were not abolitionists. Abolitionists could not get elected anywhere in the US prior to late in the war. Before the war they routinely got single digit percentages of the vote. Abolition was NOT popular prior to late in the war.

"A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

It was not against slavery that they wanted to tip the scales. They wanted to tip the scales in favor of the North's business interests - namely they wanted a high protective tariff which would line the pockets of their corporations and which would be paid disproportionally by the South, and they wanted federal government subsidies and infrastructure funds to keep going disproportionally to the North. They wanted in the words of Jefferson Davis, to use the federal government as an engine of Northern aggrandizement.

Using cheap slave labor did give them an unfair advantage, much as using Chinese slave labor gives many American companies an unfair advantage over companies that try to hire Americans.

That's right, I just compared modern free traitors to the slave holding states.

I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade but you can't see it even knowing how similar the political corruption of the mid 19th century was to modern political corruption. Special interests use the federal government to line their pockets. They have armies of lobbyists (K Street anyone?). They buy politicians. They get special favors and tax breaks and subsidies and exemptions to certain laws, etc etc to favor themselves and if possible to screw over competitors (for example mom and pop stores have to close during the pandemic but big companies like Walmart, Target, etc get to stay open and of course Amazon makes a killing). It was EXACTLY the same back then. The difference was it was an entire region getting screwed over because the South's economy was based on export-import.

Much of what you say about modern America is right on target (no pun intended), but the Confederacy was guilty of the same thing some of the woke companies are guilty of, which is using cheap slave labor. How they attained it doesn't matter, although I don't mean that to excuse the traffickers and the politicians who looked the other way for a price. How are the slave states and the woke companies using slave labor today different from the other?

And how are we as a nation today any better than the slave holding states? The only difference is that instead of importing the slaves, we export the plantations.

</RANT>

As I've said several times, the RINOS are bigger enemies than the Democrats and must be defeated and driven from office first. They must be purged from the modern Republican Party. They are open borders/corporate shills/China sellouts and globalist nation building warmongers.

If the debate was about this instead of slavery, you and I would be best friends. I agree.

but I do not agree that secession or the war were "about" slavery.

JD thought so and said so.

I've posted direct quotes form Lincoln showing he did support them both.

Funny how he didn't do much to get these passed, but he pushed to get the 13th Amendment passed until he was assassinated.

He was provoked by the war of aggression launched by Lincoln, his tyranny and all the lives lost as a result of his war of aggression and the overthrow of the original constitution. I agree with him on the idea - Death to tyrants. I do not agree on his timing. He should have done it much sooner. Doing it at that point didn't make a difference as the damage was already done.

The Confederacy amen corner doesn't need me to make them look bad. They have you.

[FLT-bird]

Oh, the pain.

The reality.

Here is what the Confederacy said on the issue: Followed by a bunch of quotes from the Confederacy and a border state Democrat, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who to his credit went against his party on the issue of slavery. Why do I need to believe what the Confederacy said about themselves on this, when they still had slavery and said on numerous occasions that secession was about slavery?

They said it was not about slavery. Some states cited violations of the US Constitution by the Northern states vis a vis Slavery as grounds for saying the other side had violated the compact. There's no question this was true and was a perfectly valid legal argument. That's not why they left however and they refused to return when offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln chose to start a war. Obviously they were not leaving over slavery.

As I said the last time you flooded FR's bandwidth with this, he could have written this today.

Yep. Some things never change.

You can post 10 times this. Unless you can give a good reason why I should believe the leaders of the slave holding states that secession wasn't about slavery, you'll get the same reply.

And you can post the denials 10 times but given that the leaders of both North and South said it was not "about" slavery you will get the same quotes that make exactly that point for so long as you try to claim that it was "about" slavery.

Some representatives in the North tried to offer it, failed to get it ratified, and lost their jobs the following year.

They offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. It failed because the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

Blah BLah blah the same stuff about altering the Kansas constitution in the late 1850s which in no way proves what you are trying to claim it proves.

Abolition was NOT popular until late in the war.

Using cheap slave labor did give them an unfair advantage, much as using Chinese slave labor gives many American companies an unfair advantage over companies that try to hire Americans.

Cheap labor? What do you think the North was using? They were importing poverty stricken Europeans and stuffing them into horribly unsafe, dirty factories and into equally dirty, shabby, unsanitary tenement housing. There was no tort law, no worker's comp, no child labor laws, no OSHA, etc etc. Or it was stuffing them into company towns where they were paid in scrip and could only buy things from the company store at exorbitant prices such that no matter how hard they worked they would only end up deeper in debt. The people at the bottom of the social order in the North were treated horribly. Incidentally, this was a big reason they wanted the western territories. After several years slaving away under such conditions, there was the prospect of homesteading out west and getting their own land which was an impossible dream back in Europe. That's what kept poverty stricken Europeans coming so the corporations could keep employing cheap labor.

Much of what you say about modern America is right on target (no pun intended), but the Confederacy was guilty of the same thing some of the woke companies are guilty of, which is using cheap slave labor. How they attained it doesn't matter, although I don't mean that to excuse the traffickers and the politicians who looked the other way for a price. How are the slave states and the woke companies using slave labor today different from the other?

On this we agree. Both sides were greedy as hell or at least the people at the top were and the people at the top were perfectly willing to abuse those at the bottom of the social order.

And how are we as a nation today any better than the slave holding states? The only difference is that instead of importing the slaves, we export the plantations.

What we have is obviously closer to the North's model of importing endless cheap labor....though now we have the added twist of exporting job when even that is not cheap enough. Some of those goods made abroad like in China are made with slave labor.

JD thought so and said so.

He said the opposite many many times both before and during the war.

Funny how he didn't do much to get these passed, but he pushed to get the 13th Amendment passed until he was assassinated.

He also pushed for the Corwin Amendment to get passed and offered it in his first inaugural address. He also said publicly he'd support strengthened fugitive slave laws.

The Confederacy amen corner doesn't need me to make them look bad. They have you.

There is nothing bad about wishing death to a tyrant before he can kill and maim a huge amount of innocent people.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

The reality.

Here's reality.: Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

They said it was not about slavery.

The slave holding states were lying. You can post all of the quotes you like from the Confederacy about what they said it was about, and I'll give the same answer.

I don't care what they said otherwise, because they had already said it was about slavery numerous times, and they held on to their slaves until being forced to free them.

And you can post the denials 10 times but given that the leaders of both North and South said it was not "about" slavery you will get the same quotes that make exactly that point for so long as you try to claim that it was "about" slavery.

They were lying.

They offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. It failed because the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

Some in Congress offered it. No one supported it, with the exception of five states. The five states had plenty of time to ratify it, which means the rest had plenty of time and opportunity to ratify it if that had been their intention. It wasn't.

Abolition was NOT popular until late in the war.

How many free states were there in 1861?

Cheap labor? What do you think the North was using? They were importing poverty stricken Europeans and stuffing them into horribly unsafe, dirty factories and into equally dirty, shabby, unsanitary tenement housing. There was no tort law, no worker's comp, no child labor laws, no OSHA, etc etc.

Now I know you're a leftist plant. Comparing people who chose to come here for better opportunities with those who were sold as slaves is an appalling comparison that only a lefty trying to make the country look bad would post.

I know it was hard for the people who came over here by today's standards, but they saw it as a great opportunity worth risking their lives for.

He said the opposite many many times both before and during the war.

He was lying. He made ir clear here that it was about slavery.

There is nothing bad about wishing death to a tyrant before he can kill and maim a huge amount of innocent people.

That's what I would expect a lefty posing as a Conservative to say.

Would you have approved of assassinating JD and other Confederate leaders for their roles in preserving slavery?

[bert]

You are delusional. There can be on co existence

[bert]

We realize that you are a rabid abolitionist with scales over your eyes

[FLT-bird]

Here's reality.: blah blah blah

The reality is the numerous statements by Davis saying it was not about slavery.

The slave holding states were lying. You can post all of the quotes you like from the Confederacy about what they said it was about, and I'll give the same answer.

They turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment....and that was the original 7 seceding states not the Upper South which seceded in response to Lincoln starting a war.

I don't care what they said otherwise, because they had already said it was about slavery numerous times, and they held on to their slaves until being forced to free them.

I don't care what any PC Revisionist says otherwise because the actors at the time on both sides said it was not about slavery and the original 7 seceding states turned down the offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Both sides kept their slaves until the passage of the 13th amendment.

They were lying.

No they weren't.

Some in Congress offered it. No one supported it, with the exception of five states. The five states had plenty of time to ratify it, which means the rest had plenty of time and opportunity to ratify it if that had been their intention. It wasn't.

Supermajorities in both houses of Congress supported it. Both the outgoing and incoming presidents supported it. More Northern states did not ratify it because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.

How many free states were there in 1861?

Irrelevant.

Now I know you're a leftist plant. Comparing people who chose to come here for better opportunities with those who were sold as slaves is an appalling comparison that only a lefty trying to make the country look bad would post.

Now I know you're an ignoramus. The North was using cheap immigrant labor. Working and living conditions in the early stages of the industrial revolution were squalid, dirty, unsanitary and unsafe. There is a reason all those developments such as tort law, worker's comp, OSHA, Child Labor Laws, etc came about.

He was lying. He made ir clear here that it was about slavery.

Nope. He was telling the truth. There is no reason to think the political leaders at the time on both sides were not saying what they meant.

That's what I would expect a lefty posing as a Conservative to say.

Being sympathetic to a tyrant who starts a war and tramples on the constitution is just what I would expect from a Lefty.

Would you have approved of assassinating JD and other Confederate leaders for their roles in preserving slavery?

They had no role in preserving slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US.