Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
We also have numerous statements from him saying it was about slavery such as Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858.
Either he was lying when he said it was about slavery, or he was lying when he said it wasn't. Since the slave holding states held on to their slaves until forced to free them, we can conclude he was telling the truth when he said it was about slavery.
They turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment....
Which could have been repealed by amendment, just as slavery itself was abolished, as territories became free states. The slave holding states knew this and didn't trust the North.
and that was the original 7 seceding states not the Upper South which seceded in response to Lincoln starting a war.
The act of war was committed by the slave holders against the humans they enslaved, I don't care how many crooks helped 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.
No revision is needed. The Confederacy had slaves, and their comments saying secession was over slavery were consistant with this. Anything else they said was poor PR.
Irrelevant.
The question of how many free states there were in 1861 is totally relevant to the question of whether abolition was popular.
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.
That was a cheap trick. You snipped and completely ignored my follow up statement, which was "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."
There is a reason all those developments such as tort law, worker's comp, OSHA, Child Labor Laws, etc came about.
And rightfully so, but that doesn't change the fact that the Europeans came over here by choice, unlike the slaves that ended up in the slave holding states plantation.
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.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Being sympathetic to a tyrant who starts a war and tramples on the constitution is just what I would expect from a Lefty.
You're right. That proves you are a lefty for being sympathetic to JD.
They had no role in preserving slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
As you said, there is no reason to think he wasn't saying what he meant.
Numerous? That is the only one you've shown. I've posted several that said the opposite.
Either he was lying when he said it was about slavery, or he was lying when he said it wasn't. Since the slave holding states held on to their slaves until forced to free them, we can conclude he was telling the truth when he said it was about slavery.
The slave holding states that remained in the union held onto their slaves until passage of the 13th amendment also. Davis supported and eventually gained approval to send and sent an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery. He was quite willing to see it end in order to gain independence. He was president of the CSA when the original 7 seceding states turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Cleary - as he stated numerous times - he did not believe secession or the war were "about" slavery.
Which could have been repealed by amendment, just as slavery itself was abolished, as territories became free states. The slave holding states knew this and didn't trust the North.
Yes it could have been. 15 states that still allowed slavery. Ergo, if they vote against it, 45 are needed to pass a constitutional amendment. 15+45 = 60. One hundred sixty years later we have....errr....50 states. Thus protection of slavery would have been IRREVOCABLE without the consent of the states that still allowed slavery. They could do basic math back then too.
The act of war was committed by the slave holders against the humans they enslaved, I don't care how many crooks helped them.
Acts of war are committed against nations - not against individuals.
No revision is needed. The Confederacy had slaves, and their comments saying secession was over slavery were consistant with this. Anything else they said was poor PR.,/p>
Revisionism was obviously needed to push this agenda. The "about slavery" narrative was not popular even in academia until 1960s Leftists engaged in their march through the institutions started pushing it in the 1980s. Both sides had slaves. The original 7 seceding states correctly pointed out that the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the constitution.
The question of how many free states there were in 1861 is totally relevant to the question of whether abolition was popular.
and how many supported abolishing slavery in the states that allowed it? Almost nobody.
And rightfully so, but that doesn't change the fact that the Europeans came over here by choice, unlike the slaves that ended up in the slave holding states plantation.
Some came by choice. Some had no other choice whether due to religious persecution, starvation, etc. The point is the conditions for those at the bottom of the social order in the North at this time were hardly better - and it could credibly be argued were indeed worse 0 than those at the bottom of the social order in the South at the time. An examination of the death rates makes the point clearly.
blah blah blah the same link I've posted a million times before which does not address the point.
there is no reason to believe that the politicians at the time like Lincoln did not mean exactly what they said.
You're right. That proves you are a lefty for being sympathetic to JD.
Davis didn't start a war. Davis didn't trample on people's constitutional rights. Lincoln did both of those. Leftist.
blah blah blah the same link I've posted a million times before which has nothing to do with the point.
Slavery was not threatened in the US. Abolitionists could not win elections anywhere.
Separate with open travel. Cities can be city states and vast areas can self govern. Relocation will and should be severely limited. Declare your country and stay there. NE, West coast and mega urban areas can form a new union. We will keep the constitution, states rights …. The two new countries can have open travel but not open re-locations.
Now I know you're a leftist troll trying to associate slavery with the right. I've posted several. I'm not going to waste FR bandwidth posting them again.
I've posted several that said the opposite.
And I've posted comments from Hitler in 1945 saying he didn't want war in 1939. Like Hitler, the Democrats were trying to distance themselves from slavery, much as the modern Democrat party is trying to do now. It was lousy PR, because they seceded over their states' right to slavery. JD said it. The articles of secession said it. Even Democrats in the North who voted against the 13th Amendment said it. No amount of walking it back will change that.
The slave holding states that remained in the union held onto their slaves until passage of the 13th amendment also.
I'm aware of that, although it's more correct to say they allowed it. No one said everyone in the Union was on the right side on this issue, and Lincoln had to work with them to keep the Union together.
He did what he had to do, and slavery was abolished.
Davis supported and eventually gained approval to send and sent an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery. He was quite willing to see it end in order to gain independence.
Like the Corbomite Manuever, it went no where and did nothing.
He was president of the CSA when the original 7 seceding states turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
They didn't trust the North to keep it's word. That was pointed out on several ocasions.
Cleary - as he stated numerous times - he did not believe secession or the war were "about" slavery.
He also said several times that it was, as did the declarations of secession and other Democrats.
Yes it could have been. 15 states that still allowed slavery. Ergo, if they vote against it, 45 are needed to pass a constitutional amendment. 15+45 = 60. One hundred sixty years later we have....errr....50 states. Thus protection of slavery would have been IRREVOCABLE without the consent of the states that still allowed slavery. They could do basic math back then too.
The territories hadn't been organized as states back then and there's no guarantee they would have been organized in the same way if the slave holding states hadn't seceded.
If the slave holding states hadn't seceded and the North had intended to use the new territories to abolish slavery, then the territories could have been organized as many more states, enough to overcome the 15 Confederacy states. That's what the slave holding states were afraid of, and they said as much. Here's a map of the US in 1860 which helps to make that point.
BTW, JD opposed allowing some territories to join the Union as free states. If it was about states' rights and not slavery, then why would he care if they joined as free states? He cared because it was about preserving slavery.
All of this is assuming all of the Confederacy states wouldn't have voted to abolish slavery. If we accept your claim that secession wasn't about slavery, then some the other states in the South may have joined in voting to abolish slavery. Even in the South there were abolitionists and people who were disgusted with slavery. Many fighting age men even crossed lines to fight for the Union.
But we all know it was about slavery. The Confederacy said so several times, and I see no reason to disbelieve them.
Acts of war are committed against nations - not against individuals.
By your appalling standard, the Holocaust wasn't an act of war either.
This act of war was committed against millions in tribes that may have seen themselves as soveriegn, not that the slave holding states or the traffickers cared about their sovereignty.
Revisionism was obviously needed to push this agenda. The "about slavery" narrative was not popular even in academia until 1960s Leftists engaged in their march through the institutions started pushing it in the 1980s. Both sides had slaves.
JD's speeches supporting slavery and the declarations of secession weren't written in the 1960s.
The original 7 seceding states correctly pointed out that the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the constitution.
The Holocaust was legal too. That didn't make it right or just.
And don't give me your non-answer about how slavery wasn't as bad as the Holocaust. The point is that they were injustices that happened to be legal. Whether one can compare to the other is beside the point.
Some came by choice. Some had no other choice whether due to religious persecution, starvation, etc. The point is the conditions for those at the bottom of the social order in the North at this time were hardly better - and it could credibly be argued were indeed worse 0 than those at the bottom of the social order in the South at the time. An examination of the death rates makes the point clearly.
I know it was hard for some of them, but they saw it as a risk worth taking. The slaves didn't have that choice.
there is no reason to believe that the politicians at the time like Lincoln did not mean exactly what they said.
Davis didn't start a war. Davis didn't trample on people's constitutional rights. Lincoln did both of those. Leftist.
Tell that to the slaves, who were denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until the Confederacy was defeated. Of course they're dead so you'll be spared that uncomfortable inconvenience, so take that to the black church of your choice and see how many agree with you.
Slavery was not threatened in the US. Abolitionists could not win elections anywhere.
According to the Jefferson "The Democrat" Davis and the declarations of secession, it was and they did.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Which would mean that you're pro-slavery?
You've posted one quote from Davis 2 years before secession talking about slavery. I've posted numerous quotes before and during the war in which Davis said neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. Clearly you are the Leftist troll trying to associate the South exclusively and the modern Right with Slavery.
And I've posted comments from Hitler in 1945 saying he didn't want war in 1939. Like Hitler, the Democrats were trying to distance themselves from slavery, much as the modern Democrat party is trying to do now. It was lousy PR, because they seceded over their states' right to slavery. JD said it. The articles of secession said it. Even Democrats in the North who voted against the 13th Amendment said it. No amount of walking it back will change that.
and I've refuted your incredibly weak Hitler analogy. The claim of trying to distance themselves from slavery is a strange one because that is always made by Yankees and PC Revisionists about things Southerners said after the war. That is exactly why I have produced numerous quotes from Southerners saying it was not about slavery both before and during the war. Davis said many times it was not "about" slavery. The original 7 seceding states turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South only seceded after Lincoln chose to start a war. Obviously neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery which was not threatened in the US anyway.
I'm aware of that, although it's more correct to say they allowed it. No one said everyone in the Union was on the right side on this issue, and Lincoln had to work with them to keep the Union together.
LOL! You have spent months trying to claim that the Southern states not abolishing slavery during the war somehow means both secession and the war were "about" slavery yet when I point out that several states that remained in the Union did the exact same thing you pivot on a dime and claim that was no big deal.
He did what he had to do, and slavery was abolished.
Lincoln did not set out to abolish slavery. He set out to protect it forever where it existed.
Like the Corbomite Manuever, it went no where and did nothing.
It showed both he and the Confederate Congress were willing. That's what you've been arguing all along....ie that it was all "about" slavery and that they were unwilling. The Corwin Amendment shows the North was willing to protect slavery effectively forever. They were not abolitionists and did not set out to get rid of slavery. Just because it was eventually abolished does not mean people set out with that goal several years earlier.
They didn't trust the North to keep it's word. That was pointed out on several ocasions.
It was not a matter of the North "keeping its word". It was an express constitutional amendment.....one that could not be revoked without their consent. They still said no. Slavery was obviously not their real motivation for leaving.
He also said several times that it was, as did the declarations of secession and other Democrats.
No he didn't. All you've provided.....about 50 times...was one speech 2 years before secession. I have provided numerous statements he made as a US Senator and during the war as Confederate President saying neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
The territories hadn't been organized as states back then and there's no guarantee they would have been organized in the same way if the slave holding states hadn't seceded.
LOL! S-T-R-E-T-C-H
If the slave holding states hadn't seceded and the North had intended to use the new territories to abolish slavery, then the territories could have been organized as many more states, enough to overcome the 15 Confederacy states. That's what the slave holding states were afraid of, and they said as much. Here's a map of the US in 1860 which helps to make that point.
Firstly, this is laughable. "oh yeah well.... well.... well.... then a whole bunch of new states could have been created for the sole purpose of getting rid of slavery which people in the North were not in favor of anyway.....and ummmm....there's nothing the Southern states could have done to counter it. And they said so even though I have not produced one single quote from anybody saying that. So there!" This is an argument you would expect from a kindergartner.
BTW, JD opposed allowing some territories to join the Union as free states. If it was about states' rights and not slavery, then why would he care if they joined as free states? He cared because it was about preserving slavery.
LOL! You obviously have not read the quote from Davis I've posted numerous times. Here it is again
“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
It was a power struggle. Seats in the US Senate were vital. The North wanted to convert the federal government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. ie they wanted higher protective tariffs for their industries so they could increase both profit margins and gain market share, more federal subsidies for Northern companies, more federal subsidies for infrastructure projects to be built in the North. In short, it was all about MONEY.
All of this is assuming all of the Confederacy states wouldn't have voted to abolish slavery. If we accept your claim that secession wasn't about slavery, then some the other states in the South may have joined in voting to abolish slavery. Even in the South there were abolitionists and people who were disgusted with slavery. Many fighting age men even crossed lines to fight for the Union. But we all know it was about slavery. The Confederacy said so several times, and I see no reason to disbelieve them.
There is every reason to think Slavery would have died out in the South as it did everywhere else in the Western world over the 19th century as the South industrialized. It was already happening in the Upper South. Industrialization is incompatible with chattel slavery. But of course we all know neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. The political leaders and newspapers of the Southern states said so many times. They also demonstrated this by turning down an express offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Also, at least 5 states seceded only when Lincoln chose to start a war. Clearly they were not seceding over slavery either.
By your appalling standard, the Holocaust wasn't an act of war either.
By any legal standard. And the Holocaust was not an act of war. It was a crime against humanity. These terms have different meanings.
This act of war was committed against millions in tribes that may have seen themselves as soveriegn, not that the slave holding states or the traffickers cared about their sovereignty.
The internationally recognized rulers of those countries sold them. You can argue the slave trade should have been considered a crime against humanity. I don't think many would disagree with that today. It wasn't at the time though. There wasn't even such a concept at the time.
JD's speeches supporting slavery and the declarations of secession weren't written in the 1960s.
Yes and the "all about slavery" myth was not popular even in academia until 1960s Leftists engaged in their "long march through the institutions" started pushing this revisionist school of thought in the 1980s. You really don't know the historiography obviously. Read Beard. Read Stampp. Then read Zinn and McPherson. There is a very clear break. The latter 2 are revisionists.
The Holocaust was legal too. That didn't make it right or just.
Analogy fail. Not everything you dislike is the holocaust, Hitler or Nazism. Again, this is an argument you'd expect from a kindergartner.
And don't give me your non-answer about how slavery wasn't as bad as the Holocaust. The point is that they were injustices that happened to be legal. Whether one can compare to the other is beside the point.
You are obviously trying to compare them. Otherwise you would not keep falling back on this lazy and inaccurate analogy. and yes many injustices happen that are legal. The world can be a cruel shitty place sometimes.
blah blah blah I'm going to post the same crap I've posted 50 times before that doesn't address the point.
Davis believed neither the war nor secession were about slavery. He said so many times both before and during the war. All you can produce is a speech about slavery in 1858. It does not address what the power struggle between North and South were about let along what secession (which had not happened yet) or the war (which had not happened yet) were about.
Tell that to the slaves, who were denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until the Confederacy was defeated. Of course they're dead so you'll be spared that uncomfortable inconvenience, so take that to the black church of your choice and see how many agree with you.
No, the slaves were denied that until passage of the 13th amendment. And Davis did not enslave people. He was elected to represent the Confederate States. He suspended habeas corpus far less than Lincoln did. He censored newspapers hardly at all unlike Lincoln. He did not unconstitutionally disarm citizens in several states. He did not establish Confederate gulags to match the Federal gulags into which political dissenters were thrown. Oh yeah, he did not have jackbooted thugs come arrest thousands and thousands of political dissenters and throw them into those gulags the CSA did not have - unlike Lincoln. He also never ordered ethnic cleansing or a mass execution - unlike Lincoln.
According to the Jefferson "The Democrat" Davis and the declarations of secession, it was and they did.
No it wasn't and they didn't.
Outright lies like this are why I believe you're a lefty plant.
I have posted several quotes from JD, the articles of secession, his veep, and many others. Your response is "oh that was their legal justifications", as if calling blacks inferior who are only fit to serve as slaves is a legal justification. Here are some of those quotes, mostly from the decalartions of secessuion but also from other sources.
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 advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
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."
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
John B. Baldwin, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery...." [Journal of the Virginia Secession Convention, Vol. II, p. 139]
Baldwin again: "But, sir, the great cause of complaint now is the slavery question, and the questions growing out of it. If there is any other cause of complaint which has been influential in any quarter, to bring about the crisis which is now upon us; if any State or any people have made the troubles growing out of this question, a pretext for agitation instead of a cause of honest complaint, Virginia can have no sympathy whatever, in any such feeling, in any such policy, in any such attempt. It is the slavery question. Is it not so?..." [ibid, p. 140]
But here's the whole problem with your argument. I only need one reference from JD to illustrate my point, because JD fought to protect slavery. The proof of his intentions is in his actions.
Repeat snipped.
and I've refuted your incredibly weak Hitler analogy. The claim of trying to distance themselves from slavery is a strange one because that is always made by Yankees and PC Revisionists about things Southerners said after the war. That is exactly why I have produced numerous quotes from Southerners saying it was not about slavery both before and during the war. Davis said many times it was not "about" slavery. The original 7 seceding states turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South only seceded after Lincoln chose to start a war. Obviously neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery which was not threatened in the US anyway.
You haven't refuted anything. Hitler also lied before and during the war. In 1936, he said to Reichstag in Berlin "It is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe..." We all know that was a lie too.
With the exception of you, everyone knows JD was lying about secession wasn't about slavery, because he had said several times that it was.
LOL! You have spent months trying to claim that the Southern states not abolishing slavery during the war somehow means both secession and the war were "about" slavery yet when I point out that several states that remained in the Union did the exact same thing you pivot on a dime and claim that was no big deal.
Another outright lie. I said everyone in the North wasn't the good guys either, and Lincoln had to work with them to get things done.
Lincoln did not set out to abolish slavery. He set out to protect it forever where it existed.
He succeeded at the former at the cost of his life, while the latter went nowhere.
It was not a matter of the North "keeping its word". It was an express constitutional amendment.....one that could not be revoked without their consent.
Slavery couldn't be revoked without ratification from the Southern states anyway, so the Corbomite Manuever amounted to nothing they didn't already have.
They still said no. Slavery was obviously not their real motivation for leaving.
They said it was, numerous times. I have posted several. I see no reason to post them again, when everyone has seen them numerous times by now.
Firstly, this is laughable. "oh yeah well.... well.... well.... then a whole bunch of new states could have been created for the sole purpose of getting rid of slavery which people in the North were not in favor of anyway.....and ummmm....there's nothing the Southern states could have done to counter it. And they said so even though I have not produced one single quote from anybody saying that. So there!" This is an argument you would expect from a kindergartner.
First, if you looked at that map, you'll see that way more states were formed from those territories. We don't know what would have happened if the slave holding states hadn't seceded, although I'm sure you'll post your opinions on the matter as if they were facts.
Second, here you go.
Third, your posts are what I would expect from a leftist plant trying to make the right look bad.
LOL! You obviously have not read the quote from Davis I've posted numerous times. Here it is again
I don't need to read it. I have his speeches and his actions to prove my point. All you have are Confederate lies.
By any legal standard. And the Holocaust was not an act of war. It was a crime against humanity. These terms have different meanings.
No reply needed.
No, the slaves were denied (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) until passage of the 13th amendment.
That doesn't even make sense. It was the slave holding states who were denying the slaves these rights. You're big on the Constitution, but you're clearly OK with the South disregarding this part of it to keep their slaves.
Of course that isn't true. As we all know by now you're a leftist plant, so you're trying to make it look like Conservatives are OK with this. We're not.
And Davis did not enslave people. He was elected to represent the Confederate States.
He defended slavery. He said so himself, several times.
He suspended habeas corpus far less than Lincoln did.
Here's something on this: Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis
BTW, Lincoln won re-election after all of this, so the voters were clearly OK with how he utilized his powers, which BTW were granted by Congress in 1863.
He censored newspapers hardly at all unlike Lincoln.
Why would JD, when they were covering for him? You proved that.
He did not unconstitutionally disarm citizens in several states.
Details?
He did not establish Confederate gulags to match the Federal gulags into which political dissenters were thrown.
Details?
Oh yeah, he did not have jackbooted thugs come arrest thousands and thousands of political dissenters and throw them into those gulags the CSA did not have - unlike Lincoln.
Now that's amusing. Assuming you are referring to Confederate sympathizers which is what I found when searching for this, they were sympathetic to a regime that gave escaped slaves far worse treatment than they received.
If that's not what you're referring to, then...details?
He also never ordered ethnic cleansing or a mass execution - unlike Lincoln.
JD and the Confederacy were every bit into "expansion" as the North. The only difference is they wanted the new territories to allow legal slavery. Here's from the Confederate Constitution:
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."
No it wasn't and they didn't.
Then your disagreement is with JD.
The lies in this thread are yours and those of your fellow PC Revisionist leftists.
I have posted several quotes from JD, the articles of secession, his veep, and many others. Your response is "oh that was their legal justifications", as if calling blacks inferior who are only fit to serve as slaves is a legal justification. Here are some of those quotes, mostly from the decalartions of secessuion but also from other sources. blah blah blah
"several quotes from JD"? Well yes you've posted several. In none of them did he say secession or the war were "about" slavery. "as if calling blacks inferior who are only fit to serve as slaves is a legal justification". Their argument - and it is a correct one - is that the Northern states violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. There's no question this is true.
and of course only 4 states issued declarations of causes. The other 8 did not and 5 of those only seceded after Lincoln chose to start a war. Of the 4 that issued declarations of causes, 3 of those went on at length about how the Northern states were economically exploiting them through federal legislation even though this was not unconstitutional. Clearly, they were highly pissed about that.
Nobody is saying we should agree with the opinions of people in the mid 19th century about various ethnic groups...or indeed women for that matter. What the actual topic is is whether secession and the war were "about" slavery. They were not.
blah blah blah blah.........But here's the whole problem with your argument. I only need one reference from JD to illustrate my point, because JD fought to protect slavery. The proof of his intentions is in his actions.
if you're going to regurgitate, then I'm going to regurgitate.
“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.
"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……”
The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them...It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." -General Patrick Cleburne
Finally South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" wrote:
"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
You claim Davis "defended slavery". No he didn't. He defended the original constitution. He defended the right of the sovereign states to self determination. Slavery was not threatened in the US. There was no need to secede to defend it. Even after secession, the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The original 7 seceding states of which Davis was president, turned that offer down. BOTH sides had slavery throughout the war. One side did not go to war to end slavery and the other did not go to war to preserve slavery. There was no popular will on either side to end slavery in 1861.
You haven't refuted anything. Hitler also lied before and during the war. In 1936, he said to Reichstag in Berlin "It is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe..." We all know that was a lie too.
Yes I have. I've refuted your weak and endless Hitler/Nazi analogies. There is a reason for Godwin's law. Hitler/Nazi analogies are the first things every lazy ignoramus resorts to....to the point that its a cliche.
With the exception of you, everyone knows JD was lying about secession wasn't about slavery, because he had said several times that it was.
Yet you cannot produce one quote from him saying that secession was "about" slavery while I've produced several from him saying it wasn't.
Another outright lie. I said everyone in the North wasn't the good guys either, and Lincoln had to work with them to get things done.
You tried to minimize the North keeping slavery throughout the war even while trying to damn the South for doing the exact same thing. psssst, keeping slavery during the war does not mean that secession or the war were "about" slavery anymore than keeping a market economy in both "proves" that secession and the war were "about" free market economics.
Slavery couldn't be revoked without ratification from the Southern states anyway, so the Corbomite Manuever amounted to nothing they didn't already have.What? This makes no sense. What the Corwin Amendment would have done would have been to offer express protections of slavery that had not been mentioned directly in the Constitution. The very fact that they were willing to write and ratify a constitutional amendment like this proves beyond any doubt that the North was not going to war to end slavery and had no real desire to end slavery. If one side is not fighting to do something then it naturally follows that the other side is not fighting to prevent them from it. Neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
They said it was, numerous times. I have posted several. I see no reason to post them again, when everyone has seen them numerous times by now.
They said it wasn't numerous times. I have posted several. I see no reason to post them again when everyone has seen them numerous times by now.
First, if you looked at that map, you'll see that way more states were formed from those territories. We don't know what would have happened if the slave holding states hadn't seceded, although I'm sure you'll post your opinions on the matter as if they were facts.
You have to make a whole series of far fetched assumptions to even reach a point somewhere in the murky future in which there might have been enough states to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery. You also have to assume states would have been formed for the sole purpose of voting to abolish slavery. This is pure fiction. Had the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery could not have been abolished without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery.
Third, your posts are what I would expect from a leftist plant trying to make the right look bad.
That'd be your posts. You are the one making the PC Revisionist arguments favored by Leftists.
I don't need to read it. I have his speeches and his actions to prove my point. All you have are Confederate lies.
You have yet to post any quote from Davis in which he said secession or the war were "about" slavery. I have posted several from him saying they were not.
Right. No reply needed. I am correct.
That doesn't even make sense. It was the slave holding states who were denying the slaves these rights. You're big on the Constitution, but you're clearly OK with the South disregarding this part of it to keep their slaves.
You realize they did not consider the slaves to be citizens right? Women did not enjoy all those rights either. The Indians did not either. People in the 18th and 19th centuries had very different views from ours today.
He defended slavery. He said so himself, several times.
Nope. This is an outright lie on your part. He said the opposite.
Here's something on this: blah blah blah
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned somewhere between 13 and 38 THOUSAND political dissidents. Read the case decided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruling this to be unconstitutional - ex parte Merryman.
BTW, Lincoln won re-election after all of this, so the voters were clearly OK with how he utilized his powers, which BTW were granted by Congress in 1863.
You mean after he imprisoned and tortured political dissidents? You mean after he censored all telegraphs and newspapers? You mean after stuffing the ballot boxes in several instances? You mean after unconstitutionally admitting both Nevada and West Virginia? Lots of tyrants have "won" elections in similar fashion. Hell, just look at resident Biden. He supposedly "won" too.
Why would JD, when they were covering for him? You proved that.
Clearly you haven't read much. The criticism of Davis in the newspapers in the South was much harsher than that of Lincoln by the newspapers in the North.
Details?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/11/thomas-dilorenzo/lincolns-second-american-revolution/
Let me guess....you will attack the source now.
Details?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-dilorenzo/the-american-gulag/
Now that's amusing. Assuming you are referring to Confederate sympathizers which is what I found when searching for this, they were sympathetic to a regime that gave escaped slaves far worse treatment than they received. If that's not what you're referring to, then...details?
Here is an excerpt from one:
One of those imprisoned for fourteen months for simply questioning the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus was Francis Key Howard, the grandson of Francis Scott Key and editor of the Baltimore Exchange newspaper. In response to an editorial in his newspaper that was critical of the fact that the Lincoln administration had imprisoned without due process the mayor of Baltimore, Congressman Henry May, and some twenty members of the Maryland legislature, he was imprisoned near the very spot where his grandfather composed the Star Spangled Banner. After his release, he noted the deep irony of his grandfather’s beloved flag flying over "the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed" (John Marshall, American Bastile, pp. 645—646).
JD and the Confederacy were every bit into "expansion" as the North. The only difference is they wanted the new territories to allow legal slavery. Here's from the Confederate Constitution: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."
The Confederate constitution allowed for states to join which did not allow slavery.
". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. "The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter.
". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
Then your disagreement is with JD.No its not because he expressly said that they were not fighting for slavery. You haven't produced a single quote from him saying the opposite.
The only lies in my posts are the points I'm replying to.
"several quotes from JD"? Well yes you've posted several. In none of them did he say secession or the war were "about" slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
and of course only 4 states issued declarations of causes
5.
Nobody is saying we should agree with the opinions of people in the mid 19th century about various ethnic groups...or indeed women for that matter. What the actual topic is is whether secession and the war were "about" slavery. They were not.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
if you're going to regurgitate, then I'm going to regurgitate.
In your last post you said, and I quote, "You've posted one quote from Davis 2 years before secession talking about slavery." Now you're accusing me of regurgitating previous posts. If you're going to lie about what I said, can you at least be consistant?
“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861
Rest of Confederate propaganda snipped.
I don't care what JD and Confederate sympathizers said about how secession wasn't about slavery, because they said on numerous ocasions that it was, and their actions backed the fact that it was about slavery.
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
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."
"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."
"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".
None of this has anything to do with economics or legalities, so there was no reason to add them unless they believed it.
You tried to minimize the North keeping slavery throughout the war even while trying to damn the South for doing the exact same thing.
I never minimized it. On the contrary, I said everyone in the North wasn't the good guys. I condemned it as I condemn the free traitors who got us hooked on Chicom slave labor now, but the fact is that Lincoln had to work with these states to get things done.
psssst, keeping slavery during the war does not mean that secession or the war were "about" slavery anymore than keeping a market economy in both "proves" that secession and the war were "about" free market economics.
No, but combining that with their comments defending slavery is all the evidence any jury would need to convict.
You have to make a whole series of far fetched assumptions to even reach a point somewhere in the murky future in which there might have been enough states to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery. You also have to assume states would have been formed for the sole purpose of voting to abolish slavery. This is pure fiction.
You're the one making assumptions. You're assuming the Corwin Amendment could have been anything but the failed last ditch effort that it was. I'm just pointing out that we can't assume there would have only been 50 states if the slave holding states hadn't seceded.
Had the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery could not have been abolished without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery.
But it wasn't passed, and slavery couldn't have been abolished without enough states voting to ratify the 13th Amendment anyway. It was nothing.
That'd be your posts. You are the one making the PC Revisionist arguments favored by Leftists.
Everything I've posted comes from the Democrat run Confederacy itself.
You have yet to post any quote from Davis in which he said secession or the war were "about" slavery. I have posted several from him saying they were not.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Right. No reply needed. I am correct.
No, "no reply needed", as in if you want to make the point that the Holocaust wasn't an act of war against the Jewish people, then I'll let the readers decide. If you're not a lefty trying to make the right look bad, then I'm sure you can see how appalling that is to others. Of course, as a leftist impersonating a Conservative, that's your goal anyway, isn't it?
You realize they did not consider the slaves to be citizens right? Women did not enjoy all those rights either. The Indians did not either. People in the 18th and 19th centuries had very different views from ours today.
I never pretended otherwise, but according to the Confederacy, Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to abolish slavery.
You mean after he imprisoned and tortured political dissidents? You mean after he censored all telegraphs and newspapers? You mean after stuffing the ballot boxes in several instances? You mean after unconstitutionally admitting both Nevada and West Virginia?
Your only solid example was a Confederacy sympathizer which I answered below. The treatment of Confederacy sympathizers was no worse that the treatment escaped slaves who were recaptured got from the Confederacy they sympathized with.
Lots of tyrants have "won" elections in similar fashion. Hell, just look at resident Biden. He supposedly "won" too.
Pointing to Biden doesn't prove anything about Lincoln.
Clearly you haven't read much. The criticism of Davis in the newspapers in the South was much harsher than that of Lincoln by the newspapers in the North.
Once again you can't get your story straight. In your previous post you posted excerpts from their "MSM" defending the Confederacy against claims that secession was about preserving slavery. Now you're saying the exact opposite. Which is it?
Let me guess....you will attack the source now.
The credibility of the source is fair game, especially after you used a leftist who is trying to tie slavery to the modern right to make your point in previous posts. Neither Lew Rockwell nor Thomas DiLorenzo are FR Conservatives, but they both reject socialism so they have that going for them. Of course, the only qualification they need is that they say what the Confederacy amen corner wants to hear.
However, not everyone is impressed with Thomas DiLorenzo's work. Here is a counterpoint.
Here is an excerpt from one: One of those imprisoned for fourteen months for simply questioning the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus was Francis Key Howard...
He left out that Francis Key Howard was a Confederacy sympathizer, which I pointed out in my previous post. That's no different than being a Nazi sympathizer in 1941. He did mention that many were Democrats but left out that many were Confederate sympathizers.
And before you rant about Hitler comparisons, no one in 1941 outside of Germany was sure of what was going on inside of Germany. In 1941 they were seen as an enemy nation. The horrors of the Nazi regime came out later.
BTW, 38,000 was just the max estimate.
No its not because he expressly said that they were not fighting for slavery. You haven't produced a single quote from him saying the opposite.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Nope. The lies are yours. Entirely.
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted dozens of times already because I have literally nothing else.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
5.
4
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted dozens of times already because I have literally nothing else.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
In your last post you said, and I quote, "You've posted one quote from Davis 2 years before secession talking about slavery." Now you're accusing me of regurgitating previous posts. If you're going to lie about what I said, can you at least be consistant?
I've been entirely consistent. You keep posting the same single speech. Nowhere in that speech 2 years before Secession did Davis say secession was "about" slavery. Nowhere in that speech did he say the war was "about" slavery. You'd think you could figure that point out because......HELLO!!!! It was years before secession or the war happened. But you keep posting it thinking it somehow "proves" your point. It of course, does no such thing.
I don't care what JD and Confederate sympathizers said about how secession wasn't about slavery, because they said on numerous ocasions that it was, and their actions backed the fact that it was about slavery.
I don't care about your PC Revisionist propaganda that secession was "about" slavery. Davis and many others said it was not on numerous occasions and their actions backed up the fact that it was not about slavery. Namely, they turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
From Georgia:
blah blah blah
None of this has anything to do with economics or legalities, so there was no reason to add them unless they believed it.
I've already told you numerous times they listed the Northern states' violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution and them trying to claim all the western territories for themselves for economic reason AND for votes in the US Senate when those territories became states. They also listed the economic causes in their "train of abuses" in the style of the Declaration of Independence.
I never minimized it. On the contrary, I said everyone in the North wasn't the good guys. I condemned it as I condemn the free traitors who got us hooked on Chicom slave labor now, but the fact is that Lincoln had to work with these states to get things done.
You cannot seriously claim the Southern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war somehow "proves" that the war was "about" slavery while dismissing the Northern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war.
No, but combining that with their comments defending slavery is all the evidence any jury would need to convict.
Combining with the fact that slavery was not threatened in the US AND the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment which was offered by the Northern states AND their comments indicating neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery is all the evidence a reasonable person would need to conclude that neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
You're the one making assumptions. You're assuming the Corwin Amendment could have been anything but the failed last ditch effort that it was. I'm just pointing out that we can't assume there would have only been 50 states if the slave holding states hadn't seceded.
I take the Corwin Amendment for what it was - a serious offer to induce the original 7 seceding states back into the Union by means of explicitly ensuring the protection of slavery effectively forever. Its very far fetched to assume there would be 10 more states than there actually are today solely to have enough states to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery. It could have been banned but it would have had to be with the consent of the 15 states that still had it - that means a generous compensated emancipation program of the kind other countries used to get rid of slavery would have had to be adopted.
But it wasn't passed, and slavery couldn't have been abolished without enough states voting to ratify the 13th Amendment anyway. It was nothing.
It was explicit protection of slavery. As such it is very clear that there was no intent on the part of the Northern states or the Republican party at the time to abolish slavery. Consequently even the original 7 seceding states could not have been seceding to protect something that was not threatened anyway.
Everything I've posted comes from the Democrat run Confederacy itself.
You're making PC Revisionist arguments....the kind of arguments one did not see until Leftist PCers in Academia started pushing this narrative in the 1980s.
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted dozens of times already because I have literally nothing else.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
No, "no reply needed", as in if you want to make the point that the Holocaust wasn't an act of war against the Jewish people, then I'll let the readers decide. If you're not a lefty trying to make the right look bad, then I'm sure you can see how appalling that is to others. Of course, as a leftist impersonating a Conservative, that's your goal anyway, isn't it?
It isn't an act of war against the Jewish people. One cannot commit an act of war against a people. Acts of war can only be committed against countries. The fact that they do not fit the definition of "act of war" which has a very specific meaning does not mean they were not atrocities. Of course, you're an ignoramus impersonating a Conservative so I'm not surprised you cannot grasp this.
Your only solid example was a Confederacy sympathizer which I answered below. The treatment of Confederacy sympathizers was no worse that the treatment escaped slaves who were recaptured got from the Confederacy they sympathized with.
What you're calling "confederacy sympathizers" were American citizens. Citizens of Northern states to be precise. Last I checked, individuals were supposed to have their god given rights protected from government abuse under the constitution.
Pointing to Biden doesn't prove anything about Lincoln.
Lincoln was a tyrant.
Once again you can't get your story straight. In your previous post you posted excerpts from their "MSM" defending the Confederacy against claims that secession was about preserving slavery. Now you're saying the exact opposite. Which is it?
Strawman alert! I never posted that several of the most prominent newspapers in the Southern states did not say secession and the war were about economics. They did say that. They also criticized Davis harshly for his conduct of the war.
The credibility of the source is fair game, especially after you used a leftist who is trying to tie slavery to the modern right to make your point in previous posts. Neither Lew Rockwell nor Thomas DiLorenzo are FR Conservatives, but they both reject socialism so they have that going for them. Of course, the only qualification they need is that they say what the Confederacy amen corner wants to hear.
I'm hardly a cheerleader for PC Revisionists like McPherson. Quite the opposite actually. Rockwell and DiLorenzo and many others recognize that the narratives pushed by the Leftist PC Revisionists.....ie the all about slavery myth, are false.
However, not everyone is impressed with Thomas DiLorenzo's work. Here is a counterpoint.
Yeah, Neocons and PC Revisionists.
He left out that Francis Key Howard was a Confederacy sympathizer, which I pointed out in my previous post. That's no different than being a Nazi sympathizer in 1941. He did mention that many were Democrats but left out that many were Confederate sympathizers.,/p>
roll eyes. Here we go again. No its radically different from being a Nazi in 1941 or at any time. What Francis Key Howard was criticizing was the UNCONSTITUTIONAL suspension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln when he ordered the arrest of Maryland Legislators without charge or trial while the courts were functioning and could have tried any charge brought against them. That is tyranny plain and simple.
BTW, 38,000 was just the max estimate.
Oh gee. Is that all? The union only controlled an area with a population of about 22-23 million. The US population is roughly 15 times the size today. Imagine a president today ordering jackbooted federal thugs to just lock up 570.000 Americans without any charge and without trial. That would be equivalent. We would rightly call any president doing that a tyrant.
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted dozens of times already because I have literally nothing else.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
Thanks, but I don't want them.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The first three paragraphs in his speech, although taken altogether the entire speech ties secession to abolition.
I've snipped the repeats.
4
5 "states issued declarations of causes", your words. Maybe you meant only 4 cited slavery, not that I agree with that either.
I've already told you numerous times...
I don't care what you told me, or what Rockwell and DiLorenzo have to say. JD, his VP, the declarations of secession, and many others said it was about preserving slavery, and their actions prove they meant it. None of their poor attempts at PR to walk it back will change that.
You cannot seriously claim the Southern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war somehow "proves" that the war was "about" slavery while dismissing the Northern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war.
I don't dismiss it, nor do I excuse it. I admit that this was an injustice, but Lincoln had to deal with them to keep the Union together. Frederick Douglas understood and acknowledged it.
Once they had the votes they needed, they passed abolition, and the states including some former slave holding states ratified it.
Combining with the fact that slavery was not threatened in the US
According to JD and the declarations of secession it was.
AND the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
Which they already had until the 13th Amendment was passed.
which was offered by the Northern states
Who never ratified it, and many who voted to pass it were out of work the following year.
AND their comments indicating neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery is all the evidence a reasonable person would need to conclude that neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
Do I really need to spam you with all of the comments saying it was about slavery again?
I take the Corwin Amendment for what it was
You take it for what you want to pretend it was. I take it for what it was - NOTHING.
You're making PC Revisionist arguments....the kind of arguments one did not see until Leftist PCers in Academia started pushing this narrative in the 1980s.
The declarations of secession and JD's speech weren't written in the 1980s.
It isn't an act of war against the Jewish people. One cannot commit an act of war against a people. Acts of war can only be committed against countries. The fact that they do not fit the definition of "act of war" which has a very specific meaning does not mean they were not atrocities. Of course, you're an ignoramus impersonating a Conservative so I'm not surprised you cannot grasp this.
How many Conservatives still following this topic agree with this?
What you're calling "confederacy sympathizers" were American citizens.
So were the KKK and some Nazi sympathizers.
Last I checked, individuals were supposed to have their god given rights protected from government abuse under the constitution.
You mean those rights that the Confederacy sympathizers wanted to claim for themselves but denied to the slaves who escaped from the slavery in the Confederacy they sympathized with?
Lincoln was a tyrant.
So was Trump, if you believe the Democrats.
Strawman alert! I never posted that several of the most prominent newspapers in the Southern states did not say secession and the war were about economics. They did say that. They also criticized Davis harshly for his conduct of the war.
So what? After watching our biased media lie through their teeth about everything, why should I believe the Confederacy's media was any less biased back then?
I'm hardly a cheerleader for PC Revisionists like McPherson.
It almost seems as if you are McPherson. You're both trying to tie slavery to the modern right. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly through the Confederacy. Most consider the Confederacy synonymous with slavery, so the result would be the same.
No its radically different from being a Nazi in 1941 or at any time.
I was speaking in the context about what was known about Nazi Germany in 1941, which was bad enough.
Oh gee. Is (38,000) all? The union only controlled an area with a population of about 22-23 million. The US population is roughly 15 times the size today. Imagine a president today ordering jackbooted federal thugs to just lock up 570.000 Americans without any charge and without trial. That would be equivalent. We would rightly call any president doing that a tyrant.
So what would we call a president who defends the enslavement of 4,000,000 humans?
Then stop telling them.
The first three paragraphs in his speech, although taken altogether the entire speech ties secession to abolition.
This was 2 years before and of course at odds with what he said in the US Senate prior to secession, to the Confederate Congress in his first inaugural address and directly to Union representatives as well as in correspondence with Confederate Congressmen as I've posted several times already.
5 "states issued declarations of causes", your words. Maybe you meant only 4 cited slavery, not that I agree with that either.
4. South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas.
I don't care what you told me, or what Rockwell and DiLorenzo have to say. JD, his VP, the declarations of secession, and many others said it was about preserving slavery, and their actions prove they meant it. None of their poor attempts at PR to walk it back will change that.
And I don't care what you or the other PC Revisionists have claimed. Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, Judah Benjamin, Duncan Kenner, Patrick Cleburne, Newspapers North, South and Foreign, all said it was not about slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US. Their actions in turning down the Corwin amendment and in not seceding until Lincoln started the war all prove that was not their real motivation. None of the poor attempts at wartime propaganda or later Leftist Revisionism in Academia will change that.
I don't dismiss it, nor do I excuse it. I admit that this was an injustice, but Lincoln had to deal with them to keep the Union together. Frederick Douglas understood and acknowledged it.
The Northern states did not even abolish slavery during the war. Your claim that the Southern states not abolishing slavery during the war somehow "proves" the war was about slavery is a complete joke.
Once they had the votes they needed, they passed abolition, and the states including some former slave holding states ratified it.
Slavery was not abolished until after the war. Once again, that is not evidence as to what the war was "about".
According to JD and the declarations of secession it was.,/p>
According to Lincoln and the Northern dominated Congress it obviously was not.
Which they already had until the 13th Amendment was passed.
Which again shows slavery was not threatened in the US.
Who never ratified it, and many who voted to pass it were out of work the following year.
Who didn't ratify it because the Southern states turned it down and there is zero evidence that those who voted for it were put out of office by voters because they voted for a constitutional amendment to expressly protect slavery effectively forever.
Do I really need to spam you with all of the comments saying it was about slavery again?,/p>
Do I really need to spam you with all of the comments saying it was not about slavery again?
You take it for what you want to pretend it was. I take it for what it was - NOTHING.
No, that's you pretending. It was EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL protection of slavery EFFECTIVELY FOREVER.
The declarations of secession and JD's speech weren't written in the 1980s.
Correct they weren't.....nor were JD's speeches saying it was not about slavery nor all the others saying the same. Once again, this was not the majority view even in Academia until 1960s Leftists who were rising through the ranks in Academia started pushing it beginning in the 1980s.
How many Conservatives still following this topic agree with this?
You obviously fail to understand that something can be awful, horrible, cruel, inhuman, a crime, a crime against humanity, without being an act of war. Act of War is a legal term which has a specific meaning.
So were the KKK and some Nazi sympathizers.
They were of course not that. They were people who questioned the war. They were people who questioned the tyrant Lincoln's unconstitutional censorship or his unconstitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus. They were American citizens.
You mean those rights that the Confederacy sympathizers wanted to claim for themselves but denied to the slaves who escaped from the slavery in the Confederacy they sympathized with?
I mean the rights they were due as American citizens. No matter how much you and I might not like it today, slaves were not considered citizens. Also, some didn't have any particular sympathy for the CSA. Some merely thought going to war to impose government rule on people who did not consent to it to be tyrannical, contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers, unconstitutional, or simply folly. Others questioned the unconstitutional trampling upon of civil liberties by Lincoln and his jackbooted federal thugs.
So was Trump, if you believe the Democrats.
Trump did not trample upon people's constitutional rights. Lincoln did.
So what? After watching our biased media lie through their teeth about everything, why should I believe the Confederacy's media was any less biased back then?
OF COURSE they were biased. All media is biased. Nevertheless, President Davis was harshly criticized by the free press in the Southern States. Feel free to research it yourself.
It almost seems as if you are McPherson. You're both trying to tie slavery to the modern right. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly through the Confederacy. Most consider the Confederacy synonymous with slavery, so the result would be the same.
Here you show your titanic ignorance once again. I am not tying slavery to the modern right. That is of course absurd. The Confederacy was hardly synonymous with slavery any more than the USA was. Both still permitted it at that time.
I was speaking in the context about what was known about Nazi Germany in 1941, which was bad enough.
The Nazi dictatorship is not comparable to a democracy which had a constitution which protected individual rights.
So what would we call a president who defends the enslavement of 4,000,000 humans?
We would call them all of the first 16 US presidents.
I can't, because the readers need to see which of your points I'm replying to.
This was 2 years before and of course at odds with what he said in the US Senate prior to secession, to the Confederate Congress in his first inaugural address and directly to Union representatives as well as in correspondence with Confederate Congressmen as I've posted several times already.
I know they tried to put a pretty face on the Confederacy, but he, his VP, the declarations of secession, and many others said it was about slavery. They were even hestitant to allow blacks to enlist because it would show that "our whole theory of slavery is wrong", their words, in 1865.
4. South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas.
5. Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
Do I really need to spam you with all of the comments saying it was not about slavery again?
No, because it would be a waste of FR bandwidth. I have their statements that it was about slavery and their actions backing that up. Their poor attempts at PR are meaningless.
You obviously fail to understand that something can be awful, horrible, cruel, inhuman, a crime, a crime against humanity, without being an act of war. Act of War is a legal term which has a specific meaning.
I know, but if those tribes considered themselves sovereign entities then the term act of war applies, regardless of any proxies used to get them.
I'm waiting for everyone accept my invitation to chime in saying they agree with you on this.
Trump did not trample upon people's constitutional rights. Lincoln did.
Like the constitutional right to own slaves?
They were of course not that. They were people who questioned the war. They were people who questioned the tyrant Lincoln's unconstitutional censorship or his unconstitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus. They were American citizens.
One of them assassinated President Lincoln. Why? Because Lincoln called for equality for blacks.
I mean the rights they were due as American citizens. No matter how much you and I might not like it today, slaves were not considered citizens.
I see. Make slavery legal and it's legal, so there.
Also, some didn't have any particular sympathy for the CSA. Some merely thought going to war to impose government rule on people who did not consent to it to be tyrannical, contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers, unconstitutional, or simply folly. Others questioned the unconstitutional trampling upon of civil liberties by Lincoln and his jackbooted federal thugs.
Like the legal right to own slaves?
OF COURSE they were biased. All media is biased. Nevertheless, President Davis was harshly criticized by the free press in the Southern States. Feel free to research it yourself.
According to you, they were critical of his handling of the war, not of slavery.
Here you show your titanic ignorance once again. I am not tying slavery to the modern right.
You're trying to tie the Confederacy to the modern right. In most people's eyes, that is synonymous with slavery.
That is of course absurd. The Confederacy was hardly synonymous with slavery any more than the USA was. Both still permitted it at that time.
There was a big difference, in that the Confederacy was formed in part to preserve slavery. They said so themselves.
The Nazi dictatorship is not comparable to a democracy which had a constitution which protected individual rights.
Um, slavery.
We would call them all of the first 16 US presidents.
That was a good answer, but slavery was protected by the Constitution (although I'm not sure how) so they couldn't have abolished it by themselves even if they had intended to.
That was until Lincoln and the Republicans got enough votes to pass abolition in 1865, just nine years after they said they would, and the states ratified it.
You can stop posting lies and BS. Its easy.
I know they tried to put a pretty face on the Confederacy, but he, his VP, the declarations of secession, and many others said it was about slavery. They were even hestitant to allow blacks to enlist because it would show that "our whole theory of slavery is wrong", their words, in 1865.
He specifically said secession and the war were not about slavery. He said so many times. So did several other Southern political and military leaders as well as leading newspapers. And of course the original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
5. Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
Virginia did not issue a declaration of causes. If you want to argue otherwise, provide the link to Virginia's Declaration of the causes of secession.
No, because it would be a waste of FR bandwidth. I have their statements that it was about slavery and their actions backing that up. Their poor attempts at PR are meaningless.
You mean it would be a waste of bandwidth to show you once again their statements that it was not about slavery and their actions backing that up. The poor attempts by Union propagandists and PC Revisionists are meaningless.
I know, but if those tribes considered themselves sovereign entities then the term act of war applies, regardless of any proxies used to get them.
If those tribes themselves considered themselves to be sovereign entities. So a tribe can declare itself sovereign but not a state? Also you do realize that European and American slave traders did not show up and go into the jungle to capture Africans to enslave them right? That would not have been economical. No. They BOUGHT THEM from their BLACK AFRICAN slavemasters who were quite happy to sell them.
Like the constitutional right to own slaves?
Lincoln didn't interfere with that one. In fact he was supported a constitutional amendment that would have expressly protected slavery forever.
One of them assassinated President Lincoln. Why? Because Lincoln called for equality for blacks.
Firstly John Wilkes Booth was an individual. The 38,000 or so American Citizens imprisoned in federal gulags without charge or trial for disagreeing with government policy were unique individuals who bear no responsibility for Booth's actions. Secondly, Booth's big failing was in waiting too long to kill the tyrant. He might've saved many lives had he killed Lincoln years earlier.
I see. Make slavery legal and it's legal, so there.
Nobody considered slaves or Indians for that matter to be citizens at that time. The mid 19th century was not the 21st century. People in the past did not have the same views we do today.
Like the legal right to own slaves?
Like the right to disagree with government policy and/or criticize politicians.
According to you, they were critical of his handling of the war, not of slavery.
according to anybody who has bothered to read them.
You're trying to tie the Confederacy to the modern right. In most people's eyes, that is synonymous with slavery.
I'm not tying the Confederacy specifically to the modern right. I DO note that the South is the heart of the modern conservative movement. I also note that the South's longstanding support of decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets lie at the heart of conservatism. The Confederacy is only synonymous with slavery to complete ignoramuses.
There was a big difference, in that the Confederacy was formed in part to preserve slavery. They said so themselves.
The Confederacy was not formed to preserve slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US. If anybody thought it was, the North was only too happy to offer protection of slavery effectively forever by explicit constitutional amendment. The original 7 seceding states turned down that offer.
Um, slavery.
ummmm the US had slavery for 80 years. Does that make the US from the time of its founding until 1866 akind to Nazi Germany in your view?
That was a good answer, but slavery was protected by the Constitution (although I'm not sure how) so they couldn't have abolished it by themselves even if they had intended to.
They presided over a country that had slavery. Until very late in the war, Lincoln like the other 15 before him showed no inclination to abolish slavery.
That was until Lincoln and the Republicans got enough votes to pass abolition in 1865, just nine years after they said they would, and the states ratified it.
Neither Lincoln nor the Republicans campaigned on nor supported abolition. In fact they condemned it publicly and repeatedly until very late in the war. They even supported protection of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
Then how would everyone know which of your points I'm replying to?
He specifically said secession and the war were not about slavery. He said so many times. So did several other Southern political and military leaders as well as leading newspapers. And of course the original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
And Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewisnski.
Virginia did not issue a declaration of causes. If you want to argue otherwise, provide the link to Virginia's Declaration of the causes of secession.
I posted the link last time. I'm not playing this stupid game with you. If you don't read it, anyone who is still following this thread can.
You mean it would be a waste of bandwidth to show you once again their statements that it was not about slavery and their actions backing that up. The poor attempts by Union propagandists and PC Revisionists are meaningless.
The Union and the Confederacy have something in common. Both backed their words with actions. The Union backed their words that it was about abolishing slavery by doing it, and the Confederacy backed their words that it was about preserving slavery by defending it.
If those tribes themselves considered themselves to be sovereign entities. So a tribe can declare itself sovereign but not a state? Also you do realize that European and American slave traders did not show up and go into the jungle to capture Africans to enslave them right? That would not have been economical. No. They BOUGHT THEM from their BLACK AFRICAN slavemasters who were quite happy to sell them.
I don't care what proxies they used to get those slaves. What's important is they attained them by force, whether by their own or through proxies.
Lincoln didn't interfere with that one.
The importation of slaves was illegal by then, although it still happened illegally as you're so fond of pointing out.
In fact he was supported a constitutional amendment that would have expressly protected slavery forever.
You mean there was such an amendment that was made into law to offer to the slave holding states? Which was that?
Firstly John Wilkes Booth was an individual. The 38,000 or so American Citizens imprisoned in federal gulags without charge or trial for disagreeing with government policy were unique individuals who bear no responsibility for Booth's actions.
Confederacy sympathizers. Everyone understands what that means but you.
Secondly, Booth's big failing was in waiting too long to kill the tyrant. He might've saved many lives had he killed Lincoln years earlier.
Let's just ignore the fact that the slave holding states were on the wrong side of history on this issue. Nothing would have happened if Lincoln had been assassinated, because all of those issues would have evaporated. Is that your point?
Nobody considered slaves or Indians for that matter to be citizens at that time. The mid 19th century was not the 21st century. People in the past did not have the same views we do today.
Nope. Now we woke, self righteous people outsource our slave labor.
Like the right to disagree with government policy and/or criticize politicians.
Such as slavery.
I'm not tying the Confederacy specifically to the modern right. I DO note that the South is the heart of the modern conservative movement. I also note that the South's longstanding support of decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets lie at the heart of conservatism.
The modern South also rejects slavery. Did the Confederacy?
The Confederacy is only synonymous with slavery to complete ignoramuses.
The Confederacy is not synonymous with the modern South any more than the Nazis are synonymous with modern Germany, except for those who choose it to be so.
The Confederacy was not formed to preserve slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US.
According to JD, his VP, and the declarations of secession among many others, it was.
Repeat of Corbomite Maneuver snipped.
ummmm the US had slavery for 80 years. Does that make the US from the time of its founding until 1866 akind to Nazi Germany in your view?
With the full understanding that I'm debating a liberal posing as a conservative, it doesn't have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to be wrong or appalling.
The Democrats split the country over slavery and were willing to fight a war to preserve it. They said as much. Fortunately most Republicans stood their ground and slavery was abolished.
They presided over a country that had slavery. Until very late in the war, Lincoln like the other 15 before him showed no inclination to abolish slavery.
JD and the articles of secession said he did.
Neither Lincoln nor the Republicans campaigned on nor supported abolition. In fact they condemned it publicly and repeatedly until very late in the war.
JD and the articles of secession said they did.
Another repeat of Corbomite Maneuver snipped.
Civil War is an unlikely step—The only winner Red China. Two second rate powers Would become like North and south Korea. One good thing—we would be out of the World Policeman Job/ Let China take it on. Let the world see what they could do with Xi and his CCP people’
s Army. They wouldn’t last a decade.
China isn’t the US. They’d mow people down for any reason.
Well if you stopped posting lies and BS there would be no lies and BS in this thread since you hold a monopoly on spreading the lies and the BS.
And Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewisnski.
And that is irrelevant. He felt it was not about slavery.
I posted the link last time. I'm not playing this stupid game with you. If you don't read it, anyone who is still following this thread can.
That was not a declaration of causes.
The Union and the Confederacy have something in common. Both backed their words with actions. The Union backed their words that it was about abolishing slavery by doing it, and the Confederacy backed their words that it was about preserving slavery by defending it.
The Union backed their words that it was not about slavery by offering slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Northern dominated Congress also passed a resolution explicitly saying it was not about slavery. The original 7 seceding states demonstrated that it was not about slavery by turning down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
I don't care what proxies they used to get those slaves. What's important is they attained them by force, whether by their own or through proxies.
They didn't attain them by force. They attained them by MONEY. They held them by force but Africans were more than happy to sell other Africans they held as slaves.
You mean there was such an amendment that was made into law to offer to the slave holding states? Which was that?
I mean Lincoln orchestrated the writing and passage through the Congress by a 2/3rds supermajority a constitutional amendment which would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever. I mean he endorsed it in his first inaugural address. I mean he orchestrated its ratification by some Northern states.
Confederacy sympathizers. Everyone understands what that means but you.
Not every person illegally imprisoned by federal thugs was a Confederate sympathizer. Many just thought the policy of going to war to impose government rule on people who did not consent to it to be wrong. Many others simply questioned the tyrannical acts of the federal government in furtherance of this war of aggression Lincoln started.
Let's just ignore the fact that the slave holding states were on the wrong side of history on this issue. Nothing would have happened if Lincoln had been assassinated, because all of those issues would have evaporated. Is that your point?
The issue wouldn't have disappeared immediately but had the original 7 seceding states been allowed to go their separate way in peace, slavery would have collapsed rather quickly in those states as their slaves poured over the border into the US which was under no obligation to return them. Nobody need to have been killed in a war to force those states back in.
Nope. Now we woke, self righteous people outsource our slave labor.
and disgusting sleazebags like Nike and Apple lobby to prevent or water down legislation to sanction evil regimes like the CCP which use slaves in the very same province where those companies have their manufacturing.
Such as slavery.
Such as the right to disagree with government policy and/or criticize politicians.
The modern South also rejects slavery. Did the Confederacy?
Did the US until very late in the war? Try as hard as you might, you cannot lay slavery at the feet of the South alone. The facts simply do not support it.
The Confederacy is not synonymous with the modern South any more than the Nazis are synonymous with modern Germany, except for those who choose it to be so.
The Confederacy is no more comparable to Nazi Germany than the US of 1860 was comparable to Nazi Germany.
According to JD, his VP, and the declarations of secession among many others, it was.
According to JD, several leading Southern politicians, generals and newspapers and the rejection of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, it was not.
With the full understanding that I'm debating a liberal posing as a conservative, it doesn't have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to be wrong or appalling.
This is what shrinks call "projection". You, who argues the Leftist position - PC revisionism...ie the "all about slavery" myth...accusing a Conservative of being the Leftist. Sure we can all agree that slavery was appalling. We all do in modern times. That said neither the US in its first 80 years nor the Confederacy were remotely comparable to Nazi Germany. The former had real elections, a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, no search and seizure without due process etc etc etc. They recognized the rights of man. Nazi Germany did not. It had only one political party, it was a dictatorship and the government was all-powerful. The individual possessed no rights that government had to respect.
The Democrats split the country over slavery and were willing to fight a war to preserve it. They said as much. Fortunately most Republicans stood their ground and slavery was abolished.
The "Democrats" of the time did no such thing. The country was not split over slavery nor did anybody fight to abolish it on the one hand or preserve it on the other. Both sides said so.
JD and the articles of secession said he did.
JD specifically said secession and the war were not about slavery as did several of the leading politicians and generals and newspapers in the South. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes and 3 mentioned things other than the refusal of the Northern states to respect the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution.
JD and the articles of secession said they did.
Jefferson Davis never said that.
Much of what I post comes from the Confederacy itself, so I guess I have to concede that point.
He felt it was not about slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
That was not a declaration of causes.
Here it is again. The readers can decide for themselves.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
The Union backed their words that it was not about slavery by offering slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Union then warned the South that if they attacked, an equal force would be hurled against them destroying them, and that since the Corwin Amendment had been implemented, no attacker has ever survived the attack.
That's as close to reality as your Corwin Amendment. At least the Corbomite Maneuver made money for its writers. The Corwin Amendment did nothing but give you a talking point.
Repeats snipped.
They didn't attain them by force.
Yes they did, through proxies.
The issue wouldn't have disappeared immediately but had the original 7 seceding states been allowed to go their separate way in peace, slavery would have collapsed rather quickly in those states as their slaves poured over the border into the US which was under no obligation to return them. Nobody need to have been killed in a war to force those states back in.
Pointing out what would have happened if doesn't prove anything. As JD and others said, the Confederacy saw having slaves as a right and weren't going to give them up without a fight. Just like the Democrats with their entitlement attitude of today.
Did the US until very late in the war? Try as hard as you might, you cannot lay slavery at the feet of the South alone.
Lies like this are why I call you a liar. I have acknowlwdged several times that some states in the Union still had slaves and everyone in the North wasn't onboard with abolition, and Lincoln had to work with them.
The Confederacy is no more comparable to Nazi Germany than the US of 1860 was comparable to Nazi Germany.
Except the Confederacy was formed to preserve the slave labor they thought they were entitled to. The union had slave states, but their goal as a nation wasn't to preserve slavery, as shown by their refusal to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver even thought it meant secession and war.
This is what shrinks call "projection". You, who argues the Leftist position - PC revisionism...ie the "all about slavery" myth...
All of my sources are from before the PC revisionism you say happened in the 1980s.
accusing a Conservative of being the Leftist. Sure we can all agree that slavery was appalling. We all do in modern times.
Many said so then too, and several nations had already abolished it. In this environment, the Confederacy was formed to preserve it. They said so several times.
That said neither the US in its first 80 years nor the Confederacy were remotely comparable to Nazi Germany.
Do you have to be comparable to Nazi Germany to be wrong?
The former had real elections, a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, no search and seizure without due process etc etc etc.
Unless you were born a slave.
The "Democrats" of the time did no such thing. The country was not split over slavery nor did anybody fight to abolish it on the one hand or preserve it on the other. Both sides said so.
Both sides also said the opposite, so we must base our conclusions on what happened.
JD specifically said secession and the war were not about slavery as did several of the leading politicians and generals and newspapers in the South.
They also said it was.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Only 4 states issued declarations of causes and 3 mentioned things other than the refusal of the Northern states to respect the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution.
IOW, it was about preserving slavery. Are you serious?
Jefferson Davis never said that.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Nah. You post PC Revisionist lies and BS.
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted hundreds of times before
This was 2 years before.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Umm Virginia's is the secession ordnance and does not list causes. Its obvious you have never read it.
The Union backed their words that it was not about slavery by offering slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Union then warned the South that if they attacked, an equal force would be hurled against them destroying them, and that since the Corwin Amendment had been implemented, no attacker has ever survived the attack.
In English please.
That's as close to reality as your Corwin Amendment. At least the Corbomite Maneuver made money for its writers. The Corwin Amendment did nothing but give you a talking point.
The Corwin Amendment demonstrated quite clearly that the North was perfectly happy to protect slavery where it existed - as Lincoln and many other Republicans said they would. It also showed that the original 7 seceding states were not concerned over the protection of slavery - which was not threatened in the US anyway. But you knew that.
Yes they did, through proxies.
THEY didn't. The African slave traders were not their proxies - they were their business partners.
Pointing out what would have happened if doesn't prove anything. As JD and others said, the Confederacy saw having slaves as a right and weren't going to give them up without a fight. Just like the Democrats with their entitlement attitude of today.
They didn't have to give up slavery in the US. Slavery was not threatened in the US. The US Congress pass a resolution saying so. Lincoln said so. They even passed a constitutional amendment which would have expressly protected slavery and which would have been mathematically impossible to overturn without the consent of the states that still allowed slavery.
Lies like this are why I call you a liar. I have acknowlwdged several times that some states in the Union still had slaves and everyone in the North wasn't onboard with abolition, and Lincoln had to work with them.
Every single thing I wrote was 100% truthful.
Except the Confederacy was formed to preserve the slave labor they thought they were entitled to.
Except it wasn't. Slavery's preservation was not threatened in the US. Your lies are why I call you a liar.
The union had slave states, but their goal as a nation wasn't to preserve slavery, as shown by their refusal to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver even thought it meant secession and war.
The North only "refused" to ratify the Corwin Amendment because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
All of my sources are from before the PC revisionism you say happened in the 1980s.
Is that why you cite a supposed declaration of causes that is in fact just an ordnance which lists no causes? Or perhaps why you list a speech by Davis 2 years before secession even happened?
Many said so then too, and several nations had already abolished it. In this environment, the Confederacy was formed to preserve it. They said so several times.
That is a lie. They did not say that and furthermore slavery was not threatened in the US. If anybody thought it was, the North passed a constitutional amendment that would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever. The original 7 seceding states turned it down. Slavery was obviously not their main concern. While some European countries had gotten rid of slavery by 1860, some still had not. Obviously Brazil and Cuba had not.
Do you have to be comparable to Nazi Germany to be wrong?
You keep trying to make the Hitler/Nazi analogy.
Unless you were born a slave.
Or an an Indian. Neither were considered to be citizens.
Both sides also said the opposite, so we must base our conclusions on what happened.
One side offered explicit protections for slavery effectively forever. The other side turned that offer down.
They also said it was.
Davis said it was not many times. He said it to Southerners. He said it to Northerners. He said it in public and in private. At no point in 1860 or at any time during his presidency did he say secession or the war were about slavery.
IOW, it was about preserving slavery. Are you serious?
Are you capable of grasping even basic facts? It doesn't seem like it. The 4 states that issued declarations of causes pointed out that it was the Northern states which had violated the US Constitution. They wanted out for other reasons (ie to set their own tax/economic policies) and the Northern states by breaking the deal gave them cause to say it was the other side which had acted in bad faith. It wasn't about preserving slavery. There was almost zero support for abolishing slavery.
blah blah blah A speech Davis gave 2 years before secession.
Davis did not say secession in 1860 was about slavery at any time in 1860 or at any time during the war. In fact he said the exact opposite. But you knew that.
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.
