Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
Many breathed a sigh of relief when President Biden was elected, not for policy but for a reunification of the country after four years of tumult and fiery division under President Trump. But eight months into the new presidency, America's deep disunity might not be letting up.
A new poll has revealed that political divisions run so deep in the US that over half of Trump voters want red states to secede from the union, and 41% of Biden voters want blue states to split off.
According to the analysis from the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, 52% of Trump voters at least somewhat agree with the statement: 'The situation is such that I would favor [Blue/Red] states seceding from the union to form their own separate country.' Twenty-five percent of Trump voters strongly agree.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
bump for later...
Splitting the country is a sane choice... voluntarily and peacefully.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Repeat snipped.
This was 2 years before.
That's right. He spelled it out in advance.
Repeat snipped.
Umm Virginia's is the secession ordnance and does not list causes. Its obvious you have never read it.
As I said, I'll let the readers decide. If anyone else needs me to spell it out I will, but I'm not going to waste any more effort trying to get you to see what is in front of you.
In English please.
If anyone else failed to understand that, they can say so and I'll explain it.
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.
The states had the opportunity to ratify it and they didn't. It was nothing.
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.
Both JD and the declarations of secession said it was.
Repeat snipped.
THEY didn't. The African slave traders were not their proxies - they were their business partners.
They committed the acts of war that captured those humans. The Confederacy paid them to do it. You can cover it with nice terms like "business partners", but they paid the traders to commit acts of war against those tribes.
And before you run back to "but the North had slaves too and there were crooked politicians who looked the other way while it happened", I know that. Lincoln had to deal with them too.
The North only "refused" to ratify the Corwin Amendment because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
They refused to ratify it for the same reason they chose to ratify abolition.
And of course the slave holding states turned it down. They knew it wasn't going to be ratified. Even if you were right about the causes, why would they accept nothing.
You keep trying to make the Hitler/Nazi analogy.
Only to make a point, which is that Hitler lied about Germany's intentions and made his actions legal. You don't have an answer for that so you keep falling back to the "but the Confederacy wasn't as bad as Hitler" strawman.
The rest was repeat so I snipped it.
Nothing more needs be said.
That's right. He spelled it out in advance.
No he didn't. It had not even happened.
As I said, I'll let the readers decide. If anyone else needs me to spell it out I will, but I'm not going to waste any more effort trying to get you to see what is in front of you.
what's in front of me is a secession ordnance for Virginia that does not list causes. Its obvious you've never read it.
If anyone else failed to understand that, they can say so and I'll explain it.
I'll take that as proof you cannot express yourself in plain English.
The states had the opportunity to ratify it and they didn't. It was nothing.
They didn't ratify it because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was irrefutable proof that neither side was fighting over slavery.
Both JD and the declarations of secession said it was.
The Republicans, Lincoln and the US Congress said it wasn't. To prove that it wasn't they offered express protection of slavery effectively forever by constitutional amendment.
They committed the acts of war that captured those humans. The Confederacy paid them to do it. You can cover it with nice terms like "business partners", but they paid the traders to commit acts of war against those tribes.
You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. They did not commit acts of war. Those tribes were not sovereign and SOLD THEM the slaves in the first place. Secondly, the Confederacy didn't pay slave traders. Importing slaves was made illegal in the Confederate Constitution. You're just spewing gibberish as usual.
And before you run back to "but the North had slaves too and there were crooked politicians who looked the other way while it happened", I know that. Lincoln had to deal with them too.
It went on for 50 years after the sunset clause for importing slaves in the US Constitution expired. This was overwhelmingly before Lincoln came to office. Learn some actual history for a change.
They refused to ratify it for the same reason they chose to ratify abolition.
No they didn't. They refused to ratify it because it FAILED to draw the original 7 seceding states back in.
And of course the slave holding states turned it down. They knew it wasn't going to be ratified. Even if you were right about the causes, why would they accept nothing.
They "knew" no such thing. Had that really addressed their concern, they could have simply said they would be happy to come back in and ratify it when enough Northern states had ratified it to ensure its passage. Instead they turned it down flat. What they were really interested in was self determination for reasons of taxation and trade - not protection of slavery which was not threatened anyway.
Only to make a point, which is that Hitler lied about Germany's intentions and made his actions legal. You don't have an answer for that so you keep falling back to the "but the Confederacy wasn't as bad as Hitler" strawman.
The analogy is lazy, stupid and a failure. Neither the CSA nor the USA were ever remotely comparable to Hitler or Nazi Germany.
Yep. The alternative is conflict and blood. We and the Northeast/Left Coast need to be separate. We detest each other and have completely different world views. If we are forced to remain together its simply going to be a constant nasty fight for control over the federal government until one side sees it has lost the battle and secedes.
So here we go again. I'll post all of the quotes showing that secesiion was about slavery. Then you'll whine that I'm spamming you and you can spam too, so you'll post a bunch of quotes walking back what they said about secession being about slavery. Then I'll post that Hitler said in 1945 that Germany didn't want war in 1939, to which you'll reply that comparisons to Hitler are wrong, or liberal tactics, or some other strawman that has nothing to do with the point being made.
No he didn't (spell it out in advance). It had not even happened.
Yet.
When "abolitionists" were elected, his words, then the slave holding states acted on what he said.
what's in front of me is a secession ordnance for Virginia that does not list causes. Its obvious you've never read it.
I'm not goig to waste FR bandwidth pointing out to you what's there. Does anyone else need me to point it out?
I'll take that as proof you cannot express yourself in plain English.
Does anyone else need me to explain my paraphrase of FLT-Bird, which was "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."
They didn't ratify it because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was irrefutable proof that neither side was fighting over slavery.
Your opinion of why it wasn't ratified isn't irrefutable proof of anything. The fact that slavery was abolished is irrefutable proof that it WAS about abolition.
The Republicans, Lincoln and the US Congress said it wasn't. To prove that it wasn't they offered express protection of slavery effectively forever by constitutional amendment.
The Corbomite Maneuver was never ratified. Abolition was.
You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. They did not commit acts of war. Those tribes were not sovereign and SOLD THEM the slaves in the first place. Secondly, the Confederacy didn't pay slave traders. Importing slaves was made illegal in the Confederate Constitution. You're just spewing gibberish as usual.
Tribes conquered other tribes and sold each other at slaves. That was an act of war, which was funded by money that ultimately came from the slave holders.
It went on for 50 years after the sunset clause for importing slaves in the US Constitution expired. This was overwhelmingly before Lincoln came to office. Learn some actual history for a change.
How does any of this refute the fact that Licoln had to work with the salve holding states in the Union?
They "knew" no such thing. Had that really addressed their concern, they could have simply said they would be happy to come back in and ratify it when enough Northern states had ratified it to ensure its passage.
Since the North never ratified it and never would have, your argument falls apart.
Repeat snipped.
The analogy is lazy, stupid and a failure. Neither the CSA nor the USA were ever remotely comparable to Hitler or Nazi Germany.
Just as I predicted, Your reply to "Only to make a point, which is that Hitler lied about Germany's intentions and made his actions legal" was to fall back to the "but the Confederacy wasn't as bad as Hitler" strawman." It wasn't my point that the slave holder's atrocities were as bad as the Nazis. My point was that like Hitler, JD was lying when he tried to walk back his statements that secession was about slavery. Can you try answering that instead of replying with non sequiturs?
Can states that are only blue in their cities secede leaving the cities on their own?
No, more like you'll post the same quote or two you keep quoting and I'll swamp you with dozens and dozens saying the exact opposite. Then you'll make the standard grade school Hitler analogy and I'll laugh and show what a joke that is.
Yet.
It had not happened. When it did, the states made it clear their main concerns were over sovereignty to set trade and tax policy.
When "abolitionists" were elected, his words, then the slave holding states acted on what he said.
Abolitionists were not elected. Lincoln made that perfectly clear.
I'm not goig to waste FR bandwidth pointing out to you what's there. Does anyone else need me to point it out?
What's there is a secession ordnance that does not list any causes.
Does anyone else need me to explain my paraphrase of FLT-Bird, which was "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."
Lincoln made sure to say any interference in collecting taxes was the trigger. Its right there in his inaugural address. He also supported protection of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. I invite everybody to read his first inaugural address. Its not that long.
Your opinion of why it wasn't ratified isn't irrefutable proof of anything. The fact that slavery was abolished is irrefutable proof that it WAS about abolition.
The irrefutable proof is that slavery forever by express constitutional amendment was turned down by the original 7 seceding states. The fact that slavery was abolished YEARS LATER in no way shows that secession on the part of the Southern states or the decision to start a war on the part of Lincoln was "about" slavery. He said it was not. Jefferson Davis said it was not. The US Congress passed a resolution explicitly stating that they were not fighting over slavery.
The Corbomite Maneuver was never ratified. Abolition was.
The Corwin Amendment passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and was signed by the president.
Tribes conquered other tribes and sold each other at slaves. That was an act of war, which was funded by money that ultimately came from the slave holders.
The rulers of various African Kingdoms sold slaves to the slave traders. Buying what the legal authority in place is selling is not an act of war by any legal definition.
How does any of this refute the fact that Licoln had to work with the salve holding states in the Union?
Yes he had to work with them. So what? He was perfectly willing to protect slavery where it existed and even offered to strengthen fugitive slave laws.
Since the North never ratified it and never would have, your argument falls apart.
Since the North Would have ratified it, your argument fails. See how easy that is? I can just make up things too. The fact is that the US Congress which was utterly dominated by Northern congressmen after the Southern delegation withdrew passed the Corwin amendment with a 2/3rds supermajority. Lincoln even managed to get several Northern states to ratify it quickly. Its momentum only stalled after the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
Just as I predicted, Your reply to "Only to make a point, which is that Hitler lied about Germany's intentions and made his actions legal" was to fall back to the "but the Confederacy wasn't as bad as Hitler" strawman." It wasn't my point that the slave holder's atrocities were as bad as the Nazis. My point was that like Hitler, JD was lying when he tried to walk back his statements that secession was about slavery. Can you try answering that instead of replying with non sequiturs?
LOL! YOU try to make a Hitler analogy then squeal like a stuck pig when called on it. Jefferson Davis said neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. He said so in private and in public and he said it repeatedly.
What would happen if the red states that secede refused to fund all of the blue cities within their boundaries?
Right on cue. My "standard grade school Hitler analogy" is to point out the Holocaust like slavery was legal, and that Hitler lied about not wanting war in 1939 just as JD lied about slavery not being the cause of secession. You haven't answered either of those points. You just fall back to your "but slavery wasn't as bad as the holocaust", but neither of my points above say it was, although it sure was for those who were trapped in it and hunted like animals if they escaped.
it did, the states made it clear their main concerns were over sovereignty to set trade and tax policy.
And use their cheap slave labor to gain an unfair advantage over states that did not use slave labor.
Much like what the free traitors have done to this country now.
Abolitionists were not elected. Lincoln made that perfectly clear.
JD and the declarations of secession made it clear they were, and Lincoln was one of them.
What's there is a secession ordnance that does not list any causes.
I'm not going to go back and forth with you while you try to make Conservatives look stupid by playing one. As I said numerous times, if anyone else needs to have it pointed out then I'll do it. So far no takers.
Lincoln made sure to say any interference in collecting taxes was the trigger. Its right there in his inaugural address.
If states want federal protection (and as things are now federal goodies) they need to help pay for it.
He also supported protection of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. I invite everybody to read his first inaugural address. Its not that long.
Not the Corwin Amendment again. Are you a bot?
It came too late to make a difference, was never ratified and never had a chance of being ratified, and was nothing more that a last ditch effort by the Democrats with some Republicans to prevent secession and a civil war. Many who voted to pass it were out of work the following year, as the North for the most part wanted nothing to do with it. It didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have. It was nothing.
Repeats snipped.
The rulers of various African Kingdoms sold slaves to the slave traders. Buying what the legal authority in place is selling is not an act of war by any legal definition.
It was an act of war by them against the tribes they attacked. The slave holders paid for it.
Yes he had to work with them. So what? He was perfectly willing to protect slavery where it existed and even offered to strengthen fugitive slave laws.
Neither became law. They were talking points to appease the secessionists and the factions in the Union that supported slavery. When he and the Republicans got the votes they needed, abolition was passed and made law.
Since the North Would have ratified it, your argument fails. See how easy that is? I can just make up things too.
For once we agree on something. You've proven on this thread you can make things up over and over again.
Jefferson Davis said neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
He said so in private and in public and he said it repeatedly.
He lied, as Hitler did in 1945 when he said it was untrue he wanted war in 1939.
Cue the whining about Hitler comparisons.
Yes, but Jefferson Davis truthfully said neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. Had that not been the case, the original 7 seceding states could simply have accepted slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Yet they rejected that when it was offered. And of course, the Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln chose to start a war. So your analogy is just a miserable failure.
And use their cheap slave labor to gain an unfair advantage over states that did not use slave labor.
Firstly, slaves were not cheap. They were quite expensive. Secondly many of the states that by 1860 had gotten rid of slavery, were the very states that had a massive slave trade industry for generations and/or states which had shipping, banking, insurance and wholesaling industries which serviced goods produced at least in part by slave labor. They were also states which benefitted enormously from a captive market for their manufactured goods, being able to charge ever higher prices for those manufactured goods thanks to high tariffs, and a lot of federal money raised by tariffs they spent on themselves for things like corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects. The North benefitted enormously from slavery right from the very start.
JD and the declarations of secession made it clear they were, and Lincoln was one of them.
But Lincoln and the Republicans were no abolitionists. They even supported and offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment in case anybody had the idea that they were abolitionists. They made sure to leave no doubt that they were not.
I'm not going to go back and forth with you while you try to make Conservatives look stupid by playing one. As I said numerous times, if anyone else needs to have it pointed out then I'll do it. So far no takers.
The only one falsely playing at being a Conservative while pushing the LEFTISTS PC Revisionist narrative here is you. As anybody who reads that link can see for himself, what is listed there is the Virginia secession ordnance. It does not list causes.
If states want federal protection (and as things are now federal goodies) they need to help pay for it.
The original 7 seceding states didn't want federal goodies. They simply wanted to be left alone in peace.
Not the Corwin Amendment again. Are you a bot?
For so long as you pretend it didn't exist or pretend it had no significance, I am going to keep bringing it up.
It came too late to make a difference, was never ratified and never had a chance of being ratified, and was nothing more that a last ditch effort by the Democrats with some Republicans to prevent secession and a civil war. Many who voted to pass it were out of work the following year, as the North for the most part wanted nothing to do with it. It didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have. It was nothing.
This entire statement is BS. It wasn't the Democrats who wrote it or made the effort to pass it. It was Republicans - at Lincoln's behest. It never had a chance of being ratified only because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. There is zero evidence any politicians who voted for it were turned out of office in the next election for voting for it. Indeed Northern voters at this time were vehemently not abolitionist as evidenced by them refusing to vote for abolitionists in election after election. Sure it was an effort to stop secession by Lincoln....but look at what was offered in the attempt. Slavery forever. That was the very first bargaining chip they offered up. So much for any idea that they were committed to abolishing slavery.
It was an act of war by them against the tribes they attacked. The slave holders paid for it.
Buying what the legal and recognized rulers of a country are offering to sell is not an act of war by any legal definition.
Neither became law. They were talking points to appease the secessionists and the factions in the Union that supported slavery. When he and the Republicans got the votes they needed, abolition was passed and made law.
They were offers made. Lincoln and the Republicans were perfectly willing to offer them. They orchestrated the passage of this constitutional amendment through Congress. He and the Republicans had the votes. They had the presidency and control over both houses of Congress. Had they wanted to push abolitionism at that time, they could have. They did not want to and did not in fact do so until late in the war.
For once we agree on something. You've proven on this thread you can make things up over and over again.
I've proven I can adopt the same idiotic and dishonest tactics you use to highlight how idiotic and dishonest they are.
blah blah blah the same speech offered 2 years BEFORE secession even happened.
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 late 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.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The 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
He lied, as Hitler did in 1945 when he said it was untrue he wanted war in 1939.
No he didn't. He told the unvarnished truth. He did so consistently and for years.
Cue the whining about Hitler comparisons.
Cue the grade school Hitler comparisons.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
And of course, the Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln chose to start a war.
The slave holding states seceded before the war, and preserving slavery was the main reason they gave. All the other reasons like states rights were related to their perceived right to have slaves. They were no different than their modern Democrat counterparts who believe they're entitled to our money. The only difference is if they split the country now, there will be no one to pay for their goodies.
Firstly, slaves were not cheap.
They were cheaper than hiring Americans to do the work (sound familiar?) and after the slave trade was cut off they counted on slave reproduction to maintain and increase the supply. You made that point yourself.
But Lincoln and the Republicans were no abolitionists. According to JD and the declarations of secession, they were.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
They even supported and offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment in case anybody had the idea that they were abolitionists.
Which a minority of squishy Republicans voted for to try to prevent secession and the CW, and which was never ratified because the states wanted nothing to do with it.
They made sure to leave no doubt that they were not.
They tried to convince the seceding states they weren't. Lincoln made the same attempt in his first inaugural address, but the slave holding states didn't believe it.
The only one falsely playing at being a Conservative while pushing the LEFTISTS PC Revisionist narrative here is you.
My sources have been from the Democrats running the Confederacy themselves. Your attempts to tie the modern right to them will only help the Democrats wash their hands of their history.
As anybody who reads that link can see for himself, what is listed there is the Virginia secession ordnance. It does not list causes.
I'm still waiting for someone else to say they can't see it. So far no takers.
The original 7 seceding states didn't want federal goodies. They simply wanted to be left alone in peace.
And to keep their slaves. I'm speaking collectively, so don't waste time with "but this state blah blah blah."
For so long as you pretend it didn't exist or pretend it had no significance, I am going to keep bringing it up.
And as long as FR is willing to allow you to waste their bandwidth helping the Democrats tie their slave holding past to the right, I'll keep replying.
Repeats snipped.
This entire statement is BS. It wasn't the Democrats who wrote it or made the effort to pass it.
Not entirely true. The Democrats passed it overwhelmingly, with a minority of Republicans who were hoping to prevent secession.
Indeed Northern voters at this time were vehemently not abolitionist as evidenced by them refusing to vote for abolitionists in election after election.
1858, 1860, 1864.
Sure it was an effort to stop secession by Lincoln....but look at what was offered in the attempt. Slavery forever. That was the very first bargaining chip they offered up. So much for any idea that they were committed to abolishing slavery.
It could have been abolished later in the same way slavery was abolished, but it would have taken a lot longer. Of course at that time the Republicans knew they couldn't abolish slavery under the system in place at that time, so they were working for abolishing it in the long term. The CW sped things up, as wars often do.
Buying what the legal and recognized rulers of a country are offering to sell is not an act of war by any legal definition.
Taking the slaves was an act of war by some tribes against others. Making it legal doesn't change that. The slave holders paid for it.
blah blah blah the same speech offered 2 years BEFORE secession even happened.
He said secession was the proper response should the North elect abolitionists, and acted on it two years later.
Lies from the Democrats running the Confederacy snipped.
I couldn't care less what the Democrats at the time had to say about what secession was about. They split the country then over their perceived entitlement to own slaves, just as they're splitting the country now over their perceived right to our money.
And just as they now use nice terms like "voting rights" and "equality" to put a pretty face on their goals, and just as the LGBTQ+ groups use the rainbow and other nice symbols to cover the disease of their lifestyle and people multilating themselves to look like the opposite gender, so did the Confederacy then with terms like "states' rights". In both cases, it was their way of fooling the masses into supporting their goals. Same party, same play book.
No he didn't. He told the unvarnished truth. He did so consistently and for years.
Once again, we agree.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
OK. If you're gonna be lazy and do a cut and paste, I will too.
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 late 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.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The 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
The slave holding states seceded before the war, and preserving slavery was the main reason they gave. All the other reasons like states rights were related to their perceived right to have slaves. They were no different than their modern Democrat counterparts who believe they're entitled to our money. The only difference is if they split the country now, there will be no one to pay for their goodies.
No, only SOME states that still allowed slavery seceded before the war. Only 4 issued declarations of causes. Of the 4 which did, 3 of them listed a variety of causes including their economic exploitation by the Northern states even though this was not unconstitutional while the Northern states violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution was actually unconstitutional. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US at the time. The modern Democrats are like the Republicans were then - they are oppressive and feel they are entitled to other people's money. Notice its the Northeast leading the charge both times.
They were cheaper than hiring Americans to do the work (sound familiar?) and after the slave trade was cut off they counted on slave reproduction to maintain and increase the supply. You made that point yourself.
They were not cheaper than cheap imported labor. Living Conditions in many cities in the Northeast were unsanitary and atrocious. Factories were filthy and horribly unsafe. Corporate fatcats simply did not care if their cheap imported labor died in droves or if children were maimed. There was plenty more cheap labor to import. (sound familiar?)
According to JD and the declarations of secession, they were.
According to they themselves they were not.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them.” -Abraham Lincoln first inaugural address
The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Constitution passed by the Congress on March 2, 1861. Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin (A Republican) offered the amendment in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. An identical proposal was offered in the Senate by Republican Senator William Seward of New York (both at Lincoln’s behest). The Congress passed it with the necessary 2/3rd’s majority and 3 Northern states ratified it. Note that Corwin and Seward were both REPUBLICANS. AND no, they were not voted out of office for sponsoring the Corwin Amendment as you falsely try to imply.
“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln
Which a minority of squishy Republicans voted for to try to prevent secession and the CW, and which was never ratified because the states wanted nothing to do with it.
It was sponsored in both houses of Congress by REPUBLICANS. LINCOLN championed it in his inaugural address and got 3 Northern states to ratify it. It only failed because the original 7 seceding states rejected it. It was a dead letter at that point and efforts to get more Northern states to pass it ceased.
They tried to convince the seceding states they weren't. Lincoln made the same attempt in his first inaugural address, but the slave holding states didn't believe it.
They believed it. The Corwin Amendment was ample proof of it. Its just that the protection of something that was not threatened in the first place ie slavery, was not their main concern. Looking out for their economic self interest with low tariffs and not being subject to paying tariffs to benefit Northerners was their main concern.
My sources have been from the Democrats running the Confederacy themselves. Your attempts to tie the modern right to them will only help the Democrats wash their hands of their history.
My sources have been from the people involved at the time most definitely including Northern Republicans. Your attempts to tie the South and the Right to slavery as their only motivating cause will only help Leftists in their attempts to rewrite history to serve their current political interests.
I'm still waiting for someone else to say they can't see it. So far no takers.
I'm still waiting for you to point out how the Virginia ordnance discusses causes.
And to keep their slaves. I'm speaking collectively, so don't waste time with "but this state blah blah blah.",/p>
They could have kept their slaves by staying in. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Alternatively, they could have signaled their assent to the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln and the Republicans would have gotten it passed in enough Northern states to ensure its passage. Yet the original 7 seceding states took neither course of action. Obviously secession was not "about" slavery.
And as long as FR is willing to allow you to waste their bandwidth helping the Democrats tie their slave holding past to the right, I'll keep replying.
As long as you keep trying to revise history to help Leftists claim the North and above all the Federal Government were the "good guys" and that support for states' rights, the original constitution, the South and Conservative values was really "all about slavery", I am going to keep replying to counter this false narrative.
Not entirely true. The Democrats passed it overwhelmingly, with a minority of Republicans who were hoping to prevent secession.
It was two REPUBLICANS who SPONSORED it in each house of Congress. It was the de facto leader of the REPUBLICANS who orchestrated it and who endorsed it in his first inaugural address.
1858, 1860, 1864.,/p>
Correct! They refused to vote for abolitionists prior to 1864. You are correct to point that out.
It could have been abolished later in the same way slavery was abolished, but it would have taken a lot longer. Of course at that time the Republicans knew they couldn't abolish slavery under the system in place at that time, so they were working for abolishing it in the long term. The CW sped things up, as wars often do.
As I've already pointed out, there are not enough states even today to have overturned the Corwin Amendment without the consent of the 15 states that still had slavery. Republicans were most definitely not working toward the abolition of slavery. They were not abolitionists and were quite willing to take extra steps to protect slavery where it existed.
Taking the slaves was an act of war by some tribes against others. Making it legal doesn't change that. The slave holders paid for it.,/p>
Buying a product from the sovereign rulers of a kingdom is not an act of war against that kingdom by any legal definition. Acts of war can only be committed against a sovereign.
He said secession was the proper response should the North elect abolitionists, and acted on it two years later.
But the North didn't elect abolitionists - and Davis never said they did.
I couldn't care less what the Democrats at the time had to say about what secession was about. They split the country then over their perceived entitlement to own slaves, just as they're splitting the country now over their perceived right to our money.
And just as they now use nice terms like "voting rights" and "equality" to put a pretty face on their goals, and just as the LGBTQ+ groups use the rainbow and other nice symbols to cover the disease of their lifestyle and people multilating themselves to look like the opposite gender, so did the Confederacy then with terms like "states' rights". In both cases, it was their way of fooling the masses into supporting their goals. Same party, same play book.
Ah so you don't care what the people of the time North or South had to say about what secession or the war was about. You've got your own dogma you picked up from Leftist PC Revisionists in Acadamia and you're going to stick to it no matter what. The original 7 seceding states did not secede over slavery which was not threatened in the US anyway. To say they did is to gaslight and lie just like the Corporate Media and the Democrat Party Establishment (along with RINOs) do today.....to just make up a propaganda narrative regardless of the actual facts.
The Southern states stuck with the original intent of the Founding Fathers when they insisted that each state was sovereign and that the union was voluntary....and that whenever a state determined that the union was no longer to its benefit, when it perceived that others were taxing it for their benefit rather than for the benefit of every state equally, they were free to leave. It was the Northeast in particular that had greedy busybodies who wanted to centralize all power in the hands of the federal government they knew they could control so as to dictate to everybody else how they must live and to help themselves to other people's money. Some things never change.
Once again, we agree.
Yes we do.
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 late 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.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The 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
Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
The Democrats say "voting rights" is about election integrity. Do you believe them?
The homosexual alliance said all they wanted was to be left alone. Were they telling the truth?
All of them were and are socialists and Democrats, just as JD was. Why should we believe him any more than we believe them?
Repeat snipped.
They were not cheaper than cheap imported labor. Living Conditions in many cities in the Northeast were unsanitary and atrocious. Factories were filthy and horribly unsafe. Corporate fatcats simply did not care if their cheap imported labor died in droves or if children were maimed.
If it would have been cheaper to hire immigrants rather than import and breed slaves, they would have done it.
There was plenty more cheap labor to import. (sound familiar?)
Yes.
According to they themselves they were not.
Cassius Clay wasn't an abolitionist?
Both parties talked out of both sides of their mouths. When it came to actions, the Confederacy kept slavery until forced to abandon it. When the Republicans had the votes they needed they abolished slavery.
The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Constitution passed by the Congress on March 2, 1861. Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin (A Republican) offered the amendment in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. An identical proposal was offered in the Senate by Republican Senator William Seward of New York (both at Lincoln’s behest). The Congress passed it with the necessary 2/3rd’s majority and 3 Northern states ratified it. Note that Corwin and Seward were both REPUBLICANS.
It was never ratified. Abolition was, largely due to the election of enough Republicans to get it passed.
Its just that the protection of something that was not threatened in the first place ie slavery, was not their main concern.
JD and the declarations of secession said they were.
Looking out for their economic self interest with low tariffs and not being subject to paying tariffs to benefit Northerners was their main concern.
The slave holding states seceded over the injustice of tariffs that would have protected American companies. Is that your defense of the Confederacy?
AND no, they were not voted out of office for sponsoring the Corwin Amendment as you falsely try to imply.
I didn't say ALL of them were voted out.
“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln
Although I snipped most of your spam, I kept this because it helps to show what Lincoln was up against.
We all KNOW what Lincoln said. We also understand that Lincoln had to deal with several dynamics besides abolition all at the same time. He had to deal with Union states that still allowed slave holding. He had to deal with abolitionists who were growing impatient with the lack of progress.
And he had to deal with JD and the slave holding states threatening to secede if abolitionists were elected in 1860. Abolitionists were elected, and the slave holding states followed up with their threats to secede AFTER this address was made, because they did not believe he intended to preserve slavery regardless of what he said. Frederick Douglas understood this when he later said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
No one denies he said a lot of things we would find disgusting today, but when you take the conditions of the time into consideration, something you have even pointed out, you get the complete picture of what he was up against.
I know you're going to say the complete picture is that Licoln and the Republicans were not abolitionists, but the Corwin Amendment was never ratified, and the legislation mentioned was never passed. Abolition was passed and made law. That's all that counts.
They believed it. The Corwin Amendment was ample proof of it. Its just that the protection of something that was not threatened in the first place ie slavery, was not their main concern. Looking out for their economic self interest with low tariffs and not being subject to paying tariffs to benefit Northerners was their main concern nothing
My sources have been from the people involved at the time
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
most definitely including Northern Republicans.
You mean the ones who voted to abolish slavery?
Your attempts to tie the South and the Right to slavery as their only motivating cause will only help Leftists in their attempts to rewrite history to serve their current political interests.
I'm not tying the South to slavery. No one in the South today supports slavery, with the possible exception of the free traitors and we have here too. No one in the South today ever bought or owned slave, except for those who bought sexual favors from the victims of human traffickers, and we have them here too.
I'm tying the Democrat run Confederacy to slavery. It's you who are tying the Confederacy and in effect slavery to the modern South, and to the modern right.
I'm still waiting for you to point out how the Virginia ordnance discusses causes.
I don't care what you're waiting for.
They could have kept their slaves by staying in. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Alternatively, they could have signaled their assent to the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln and the Republicans would have gotten it passed in enough Northern states to ensure its passage. Yet the original 7 seceding states took neither course of action. Obviously secession was not "about" slavery.
It was about slavery as late as 1865. 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?"
All of this is consistant with what JD and the Confederacy said in the links below.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
If FR is willing to give you a forum to post Democrat lies, then I'll keep replying with the truth.
As long as you keep trying to revise history to help Leftists claim the North and above all the Federal Government were the "good guys" and that support for states' rights, the original constitution, the South and Conservative values was really "all about slavery", I am going to keep replying to counter this false narrative.
The Democrats said it themselves. I'm sure their political descendents appapreciate your efforts to free them from their history and tie our side to it.
It was two REPUBLICANS who SPONSORED it in each house of Congress. It was the de facto leader of the REPUBLICANS who orchestrated it and who endorsed it in his first inaugural address.
It was never ratified. It was nothing.
Even if it had been ratified, it could have been repealed later, although that would have taken a lot longer if the CW hadn't occurred because the slave holding states would not have given up their "property" otherwise.
Correct! They refused to vote for abolitionists prior to 1864. You are correct to point that out.
This is why I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to you what's in the Virginia declaration of secession. You clearly won't acknowledge anything that would prevent you from sticking the right with your Democrat history of slavery.
But his actions were not the exact opposite. Claiming they were is a lie. Davis advocated emancipation in exchange for military service for slaves. He empowered the Confederate ambassador to Britain/France with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would require the CSA to abolish slavery. These are not the actions of somebody fighting to defend slavery.
Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
Godwin. Get some new material. This is just sad.
The Democrats say "voting rights" is about election integrity. Do you believe them?
Everybody knows why the Democrats are pushing the Cheat Forever Act. Everybody knows why they want THE least secure means of voting and why they are opposed to Voter ID. No other western democracy allows either for obvious reasons.
The homosexual alliance said all they wanted was to be left alone. Were they telling the truth?
Frankly, I think a lot of gay people really do just want to be left alone. 45% of gay men voted for Trump in 2020.
All of them were and are socialists and Democrats, just as JD was. Why should we believe him any more than we believe them?
LOL! You think Davis was a socialist? You think the political parties never change? Good grief. Learn some history. The Democrats used to be for small and limited government and they used to be against centralized power and for balanced budgets. Even 30 years ago the Democrats could credibly claim they were still the party of the working man - which they had been for much of the 20th century. Now they are the party of Northeast/Left Coast elites and various grievance groups. The Republicans are now becoming the party of the working man when for a long time they were the party of big business and of Neocon warmongers. The parties change over time.
If it would have been cheaper to hire immigrants rather than import and breed slaves, they would have done it.
The Northern states DID do that.
Cassius Clay wasn't an abolitionist?
Those who were abolitionists could not get elected. In fact they couldn't even come close to getting elected until very late in the war. In the ante bellum period abolitionists routinely got only single digit percentages of the vote.
When it came to actions, the Confederacy kept slavery until forced to abandon it. When the Republicans had the votes they needed they abolished slavery.
The Confederacy could have opted to stay in the US and keep slavery. They were willing to agree to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. They valued independence a whole lot more than they valued slavery.
It was never ratified.
It was never ratified solely because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
JD and the declarations of secession said they were.
No, what they said was that the Northern states had violated the constitution.
The slave holding states seceded over the injustice of tariffs that would have protected American companies. Is that your defense of the Confederacy?
That would have protected American companies WHERE??????? What else would those tariffs have done? Wrecked the Southern economy by slashing its exports and by sucking money out of the pockets of every Southerner to pay for manufactured goods produced WHERE AGAIN????? We both know the answer.
I didn't say ALL of them were voted out.
There is zero evidence that those who were voted out in the next election were voted out for supporting the Corwin Amendment.
Although I snipped most of Lincoln's statements, I kept this because it helps to show what Lincoln was up against.
Up against? He himself was no different in his views than those in the majority he described. He was not an abolitionist and was even willing to strengthen fugitive slave laws and was willing to protect slavery where it existed.
We all KNOW what Lincoln said. We also understand that Lincoln had to deal with several dynamics besides abolition all at the same time. He had to deal with Union states that still allowed slave holding. He had to deal with abolitionists who were growing impatient with the lack of progress.
And he had to deal with JD and the slave holding states threatening to secede if abolitionists were elected in 1860. Abolitionists were elected, and the slave holding states followed up with their threats to secede AFTER this address was made, because they did not believe he intended to preserve slavery regardless of what he said. Frederick Douglas understood this when he later said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
Abolitionists were NOT elected in 1860. Lincoln himself was no abolitionist nor were the other leaders of the Republican Party - like Seward for example. What abolitionists there were were few in number.
No one denies he said a lot of things we would find disgusting today, but when you take the conditions of the time into consideration, something you have even pointed out, you get the complete picture of what he was up against.
I know you're going to say the complete picture is that Licoln and the Republicans were not abolitionists, but the Corwin Amendment was never ratified, and the legislation mentioned was never passed. Abolition was passed and made law. That's all that counts.
Lincoln was a man of his time. He was not the secular saint he was later portrayed as in Yankee propaganda. Then again, Davis was a man of his time too. Davis was in fact, a noted moderate. That's why he was elected. The Corwin Amendment was not ratified ONLY because the 7 seceding states turned down the offer. Not Not NOT because Northerners were opposed to it.
blah blah blah the usual spam that does not say what I claim it says.
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 late 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.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The 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 mean the ones who voted to abolish slavery?
After they voted to explicitly protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment? After they passed a resolution in Congress explicitly stating that they were not fighting over slavery?
I'm not tying the South to slavery. No one in the South today supports slavery, with the possible exception of the free traitors and we have here too. No one in the South today ever bought or owned slave, except for those who bought sexual favors from the victims of human traffickers, and we have them here too.
I'm tying the Democrat run Confederacy to slavery. It's you who are tying the Confederacy and in effect slavery to the modern South, and to the modern right.
No. This is an old game Leftists play. They try to portray the federal government as always being the "good" guys and those who want decentralized power ie states' rights as wanting it only so they can oppress people. They of course conveniently forget about all those times the federal government oppressed people. Over and above that, Northeasterners ie Yankees try to cast off all "sins" of racism and slavery by means of projecting them exclusively onto the South...which they have always hated anyway. Their historical grudges and bigotry toward the South perfectly dovetails with their current politics too. They want centralized power as always. They want bloated budgets, the US to act as the world's policeman, etc etc. Hell, now even the US isn't big enough and they want a world government.
Meanwhile the South still wants limited government, states' rights, a balanced budget and strong borders. This historical revisionism has one aim - to serve the Left's current political interests.
I don't care what you're waiting for.
You can't point out where it does because it doesn't.
It was about slavery as late as 1865. 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?"
All of this is consistant with what JD and the Confederacy said
You've listed a couple men who believed it was about slavery. There were some who did believe that. I don't deny it. Then again, there were many many who did not. I've already pointed out that Davis did not think either secession or the war were "about" slavery and have provided numerous quotes to back that up. Here are some others:
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages" Robert E. Lee
"Slavery as an institution, is a moral and political evil in any Country". Robert E Lee in an 1856 letter to his daughter Mary
In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government." The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government.
“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… 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.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864
"This question of tariffs and taxation, and not the negro question, keeps our country divided....the men of New York were called upon to keep out the Southern members because if they were admitted they would uphold [ie hold up or obstruct] our commercial greatness." Governor of New York Horatio Seymour on not readmitting Southern representatives to Congress 1866
"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation North American Review (Boston October 1862)
On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."
On May 1, 1833, President Andrew Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question." Jon Meecham (2009), American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, New York: Random House, p. 247; Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, Vol. V, p. 72.
In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that "the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter."
"It is not a war for Negro Liberty, but for national despotism. It is a tariff war, an aristocratic war, a pro-slavery war." Abolitionist George Basset May 1861 American Missionary Association
"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." – abolitionist Lysander Spooner
If FR is willing to give you a forum to post Democrat lies, then I'll keep replying with the truth.
The one posting Democrat lies here is you. The PC Revisionists are all Democrats - and hard left ones at that.
The Democrats said it themselves. I'm sure their political descendents appapreciate your efforts to free them from their history and tie our side to it.
Southerners did say it themselves. They were for states' rights, self determination, balanced budgets, limited government and the original constitution. That's MY side no matter whether historical or present.
It was never ratified. It was nothing.
It was not ratified ONLY BECAUSE the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It is prima facia evidence that secession and the war were not "about" slavery. Its also damned inconvenient for you PCers.
Even if it had been ratified, it could have been repealed later, although that would have taken a lot longer if the CW hadn't occurred because the slave holding states would not have given up their "property" otherwise.
There aren't anywhere near enough states even now to repeal it. The only way it could have been repealed would have been with the consent of the states that still had slavery.
This is why I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to you what's in the Virginia declaration of secession. You clearly won't acknowledge anything that would prevent you from sticking the right with your Democrat history of slavery.
Show us all. Cite it.
(Later) They were willing to agree to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid.
Are we supposed to be impressed that he was holding humans hostage as slaves to get military aid from other countries? Is that your defense?
Posts like this are why I suspect you're a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad. You just admitted that JD was guilty of what the human trafickers were guilty of, which we all knew anyway. The only alternative is that you really believe that was a good defense of JD.
These are not the actions of somebody fighting to defend slavery.
They weren't actions at all. They were nothing but talk. If he meant any of it, he would have abolished slavery without holding them hostage for something in return.
These are the actions of someone who realized his nation's defense of slavery was appalling to others, which would explain why he and others in the Confederacy made all of those comments you keep posting about how secession wasn't about slavery. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't lie their way out of this any more than Hitler could in 1945.
Repeats snipped.
Godwin. Get some new material. This is just sad.
I knew you wouldn't answer this so I'll post it again. Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
Everybody knows why the Democrats are pushing the Cheat Forever Act. Everybody knows why they want THE least secure means of voting and why they are opposed to Voter ID. No other western democracy allows either for obvious reasons.
And everybody outside of the Confederacy amen corner also knows JD and the seceding states meant what they said about seceding to preserve slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Frankly, I think a lot of gay people really do just want to be left alone. 45% of gay men voted for Trump in 2020.
I was asking about the homosexual lobby in general, but you made a good point. About 28% of the total gay vote went to President Trump.
But the homosexual lobby is still forcing their lifestyle down our throats (figuratively speaking (for now)).
LOL! You think Davis was a socialist?
No, I said socialists AND Democrats. JD was a Democrat.
You think the political parties never change? Good grief. Learn some history.
The Democrats along with their socialists and communist bretheren have never changed. To them, it has always been about gaining power by promising goodies.
Before and during the CW it was about the "right" to own slaves.
Then it was about white supremecy.
In the Democrat ruined cities it's about getting government freebies.
And look at the millions who have been slaughtered by socialism and communism in return for the promise to others of cradle to grave government benefits.
The only thing that has changed is who they make promises to in return for power, but it's still the same messaging. Take your goodies and look the other way.
The Northern states DID do that (hire immigrants rather than import and breed slaves).
They hired people who came over voluntarily for the opportunity to work for a better life, as opposed to paying slave traders to kidnap humans to be slaves, and to breed more slaves.
Those who were abolitionists could not get elected. In fact they couldn't even come close to getting elected until very late in the war.
(Later) The Confederacy could have opted to stay in the US and keep slavery.
JD and the slave holding states cited the election of abolitionists as one of their reasons for secession.
It was never ratified solely because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
The slave holding states turned it down because they didn't believe the North would live up to it. They were right, since the Northern states wouldn't ratify it even in the face of secession and war.
No, what they said was that the Northern states had violated the constitution.
Yes, their perceived Constitutional right to own slaves.
That would have protected American companies WHERE??????? What else would those tariffs have done? Wrecked the Southern economy by slashing its exports and by sucking money out of the pockets of every Southerner to pay for manufactured goods produced WHERE AGAIN????? We both know the answer.
How would tariffs on foreign goods have hurt the Confederacy's economy?
There is zero evidence that those who were voted out in the next election were voted out for supporting the Corwin Amendment.
Nope, that was just a side issue that no one paid any attention to, just as in 1858 in Kansas and 1864 after the Democrats blocked passage of abolition over "states' rights". The election of enough Republicans to pass abolition the following year was just a coincidence.
Up against? He himself was no different in his views than those in the majority he described.
To repeat, we all KNOW what Lincoln said. We also understand that Lincoln had to deal with several dynamics besides abolition all at the same time. He had to deal with Union states that still allowed slave holding. He had to deal with abolitionists who were growing impatient with the lack of progress.
And he had to deal with JD and the slave holding states threatening to secede if aboltionists were elected in 1860. Abolitionists were elected, and the slave holding states followed up with their threats to secede AFTER this speach was made, because they did not believe he intended to preserve slavery regardless of what they told him. Frederick Douglas understood this when he later said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
He was not an abolitionist and was even willing to strengthen fugitive slave laws and was willing to protect slavery where it existed.
Neither became law, while abolition did.
Repeats snipped.
More Democrat propaganda saying the Democrats were not defending slavery snipped.
No. This is an old game Leftists play.
If I was trying to tie the modern right to slavery, I would do exactly what you're doing. Your "defense" of JD above was right on target, if making Conservatives look bad was your goal.
Abolitionists were NOT elected in 1860. Lincoln himself was no abolitionist nor were the other leaders of the Republican Party - like Seward for example. What abolitionists there were were few in number.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Lincoln was a man of his time. He was not the secular saint he was later portrayed as in Yankee propaganda.
Lincoln had to deal with the people and attitudes of his time.
Then again, Davis was a man of his time too.
You can't hide behind that after admitting that JD offered to free slaves in return for military aid. He clearly understood the evils of slavery, or at least understood that others could see the evils of slavery.
Davis was in fact, a noted moderate. That's why he was elected.
A moderate who was willing to hold humans hostage as slaves as a bargaining chip to get military help.
No. This is an old game Leftists play. They try to portray the federal government as always being the "good" guys and those who want decentralized power ie states' rights as wanting it only so they can oppress people.
That would be funny if it wasn't so ugly. A defender of the Confederacy talking about oppressing people.
They of course conveniently forget about all those times the federal government oppressed people. Over and above that, Northeasterners ie Yankees try to cast off all "sins" of racism and slavery by means of projecting them exclusively onto the South...which they have always hated anyway.
Absolute nonsense. No one on the right associates the modern South with slavery. That's why plants like you have to pretend to be Conservatives so you can accept it on our behalf. It's the same as what Jussie Smollett did. Why FR gives you a forum to do it is beyond me.
Their historical grudges and bigotry toward the South perfectly dovetails with their current politics too. They want centralized power as always. They want bloated budgets, the US to act as the world's policeman, etc etc. Hell, now even the US isn't big enough and they want a world government. Meanwhile the South still wants limited government, states' rights, a balanced budget and strong borders.
So why do you keep re-electing RINOs like McConnell and Grahamnesty, and which side gave us the Bushes? All of them did what you just said the South is against.
OBTW, Clinton also came from the South.
You've listed a couple men who believed it was about slavery. There were some who did believe that. I don't deny it. Then again, there were many many who did not. I've already pointed out that Davis did not think either secession or the war were "about" slavery and have provided numerous quotes to back that up. Here are some others:
I don't care that JD, the Confederacy, or Confederacy defenders are saying that secession was not about slavery, any more than I care about what Hitler said about not wanting war in 1939. In both cases, their actions put a lie to what they said.
You can't point out where it does because it doesn't.
To anyone else reading this, do I need to point it out?
There aren't anywhere near enough states even now to repeal it. The only way it could have been repealed would have been with the consent of the states that still had slavery.
IOW, slavery wouldn't have been abolished without the CW.
It was one year after the EP. Davis had been pushing for it for longer than that.
Are we supposed to be impressed that he was holding humans hostage as slaves to get military aid from other countries? Is that your defense?
He was holding? No. Both the USA and the CSA still had slavery. Davis offered to abolish it in exchange for military aid. The very thing you claim the CSA was fighting for they offered to give up. The very thing you claim the CSA was fighting for, they could have had without firing a shot when it was offered to them by Lincoln. They chose independence over slavery both times.
Posts like this are why I suspect you're a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad. You just admitted that JD was guilty of what the human trafickers were guilty of, which we all knew anyway. The only alternative is that you really believe that was a good defense of JD.
This is why I believe you are the Leftist here. Your arguments are moronic and you cling to PC Revisionist dogma in the face of all facts and evidence. Davis was "guilty" of nothing Lincoln wasn't guilty of in that sense. Both were presidents of countries that still had slavery.
They weren't actions at all. They were nothing but talk. If he meant any of it, he would have abolished slavery without holding them hostage for something in return.
Gosh it sure was cruel of Davis to go to Africa, enslave all those people and drag them across the Atlantic and seed them around the US. I mean, it was all his doing right? He was the one holding them hostage. By the way, why did Lincoln hold slaves hostage?
These are the actions of someone who realized his nation's defense of slavery was appalling to others, which would explain why he and others in the Confederacy made all of those comments you keep posting about how secession wasn't about slavery. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't lie their way out of this any more than Hitler could in 1945.
They realized Britain and France having already abolished slavery would find it far easier to ally with them if they too abolished slavery AND THEY OFFERED TO DO SO. Yes, that is an action, not words. They chose Independence over slavery and furthermore they did so consistently.
I knew you wouldn't answer this so I'll post it again. Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
Godwin. This is just sad. Get some new material.
And everybody outside of the Confederacy amen corner also knows JD and the seceding states meant what they said about seceding to preserve slavery.
Everybody who is not a PC Revisionist can read Davis' repeated statements that the CSA was not fighting for slavery.
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 late 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.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The 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
The Democrats along with their socialists and communist bretheren have never changed. To them, it has always been about gaining power by promising goodies.
You are grossly ignorant about history. The Democrat Party started out as the party of limited government, states' rights and balanced budgets. They were that throughout the 19th century.
Before and during the CW it was about the "right" to own slaves.
False. They could have kept that by simply agreeing to the Corwin Amendment. They refused. Obviously states' rights was and is about far more. Know how I know you're a Leftist?Then it was about white supremecy.I got news for ya. That didn't really become an issue until the 1950s and 60s. White Supremacy was the overwhelming view of White people until after WWII. The Democrats didn't need to stand for it particularly. Neither party was against it.
In the Democrat ruined cities it's about getting government freebies.
NOW that is true. That shift in the Democrat Party didn't really happen until FDR.
And look at the millions who have been slaughtered by socialism and communism in return for the promise to others of cradle to grave government benefits.
Socialism and Communism are evil murderous totalitarian ideologies. Both exalt the government and especially the central government at the expense of the individual and of states.
The only thing that has changed is who they make promises to in return for power, but it's still the same messaging. Take your goodies and look the other way.
until they get in power. Then they can do as they like. They're totalitarians.
They hired people who came over voluntarily for the opportunity to work for a better life, as opposed to paying slave traders to kidnap humans to be slaves, and to breed more slaves.
We're back to you not having read history. The Northeast was THE hub of the slave trade industry. Yankee slave traders brought over not only the slaves that were sold to the American South but also the Caribbean and to Brazil. They were the slave traders. Later, corporate fatcats in the North were perfectly willing to import cheap labor they could abuse for massive profits - which they did. Their cheap immigrant labor was treated arguably worse than slaves. They were disposable. There were always plenty more so they didn't care about constant industrial accidents in their factories or disease in the filthy tenement housing.
JD and the slave holding states cited the election of abolitionists as one of their reasons for secession.
They turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
The slave holding states turned it down because they didn't believe the North would live up to it. They were right, since the Northern states wouldn't ratify it even in the face of secession and war.
This is entirely false. It would have been a constitutional amendment. There was nothing for the Northern states to "live up to". It would have been a permanent bar on any abolition of slavery without the consent of the slaveholding states. The Northern states did not ratify it ONLY because the original seceding states turned it down before they could rendering it a moot point.
Yes, their perceived Constitutional right to own slaves.
the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.
How would tariffs on foreign goods have hurt the Confederacy's economy?
By slashing their sales abroad and increasing the amount they had to pay in tariffs AND by increasing the amount they then had to pay in manufactured goods. This wasn't a theoretical point to them either. They had already had experience with it in the Tariff of Abominations in the 1820s and 1830s.
Nope, that was just a side issue that no one paid any attention to, just as in 1858 in Kansas and 1864 after the Democrats blocked passage of abolition over "states' rights". The election of enough Republicans to pass abolition the following year was just a coincidence.
attitudes changed by late in the war, but note, attitudes changed. Before that there was no widespread support for abolition.
To repeat, we all KNOW what Lincoln said. We also understand that Lincoln had to deal with several dynamics besides abolition all at the same time. He had to deal with Union states that still allowed slave holding. He had to deal with abolitionists who were growing impatient with the lack of progress.
And he had to deal with JD and the slave holding states threatening to secede if aboltionists were elected in 1860. Abolitionists were elected, and the slave holding states followed up with their threats to secede AFTER this speach was made, because they did not believe he intended to preserve slavery regardless of what they told him. Frederick Douglas understood this when he later said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
Abolitionists were not elected in 1860. Lincoln and the Republican Party were not abolitionists and they went well out of their way to say so numerous times. Had concerns about the preservation of slavery actually been what motivated the original 7 seceding states, they could have simply indicated their acceptance of the freely offered Corwin Amendment which would have done exactly that. They refused. While the seceding states could legitimately say the Northern states had violated the constitution, they were not interested in a remedy. They were not interested in anything but Independence.
Neither became law, while abolition did.
Eventually. AND that does not mean he was unwilling to protect slavery effectively forever and to strengthen fugitive slave laws. He was.
If I was trying to tie the modern right to slavery, I would do exactly what you're doing. Your "defense" of JD above was right on target, if making Conservatives look bad was your goal.
False. Yours is the standard PC Revisionist dogma designed to make the North and the Federal government look good while simultaneously laying all the blame for slavery....and conveniently for decentralized power exclusively at the feet of the South. Have you ever stopped to notice that all the PC Revisionists are hardcore Leftists?????????
repetitive PC Revisionist dogma snipped.
Lincoln had to deal with the people and attitudes of his time.
Lincoln shared those attitudes.
You can't hide behind that after admitting that JD offered to free slaves in return for military aid. He clearly understood the evils of slavery, or at least understood that others could see the evils of slavery. <>p>"Hide"? Davis was no radical "fire-eater". He was a noted moderate. He felt that slavery would be ended eventually as did many others like Lee, Judah Benjamin, Duncan Kenner, etc etc. People weren't blind then. They could see that the British Empire had ended slavery in 1838. The French before that. They could see which way the wind was blowing.
A moderate who was willing to hold humans hostage as slaves as a bargaining chip to get military help.
Davis didn't create/implement slavery. It existed already. He didn't personally hold all the slaves hostage as you are repeatedly claiming.....yet somehow you excuse Lincoln for those slaves held in the USA. Davis was willing to abolish slavery to help win the war just as Lincoln was.
That would be funny if it wasn't so ugly. A defender of the Confederacy talking about oppressing people.
You think the Federal government didn't oppress people???? As the slaves held in the US. Ask the Native Americans ethnically cleansed and those who suffered genocide at the hands of the federal government. Ask Southerners.....
Absolute nonsense. No one on the right associates the modern South with slavery. That's why plants like you have to pretend to be Conservatives so you can accept it on our behalf. It's the same as what Jussie Smollett did. Why FR gives you a forum to do it is beyond me.
Uh helloooo????? What the hell do you think you've been doing for page after page? You want to lay all the sins of slavery exclusively at the South's feet.....while conveniently claiming it was the Federal government which was the "good" guy here. The Left hates the South and has always hated the South because the South has always been conservative. It was in the 19th century and it is now. Southerners then believed in decentralized power, limited government, balanced budgets, etc and they still do today.
So why do you keep re-electing RINOs like McConnell and Grahamnesty, and which side gave us the Bushes? All of them did what you just said the South is against.
What you say about electing RINOs is sadly true but it is true not just of the South. The Republican Establishment has long played this game of saying the right things every time it was election season only to then refuse to do anything once elected. I think all of us on the Right have woken up to that now.
OBTW, Clinton also came from the South.
Sure and so did Jimmy Crater. Now wanna tell me where most Leftists have come from? Wanna tell me where the heart of the modern conservative movement is and has always been?
I don't care that JD, the Confederacy, or Confederacy defenders are saying that secession was not about slavery, any more than I care about what Hitler said about not wanting war in 1939. In both cases, their actions put a lie to what they said.
False. Their actions fully backed up what they said about it not being "about" slavery. They could have accepted slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and they turned it down. During the war they offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid.
To anyone else reading this, do I need to point it out?
Go ahead.
IOW, slavery wouldn't have been abolished without the CW.
Had the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery could only have been abolished with the consent of the slaveholding states. They could have demanded a generous compensated emancipation scheme as the price of doing so. That is the mechanism practically everybody else used to get rid of it.
So what stopped him? They had just formed a new nation, and there was no Constitution (until March, 1861) stopping him from abolishing slavery. He could have abolished it and taken that issue off the table.
He was holding? No. Both the USA and the CSA still had slavery.
(Later) Davis was "guilty" of nothing Lincoln wasn't guilty of in that sense. Both were presidents of countries that still had slavery.
There was a difference. Until 1865, slavery was still protected by the Constitution in the US. It could have been abolished in ALL states before the CW ended if the Democrats had voted for the 13th Amendment, but they blocked it to protect "states' rights", their words. The nation had to wait until 1865 when enough Republicans were elected, coincidentally and having nothing to do with ending slavery or so you say, to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
OTOH, there was nothing stopping JD and the Confederacy from abolishing slavery, if that had been their intention. Of course it wasn't, as the Confederate Constitution was deliberately written to protect slavery.
And you can't excuse them as being products of their time. The fact that they offered to give up slavery in return for military aid shows they understood the rest of the world could see the evil in slavery, assuming they couldn't see it themselves.
Repeats snipped.
Davis offered to abolish it in exchange for military aid. The very thing you claim the CSA was fighting for they offered to give up.
That would have been unconstitutional according to the Confederate Constitution.
The very thing you claim the CSA was fighting for, they could have had without firing a shot when it was offered to them by Lincoln.
I find it very interesting that much of your case is built on policies that were never ratified. The Corbomite Maneuver or whatever it was called, strengthening fugitive slave laws, and abolition in return for military aid, were never ratified. OTOH, you just brush off the one policy we've discussed that was ratified, which is total abolition of slavery in ALL states.
Repeats snipped.
They chose independence over slavery both times.
They never gave up their slaves until defeated.
Gosh it sure was cruel of Davis to go to Africa, enslave all those people and drag them across the Atlantic and seed them around the US. I mean, it was all his doing right? He was the one holding them hostage.
Hitler didn't personally shove any Jews into the ovens either, but that doesn't excuse him.
By the way, why did Lincoln hold slaves hostage?
Because they couldn't be freed until the Constitution was amended, which could have happened in 1864 if the Democrats hadn't blocked the 13th Amendment.
Godwin. This is just sad. Get some new material.
I knew you wouldn't answer this so I'll post it again. Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
C'mon, we all know you're a plant, so why not just go for it, say "yes", and try to make us look like Nazi sympathizers in addition to trying to tie us with the Democrat's history of slavery? Isn't that what you're here for anyway?
Everybody who is not a PC Revisionist can read Davis' repeated statements that the CSA was not fighting for slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
You can also read the Confederacy's Constitution. Just search for the words "slave" and "Negro" to get to the relevant parts.
You are grossly ignorant about history. The Democrat Party started out as the party of limited government, states' rights and balanced budgets. They were that throughout the 19th century.
Slavery was one of those "states' rights".
We're back to you not having read history. The Northeast was THE hub of the slave trade industry.
It was legally abolished long before secession and the CW, but the slave holding states were relying on breeding their own slaves by then.
the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.
But if it wasn't about slavery, why would this matter?
By slashing their sales abroad and increasing the amount they had to pay in tariffs AND by increasing the amount they then had to pay in manufactured goods. This wasn't a theoretical point to them either. They had already had experience with it in the Tariff of Abominations in the 1820s and 1830s.
Maybe they would have preferred what the free traitors did to this country. But then again, both used slave labor to make their products cheaper so maybe they would have agreed.
Lincoln shared those attitudes.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
You think the Federal government didn't oppress people???? As the slaves held in the US. Ask the Native Americans ethnically cleansed and those who suffered genocide at the hands of the federal government.
I never said that. In fact I agreed with your point about that, and I don't pretend it wasn't about what it was.
Ask Southerners.....
How many of those Southerners would support the Confederate Constitution as it was written and ratified in March 1861?
You want to lay all the sins of slavery exclusively at the South's feet.....while conveniently claiming it was the Federal government which was the "good" guy here.
I've done no such thing. As I have posted again and again and again and again, slavery has nothing to do with the modern South. It's you who want to tie the Confederacy, and in effect slavery, to the right.
The Left hates the South and has always hated the South because the South has always been conservative. It was in the 19th century and it is now.
In case you haven't seen the news in the past year, the "Conservatives" in Georgia caved to the Democrats when they could have made a stand and forced a validation of the election results.
Southerners then believed in decentralized power, limited government, balanced budgets, etc and they still do today.
Read the Confederacy's Constitution if you want to see what the South believed in in the 1860s, and tell me that's still true today.
Sure and so did Jimmy Crater.
Jimmy Carter was a patriotic conservative compared to the bunch we have now, and I'm not just talking about Democrats.
One more year of Brandon and we'll all be begging for a return to the Carter years.
Now wanna tell me where most Leftists have come from?
One is sitting in front of your computer.
Wanna tell me where the heart of the modern conservative movement is and has always been?
Given the condition of the modern Conservative movement, I'm not sure that's something to brag about.
Had the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery could only have been abolished with the consent of the slaveholding states.
Same with abolition in 1865, and that wouldn't have happened without the CW.
No he couldn't. He was not a king or an emperor. He was a president of a democracy that had a constitution which limited his power. What stopped Lincoln until 2 years into his presidency? Its funny you want to blame Davis for doing what no US President had done.
There was a difference. Until 1865, slavery was still protected by the Constitution in the US. It could have been abolished in ALL states before the CW ended if the Democrats had voted for the 13th Amendment, but they blocked it to protect "states' rights", their words.
The 13th amendment did not even get proposed or gain any significant support until well into the war. Slavery was protected by the US and Confederate constitutions.
OTOH, there was nothing stopping JD and the Confederacy from abolishing slavery, if that had been their intention. Of course it wasn't, as the Confederate Constitution was deliberately written to protect slavery.
Yes the Confederate Constitution protected slavery as did the US Constitution. Who said the CSA intended to ban slavery at the start? They did not and neither did the US. Both became willing to ban slavery over the course of the war if they thought it would be helpful to them to do so.
And you can't excuse them as being products of their time. The fact that they offered to give up slavery in return for military aid shows they understood the rest of the world could see the evil in slavery, assuming they couldn't see it themselves.
and you can't expect them to have viewed the world through 21st century eyes. It wasn't that "the rest of the world" could see the evil of slavery. It was that the 2 most military powerful European countries had banned it. Slavery continues to this day. I just watched a report complete with footage about the open slave market in Tripoli, Libya.
That would have been unconstitutional according to the Confederate Constitution.
The Confederate Government apparently felt they could do so as a war measure - just as Lincoln did.
I find it very interesting that much of your case is built on policies that were never ratified. The Corbomite Maneuver or whatever it was called, strengthening fugitive slave laws, and abolition in return for military aid, were never ratified. OTOH, you just brush off the one policy we've discussed that was ratified, which is total abolition of slavery in ALL states.
I find it how D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E you are to pretend the Republicans/Lincoln did not offer slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and that they did not pass it through each house of the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and get it ratified by multiple states - AND that the original 7 seceding states did not turn down that offer flatly. You're so rattled you can't even say the name. What all of the above show quite clearly is that neither side was fighting over slavery. You've been told a fairy tale and can't process it no matter how much concrete evidence is laid out in front of you.
They never gave up their slaves until defeated.
But they chose independence over slavery both times.
Hitler didn't personally shove any Jews into the ovens either, but that doesn't excuse him.
LOL! Back to the Godwins. Davis did not initiate slavery. It wasn't his idea. He didn't order it. It started well before he was born. He is not personally responsible for the existence of slavery in North America though you seem to want to act as if he were.
Because they couldn't be freed until the Constitution was amended, which could have happened in 1864 if the Democrats hadn't blocked the 13th Amendment.
Davis finally managed to convince the Confederate Congress to allow him to offer abolition in exchange for military alliance with Britain and France. That would have happened in 1864 had they agreed.
I knew you wouldn't answer this so I'll post it again. Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
Godwin. LOL! This is so pathetic. Get some new material.
In case you haven't figured it out, I'm going to keep giving you the same old response if you keep trotting out the same old ridiculous question.
C'mon, we all know you're a plant, so why not just go for it, say "yes", and try to make us look like Nazi sympathizers in addition to trying to tie us with the Democrat's history of slavery? Isn't that what you're here for anyway?
Its funny you call me a plant when you are the one spouting PC Revisionist LEFTIST propaganda that came straight from Leftists in Academia starting in the 1980s. The goal of course was to portray the federal government as the good guys, any decentralized power as bad/backward/hateful and of course to spew bile at the South for being at the heart of the modern conservative movement.
repeats snipped. You can also read the Confederacy's Constitution. Just search for the words "slave" and "Negro" to get to the relevant parts.
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 late 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.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The 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
Slavery was one of those "states' rights".
Actually slavery was protected by the US Constitution.
It was legally abolished long before secession and the CW, but the slave holding states were relying on breeding their own slaves by then.
The grandfather clause in the constitution for carrying out the slave trade expired in 1810 but it was carried out illictly on a large scale for generations after that.
But if it wasn't about slavery, why would this matter?
It was merely the pretext for rightfully saying the Northern states violated the compact.
repeats snipped.
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 late 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.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The 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
How many of those Southerners would support the Confederate Constitution as it was written and ratified in March 1861?
Probably the vast majority - as I would guess did the vast majority of people in the 13 colonies support the US Constitution when it was ratified.
It's you who want to tie the Confederacy, and in effect slavery, to the right.
That is false. That is what the PC Revisionists try to do.
In case you haven't seen the news in the past year, the "Conservatives" in Georgia caved to the Democrats when they could have made a stand and forced a validation of the election results.,/p>
Those weren't conservatives. They were Republicans but they were not Conservatives. There is a difference.
Read the Confederacy's Constitution if you want to see what the South believed in in the 1860s, and tell me that's still true today.
I didn't say there have been no changes in people's views over the last 150-200 years. There have been some quite considerable changes. Most of those for the good, some for the bad. There have also been a lot of ways in which views have not changed - at least for Conservatives which most Southerners are. We still believe in the principles of the original constitution for the most part. Its the Leftists who do not.
Jimmy Carter was a patriotic conservative compared to the bunch we have now, and I'm not just talking about Democrats.
You're being too kind to him. He endorses all the far left BS of the Democrats today. He isn't as vitriolic is some of them, but he believes in the radical Leftist dogma.
One more year of Brandon and we'll all be begging for a return to the Carter years.,/P>
I was a kid but so far it seems an awful lot like the Jimmy Crater years. The economy sucks, fuel is becoming ever more expensive, foreign policy is an utter disaster, the regime is completely adrift and the country is pissed off and demoralized. Just waiting for Biden to put on a wimpy little cardigan and tell us all we're going to have to get used to shivering because we can't afford to turn up the heat or because we owe it to Earth Mother Gaia or some such laughable BS.
One is sitting on the other side of your computer.
FIFY
Given the condition of the modern Conservative movement, I'm not sure that's something to brag about.
Just watch what happens in November.
Same with abolition in 1865, and that wouldn't have happened without the CW.
I tend to think it could have been ended more quickly than many think with a generous compensated emancipation scheme - like just about everybody else in the West used to get rid of it.
A democracy that was JUST FORMED, with a BRAND NEW CONSTITUTION that was DRAFTED and RATIFIED by the leaders of that nation.
What stopped Lincoln until 2 years into his presidency? Its funny you want to blame Davis for doing what no US President had done.
You answered that yourself, the Constitution.
The 13th amendment did not even get proposed or gain any significant support until well into the war.
Granted, it wasn't an easy process. A lot had to happen to pass abolition. The CW did speed that up, as war often does.
Slavery was protected by the US and Confederate constitutions.
The difference was that the Union inherited the Constitution with its protections for slavery, while the Confederacy drafted their Constitution from the ground up, deliberately adding protections for slavery.
Yes the Confederate Constitution protected slavery as did the US Constitution. Who said the CSA intended to ban slavery at the start? They did not and neither did the US. Both became willing to ban slavery over the course of the war if they thought it would be helpful to them to do so.
The Republicans in the North attempted to pass the 13th Amendment in 1864, but were stopped by the Democrats over "states' rights".
and you can't expect them to have viewed the world through 21st century eyes.
But they could see it, or they wouldn't have offered to abolish it in return for military aid.
It wasn't that "the rest of the world" could see the evil of slavery. It was that the 2 most military powerful European countries had banned it. Slavery continues to this day. I just watched a report complete with footage about the open slave market in Tripoli, Libya.
Granted.
I find it how D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E you are to pretend the Republicans/Lincoln did not offer slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and that they did not pass it through each house of the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and get it ratified by multiple states - AND that the original 7 seceding states did not turn down that offer flatly. You're so rattled you can't even say the name. What all of the above show quite clearly is that neither side was fighting over slavery.
The Corbomite Maneuver and the Corwin Amendment were similar, in that they had no impact on anything.
Well that's not entirely true. The Corbomite Maneuver made money for those who made it up, while the Corwin Amendment went no where and did nothing.
You've been told a fairy tale and can't process it no matter how much concrete evidence is laid out in front of you.
Your idea of concrete evidence is policies that were never ratified or implemented, while mine are policies that were implemented. My concrete evidence includes the conditions protecting slavery in the newly minted Confederate Constitution, and the abolition of slavery after the CW and the attempt made before the end of the CW that was blocked by Democrats.
But they chose independence over slavery both times.
They never chose anything over slavery. Defeat was the only thing that made them give up slavery.
LOL! Back to the Godwins. Davis did not initiate slavery. It wasn't his idea. He didn't order it. It started well before he was born. He is not personally responsible for the existence of slavery in North America though you seem to want to act as if he were.
True, but the newly created Constitution ratified by the newly created Confederacy in 1861 preserved slavery, when they could have abolished it. In fact, the Constitution explicitly forbid member states and territories from passing laws that would make slavery illegal. This was in contrast to the North where the states could abolish slavery at the state level. So much for states rights in the Confederacy.
Davis finally managed to convince the Confederate Congress to allow him to offer abolition in exchange for military alliance with Britain and France. That would have happened in 1864 had they agreed.
Another policy that was never implemented that you think proves something.
In case you haven't figured it out, I'm going to keep giving you the same old response if you keep trotting out the same old ridiculous question.
I know. I want others to see it.
Its funny you call me a plant when you are the one spouting PC Revisionist LEFTIST propaganda that came straight from Leftists in Academia starting in the 1980s.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Repeat snipped.
The goal of course was to portray the federal government as the good guys, any decentralized power as bad/backward/hateful...
Both the federal governments and the states abolished slavery, so I don't see how you came up with this.
and of course to spew bile at the South for being at the heart of the modern conservative movement.
Well someone has to take the blame for what the modern Conservative movement has become.
Actually slavery was protected by the US Constitution.
Yes it was, but you can't see that Lincoln and the Republicans had to change that to get abolition ratified, which they did.
The grandfather clause in the constitution for carrying out the slave trade expired in 1810 but it was carried out illictly on a large scale for generations after that.
Granted, but it was illegal.
It was merely the pretext for rightfully saying the Northern states violated the compact.
The Confederacy's Constitution as well as the declarations of secession clearly state it was about slavery.
Confederacy propaganda that can be refuted by the Confederacy's own Constitution snipped.
Probably the vast majority - as I would guess did the vast majority of people in the 13 colonies support the US Constitution when it was ratified.
I was asking about Southerners today, as I figured you were referring to them when you said "Ask Southerners.....", since I can't ask the Southerners from 1861. I'll restate my question. How many Southerners from today would support the Confederacy Constitution as it was written in 1861?
Those weren't conservatives. They were Republicans but they were not Conservatives. There is a difference.
They came from the South, but granted otherwise.
FIFY
Yawn.
Just watch what happens in November.
I hope you're right.
I tend to think it could have been ended more quickly than many think with a generous compensated emancipation scheme - like just about everybody else in the West used to get rid of it.
The Confederacy's Constitution made abolition unconstitutional.
Gotta run, see you in a few weeks.
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.