The only BS, lies and ignorance in my posts to you are in italics.
Yeah....cuz he's a South hating Leftist. That's why he and his fellow Leftists revived wartime Yankee propaganda to claim "it was all about slavery".
It's you who associate the South with slavery by defending the Confederacy. Here's what the Confederacy said on the issue.
Correspondence between Gov. A. B. Moore and Alabama's Commissioner to Delaware
"Its animus, its single bond of union, is hostility to the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States. Its members, numbering nearly two millions of voters, as evidenced by the late Presidential election, have been collected from all the other various political organizations, and although disagreeing totally upon other important political principles, have nevertheless ignored all these, and been molded into a compact mass of enmity to this particular institution, upon which depend the domestic, social, and political interests of fifteen States of the Union, and which institution was recognized, respected, guarded, and protected by the convention which framed the Constitution and by the people of the States by whom it was ordained and established."
Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky
"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as a change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions --- nothing less than an open declaration of war --- for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. Especially is this true in the cotton-growing States, where, in many localities, the slave outnumbers the white population ten to one.".
These are just excerpts. There's plenty more where that came from.
My view is the view of the majority in this country even in Academia before the Leftist Revisionists came along in the 1980s to push the "it was all about slavery" narrative.
The letters above were written in 1861 and 1860 respectively.
The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
The North made no such offer. Some attempted to prevent secession by passing a bill that gave the slave holding states what they already had. Some of those who voted for it and the president who signed it were out of work the following year, because most in "the North" wanted nothing to do with it.
As I said, removing a ban on all Blacks from a state constitution is NOT abolitionism. That is obvious no matter how desperately you try to spin.
And I accepted your point. I'll restate mine in the hopes you'll understand it if I post it again.
Of course Kansas couldn't abolish slavery because they were already a free state, but the first constitution was used to pass proslavery laws by the "Bogus Legislature". More here.
The Four Kansas Constitutions: Topeka
The voters showed the "Bogus Legislature" what they thought of their proslavery laws in 1858.
They were quite explicit in saying they were not abolitionists and were not trying for abolition. They were just fine with slavery where it existed. They were simply against the spread of slavery.
At that time, they had no legal grounds or ability to abolish slavery, but they also knew that free territories would ultimately tip the scales against slavery. Both letters I posted above made that point.
I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade, but you can't see it even knowing abolition was passed in 1865 after they got enough votes.
Yes, but the US Federal government had no legitimate claim to property in another sovereign country which that country could not seize under its power of eminent domain. It would be like the Chinese government owning a piece of land in the US and then trying to claim the US could not claim that land under its power of eminent domain. Obviously the US would never accept such a claim by a foreign government - anymore than South Carolina would accept such a claim by a foreign government.
Your comparison doesn't work, because both sides have already sold us out to the Chicoms. :(
But to your point, clearly ownership of the land was in dispute. The Union couldn't stop SC from seceding, but SC couldn't take Federal property with them.
No its not. Most Southerners have not been taken in by the Leftist PC Revisionism currently fashionable in Academia. Secession was not "about" slavery.
You've already conceded that slavery was one of their reasons. What's more, JD said it in 1858.
Those like you who claim to be Conservative while supporting Leftists in this are nothing more than useful tools of the Left.....or Leftists trolls claiming to be Conservatives.
Then the Confederacy must have been run by Democrat trolls, given their statements above. But then again, as it turns out they were. That's why they want to tie the Confederacy's history to the right. I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you're giving them.
The fact that they were never ratified does not mean he did not support them - he clearly did.
The first letter I posted above addresses that point.
A Southern Patriot (assassinated Abraham Lincoln) who should have done so several years earlier. He might have saved many lives had he killed the tyrant Lincoln much earlier.
Now who is making the South look bad? He was provoked by Lincoln's speech calling for full citienship for former slaves. Judging from your comment here, it seems you agree with him.
No, pretty much all of your arguments are BS, lies and ignorance.
It's you who associate the South with slavery by defending the Confederacy.
THIS for example is a laughable pile of pure BS.
Here's what the Confederacy said on the issue. Correspondence between Gov. A. B. Moore and Alabama's Commissioner to Delaware "Its animus, its single bond of union, is hostility to the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States. Its members, numbering nearly two millions of voters, as evidenced by the late Presidential election, have been collected from all the other various political organizations, and although disagreeing totally upon other important political principles, have nevertheless ignored all these, and been molded into a compact mass of enmity to this particular institution, upon which depend the domestic, social, and political interests of fifteen States of the Union, and which institution was recognized, respected, guarded, and protected by the convention which framed the Constitution and by the people of the States by whom it was ordained and established." Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky "Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as a change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions --- nothing less than an open declaration of war --- for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. Especially is this true in the cotton-growing States, where, in many localities, the slave outnumbers the white population ten to one.". These are just excerpts. There's plenty more where that came from.
Here is what the Confederacy said on the issue:
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
"The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ... The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue," John C Calhoun Speech on the Slavery Question," March 4, 1850
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions." Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
This is but a sample. There is far more of where this came from.
The letters above were written in 1861 and 1860 respectively.
The quotes above were said before and during the war.
The North made no such offer. Some attempted to prevent secession by passing a bill that gave the slave holding states what they already had. Some of those who voted for it and the president who signed it were out of work the following year, because most in "the North" wanted nothing to do with it.
The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
Of course Kansas couldn't abolish slavery because they were already a free state, but the first constitution was used to pass proslavery laws by the "Bogus Legislature". More here. The Four Kansas Constitutions: Topeka Blah Blah Blah Blah
What's the point? They were not abolitionists. Abolitionists could not get elected anywhere in the US prior to late in the war. Before the war they routinely got single digit percentages of the vote. Abolition was NOT popular prior to late in the war.
At that time, they had no legal grounds or ability to abolish slavery, but they also knew that free territories would ultimately tip the scales against slavery. Both letters I posted above made that point.
It was not against slavery that they wanted to tip the scales. They wanted to tip the scales in favor of the North's business interests - namely they wanted a high protective tariff which would line the pockets of their corporations and which would be paid disproportionally by the South, and they wanted federal government subsidies and infrastructure funds to keep going disproportionally to the North. They wanted in the words of Jefferson Davis, to use the federal government as an engine of Northern aggrandizement.
I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade, but you can't see it even knowing abolition was passed in 1865 after they got enough votes.
I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade but you can't see it even knowing how similar the political corruption of the mid 19th century was to modern political corruption. Special interests use the federal government to line their pockets. They have armies of lobbyists (K Street anyone?). They buy politicians. They get special favors and tax breaks and subsidies and exemptions to certain laws, etc etc to favor themselves and if possible to screw over competitors (for example mom and pop stores have to close during the pandemic but big companies like Walmart, Target, etc get to stay open and of course Amazon makes a killing). It was EXACTLY the same back then. The difference was it was an entire region getting screwed over because the South's economy was based on export-import.
Your comparison doesn't work, because both sides have already sold us out to the Chicoms. :(
As I've said several times, the RINOS are bigger enemies than the Democrats and must be defeated and driven from office first. They must be purged from the modern Republican Party. They are open borders/corporate shills/China sellouts and globalist nation building warmongers.
But to your point, clearly ownership of the land was in dispute. The Union couldn't stop SC from seceding, but SC couldn't take Federal property with them.
Any sovereign government can take possession of any real estate within their domain. They must compensate the owner at fair market value but that is all.
You've already conceded that slavery was one of their reasons. What's more, JD said it in 1858.
I agree it was an issue and even an important issue in the long running strife between the regions, but I do not agree that secession or the war were "about" slavery.
Though Experiment: suppose the Southern states upon seceding had banned slavery and adopted share cropping as they did after the war. Would the South's economic interests have changed? No. They would still have had an export-import based economy. They still would have wanted low tariffs and they still would have resented sending their money up North for the benefit of Northerners for purely political rather than economic reasons. The North still would not have wanted its cash cows to leave. Remember that the North was not only getting all that tariff money (there were no federal income taxes. The vast majority of the money the federal government raised was via tariffs). They were also getting all that shipping, banking, insurance, warehousing, wholesale and shipbuilding business based on servicing Southern cash crops for export and the manufactured goods those crops were exchanged for abroad. Shift all that tariff revenue and all that business to the South and take away that captive market for their manufactured goods and the North's economy would suffer a titanic blow. They would have still been desperate to prevent their cash cows from leaving.
Then the Confederacy must have been run by Democrat trolls, given their statements above. But then again, as it turns out they were. That's why they want to tie the Confederacy's history to the right. I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you're giving them.
psssst....the South has long been Conservative and still is. That is, they have long believed in the Jeffersonian vision of decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets. Those used to be majority Democrat positions. The PC Revisionists who are overwhelmingly Yankees just want to try to denigrate the South because the South is the heart of the modern Conservative movement. You are of course helping them.
The first letter I posted above addresses that point.
I've posted direct quotes form Lincoln showing he did support them both.
Now who is making the South look bad? He was provoked by Lincoln's speech calling for full citienship for former slaves. Judging from your comment here, it seems you agree with him.
He was provoked by the war of aggression launched by Lincoln, his tyranny and all the lives lost as a result of his war of aggression and the overthrow of the original constitution. I agree with him on the idea - Death to tyrants. I do not agree on his timing. He should have done it much sooner. Doing it at that point didn't make a difference as the damage was already done.