Oh, the pain.
Here is what the Confederacy said on the issue:
Followed by a bunch of quotes from the Confederacy and a border state Democrat, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who to his credit went against his party on the issue of slavery.
Why do I need to believe what the Confederacy said about themselves on this, when they still had slavery and said on numerous occasions that secession was about slavery?
"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter
As I said the last time you flooded FR's bandwidth with this, he could have written this today.
This is but a sample. There is far more of where this came from.
You can post 10 times this. Unless you can give a good reason why I should believe the leaders of the slave holding states that secession wasn't about slavery, you'll get the same reply.
The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
Some representatives in the North tried to offer it, failed to get it ratified, and lost their jobs the following year.
What's the point? They were not abolitionists. Abolitionists could not get elected anywhere in the US prior to late in the war. Before the war they routinely got single digit percentages of the vote. Abolition was NOT popular prior to late in the war.
It was not against slavery that they wanted to tip the scales. They wanted to tip the scales in favor of the North's business interests - namely they wanted a high protective tariff which would line the pockets of their corporations and which would be paid disproportionally by the South, and they wanted federal government subsidies and infrastructure funds to keep going disproportionally to the North. They wanted in the words of Jefferson Davis, to use the federal government as an engine of Northern aggrandizement.
Using cheap slave labor did give them an unfair advantage, much as using Chinese slave labor gives many American companies an unfair advantage over companies that try to hire Americans.
That's right, I just compared modern free traitors to the slave holding states.
I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade but you can't see it even knowing how similar the political corruption of the mid 19th century was to modern political corruption. Special interests use the federal government to line their pockets. They have armies of lobbyists (K Street anyone?). They buy politicians. They get special favors and tax breaks and subsidies and exemptions to certain laws, etc etc to favor themselves and if possible to screw over competitors (for example mom and pop stores have to close during the pandemic but big companies like Walmart, Target, etc get to stay open and of course Amazon makes a killing). It was EXACTLY the same back then. The difference was it was an entire region getting screwed over because the South's economy was based on export-import.
Much of what you say about modern America is right on target (no pun intended), but the Confederacy was guilty of the same thing some of the woke companies are guilty of, which is using cheap slave labor. How they attained it doesn't matter, although I don't mean that to excuse the traffickers and the politicians who looked the other way for a price. How are the slave states and the woke companies using slave labor today different from the other?
And how are we as a nation today any better than the slave holding states? The only difference is that instead of importing the slaves, we export the plantations.
</RANT>
As I've said several times, the RINOS are bigger enemies than the Democrats and must be defeated and driven from office first. They must be purged from the modern Republican Party. They are open borders/corporate shills/China sellouts and globalist nation building warmongers.
If the debate was about this instead of slavery, you and I would be best friends. I agree.
but I do not agree that secession or the war were "about" slavery.
JD thought so and said so.
I've posted direct quotes form Lincoln showing he did support them both.
Funny how he didn't do much to get these passed, but he pushed to get the 13th Amendment passed until he was assassinated.
He was provoked by the war of aggression launched by Lincoln, his tyranny and all the lives lost as a result of his war of aggression and the overthrow of the original constitution. I agree with him on the idea - Death to tyrants. I do not agree on his timing. He should have done it much sooner. Doing it at that point didn't make a difference as the damage was already done.
The Confederacy amen corner doesn't need me to make them look bad. They have you.
The reality.
Here is what the Confederacy said on the issue: Followed by a bunch of quotes from the Confederacy and a border state Democrat, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who to his credit went against his party on the issue of slavery. Why do I need to believe what the Confederacy said about themselves on this, when they still had slavery and said on numerous occasions that secession was about slavery?
They said it was not about slavery. Some states cited violations of the US Constitution by the Northern states vis a vis Slavery as grounds for saying the other side had violated the compact. There's no question this was true and was a perfectly valid legal argument. That's not why they left however and they refused to return when offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln chose to start a war. Obviously they were not leaving over slavery.
As I said the last time you flooded FR's bandwidth with this, he could have written this today.
Yep. Some things never change.
You can post 10 times this. Unless you can give a good reason why I should believe the leaders of the slave holding states that secession wasn't about slavery, you'll get the same reply.
And you can post the denials 10 times but given that the leaders of both North and South said it was not "about" slavery you will get the same quotes that make exactly that point for so long as you try to claim that it was "about" slavery.
Some representatives in the North tried to offer it, failed to get it ratified, and lost their jobs the following year.
They offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. It failed because the original 7 seceding states rejected it.
Blah BLah blah the same stuff about altering the Kansas constitution in the late 1850s which in no way proves what you are trying to claim it proves.
Abolition was NOT popular until late in the war.
Using cheap slave labor did give them an unfair advantage, much as using Chinese slave labor gives many American companies an unfair advantage over companies that try to hire Americans.
Cheap labor? What do you think the North was using? They were importing poverty stricken Europeans and stuffing them into horribly unsafe, dirty factories and into equally dirty, shabby, unsanitary tenement housing. There was no tort law, no worker's comp, no child labor laws, no OSHA, etc etc. Or it was stuffing them into company towns where they were paid in scrip and could only buy things from the company store at exorbitant prices such that no matter how hard they worked they would only end up deeper in debt. The people at the bottom of the social order in the North were treated horribly. Incidentally, this was a big reason they wanted the western territories. After several years slaving away under such conditions, there was the prospect of homesteading out west and getting their own land which was an impossible dream back in Europe. That's what kept poverty stricken Europeans coming so the corporations could keep employing cheap labor.
Much of what you say about modern America is right on target (no pun intended), but the Confederacy was guilty of the same thing some of the woke companies are guilty of, which is using cheap slave labor. How they attained it doesn't matter, although I don't mean that to excuse the traffickers and the politicians who looked the other way for a price. How are the slave states and the woke companies using slave labor today different from the other?
On this we agree. Both sides were greedy as hell or at least the people at the top were and the people at the top were perfectly willing to abuse those at the bottom of the social order.
And how are we as a nation today any better than the slave holding states? The only difference is that instead of importing the slaves, we export the plantations.
What we have is obviously closer to the North's model of importing endless cheap labor....though now we have the added twist of exporting job when even that is not cheap enough. Some of those goods made abroad like in China are made with slave labor.
JD thought so and said so.
He said the opposite many many times both before and during the war.
Funny how he didn't do much to get these passed, but he pushed to get the 13th Amendment passed until he was assassinated.
He also pushed for the Corwin Amendment to get passed and offered it in his first inaugural address. He also said publicly he'd support strengthened fugitive slave laws.
The Confederacy amen corner doesn't need me to make them look bad. They have you.
There is nothing bad about wishing death to a tyrant before he can kill and maim a huge amount of innocent people.