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