Replies

Judging from you rejection of the Confederacy's own statements and policies, neither is reality.

Actually it is you who has rejected the statements and policies of the Confederacy. You dismiss it by trying to bring up fatuous analogies to Hitler/Nazis when the plain words flatly contradict your PC Revisionist claims.

Do you mean this? Repeats snipped What else do I need?

Quotes and policies that actually refute the points made. That's what you generally lack.

Besides the links above, the US Constitution prevented them from abolishing slavery on the national level until they had the votes to pass abolition. The main roadblock was the Democrat party.

They didn't even try. They said openly and repeatedly that they were not interested.

As usual, you have an answer from FLT-Bird that is inconvenient for your leftist dogma.

FIFY.

Tell that to the children who were taken from their families and sold as slaves, never to see their families again. Apart from a breeding program, what else does that?

That's called slavery. That's not a breeding program.

repeats snipped.,/P>

Yep. The Confederate Constitution was hardly different from the US Constitution on the matter of slavery. It was not more "constructed from the start" to support slavery than the US Constitution was. Remember what I said about you repeating quotes that do not support your claims or address the arguments because you have nothing else? That was a prime example.

I couldn't care less what they said. Their actions proved otherwise. Of course you'll retreat to your "but they offered abolition in return for military aid", which they never did.

Remember your very first statement claiming that I was the one ignoring the statements and policies of the Confederacy? This is what shrinks call "projection". It is you who has done that all along. You just did it here yet again.

But there were Southerners who were against slavery. Over 100,000 able bodied white men left the South to join the Union Army. Add to them the abolitionists who you refer to as terrorists. I never pinned slavery on the entire South. It is you who are doing exactly that by pinning them to the Confederacy, which to most is almost synonymous with slavery. I'm sure the Democrats appreciate your efforts in freeing them from their slave holding past.

You assume every Southerner who opted to fight for the union did so because of the issue of slavery. You of course have zero evidence to support that assumption and judging from popular sentiments at the time, it is a ridiculous assumption. As for abolitionists, SOME were terrorists or terrorist supporters. For example John Brown and his financial backers were certainly terrorists and murderers. I did not say all abolitionists were terrorists or terrorist supporters though. Next, I did not pin slavery on the Confederacy or try to. It is you and your fellow Leftist PC Revisionists who have always tried to do that. Falsely.

Which as you have already admitted would not have given slavery any protections it didn't already have anyway.

It would have expressly made slavery irrevocable. Had protection of slavery been their big concern, this would have addressed that concern. Yet they turned it down. Obviously their big concern was not protecting slavery.

repeats snipped.

Once again, you have nothing to refute the historical FACT that the Upper South seceded only AFTER Lincoln chose to start an unconstitutional war of aggression for money and power. You just repeat the same old quotes that do not address the argument.

I never said it was about independence. I'll let the Confederacy tell you what it was about.

I'm glad you did.

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).

"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

[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

"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

From Georgia's Declaration of Causes: “The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”

Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett: "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

"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/

Those links contain a lot more than "3 quotes".

I posted a lot more than 3 quotes....and mine were actually directly about the subject - namely why the Southern states seceded and what they were fighting for. Hint, it wasn't slavery.

Years after he said they should, and for the reason he gave.

He explicitly said they had not seceded over the issue of slavery. The original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South seceded only after Lincoln chose war. As Confederate President he gained the consent of Congress to appoint an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to abolish slavery. All of these quotes and facts directly refute the claim that secession or the war were "about" slavery on the South's part. We know it wasn't about that on the North's part. They were perfectly willing to protect slavery forever.

And you're defending the Confederacy? Oh, I forgot. You aren't defending the Confederacy. You're accepting its legacy on behalf of Republicans.

I'm righting the record....refuting the false claim that either secession or the war were "about" slavery. They were not.

Now that was a good question, but it doesn't refute the fact that the states that did secede did so to preserve slavery, especially when they said so themselves.

Except they didn't - and they said so themselves.

No, only that they understood they couldn't abolish it under the current framework, which they changed as soon as they had the votes, only 11 years after the Republican party was formed. Pretty impressive.,/p>

No. They didn't even try earlier. They openly and repeatedly said they weren't interested. They offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

Is the following leftist propaganda? Repeats snipped

No. They are things that do not prove your false claim that either secession or the war were "about" slavery.

on allowing Blacks to serve in the Confederate Army....repeats snipped

Yet we know that thousands and thousands of Blacks DID serve in the Confederate Army including in combat roles and that they did so right from the start. Furthermore we know that Robert E Lee, President Jefferson Davis and several others in the Confederate high command supported Blacks being able to serve in the Confederate Army.

The chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission, Dr. Lewis Steiner, reported that he saw about 3,000 well-armed black Confederate soldiers in Stonewall Jackson’s army in Frederick, Maryland, and that those soldiers were "manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Said Steiner,

“Wednesday, September 10--At four o'clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o'clock P.M., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. (Report of Lewis H. Steiner, New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1862, pp. 10-11)

In obedience to these orders, at about 11 o'clock I advanced with these two regiments forward through the wood, under a severe fire of shell, grape, and canister. I encountered their skirmishers when near the farther edge of the wood. Allow me to state that the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes. (Report of Col. Peter H. Allabach, 131st Pennsylvania Infantry, commanding Second Brigade, in Official Records, Volume XXV, in Two Parts, 1889, Chap. 37, Part I – Reports, p. 555, emphasis added)

A telegram from New Orleans dated November 23, 1S61, notes the review by Gov. Moore of over 28,000 troops, and that one regiment comprised "1,400 colored men." The New Orleans Picayune, referring to a review held February 9, 1862, says: "We must also pay a deserved compliment to the companies of free colored men, all very well drilled and comfortably equipped." (Christian A. Fleetwood, The Negro as a Soldier, Washington, D.C.: Howard University Print, 1895, pp. 5-6, emphasis added)

There are 3 eyewitness examples. We both know I can cite many many more.

It speaks for itself, so the only question is, do we accept this legacy as our legacy. Your answer on behalf of Conservatives is yes.

res ipsa loquitor indeed. The legacy of slavery IS part of America's legacy. On behalf of all Americans the answer is yes. We have to admit to the bad as well as the good when it is manifestly part of our history. We need to acknowledge it and discuss it honestly instead of clinging to laughable wartime propaganda and trying to twist history to score political points today as Leftist PC Revisionists have been doing since the 1980s.

Repeats snipped

Here is but a sample showing it was not....

If you're going to cite Alexander Stephens for his cornerstone speech, then what do you say about this?

"If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity." -Alexander Stephens

“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

"I love the Union and the Constitution,'' he said, ``but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." Jefferson Davis

All of that is in addition to the economic causes such as the tariff and grossly unequal federal expenditures we've gone over numerous times before. The South bitterly opposed the federal government's usurpation of powers the states never delegated to it. They opposed centralized power. That was a major cause of secession along with their unending economic exploitation by large Northern financial interests.

No they weren't. They did just the opposite when they wrote their Constitution, and never reversed it although they offered to.

Yes they were. The offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid. They were willing to offer emancipation for Black men as well as their families in exchange for military service. Slavery was something they were quite prepared to give up in order to gain independence.

They knew how the nations they were asking for help from saw slavery, so it's not as if they were products of their time and couldn't see the evil in what they were doing. Just the opposite, they clung to a previous time that the rest of the western world was already turning away from.,/P>

SOME of the Western World had turned away from chattel slavery. Some had not. Neither the US nor the CSA were the last countries in the West to have slavery. That they offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid and that they original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment conclusively show that keeping slavery was not what they were fighting for.

I know, but the North still blah blah blah. That was a few states who fought on the same side as over 100,000 ecaped slaves from the South.,/p>

The Union kept slavery. It should have abolished it from the start according to YOUR own logic. But of course, the Republicans were not interested in doing so and the public did not support abolition until very late in the war.

Repeats snipped

As I said, Jeffersonian Democrats wanted limited government, decentralized power and balanced budgets. You have nothing to refute that with.

I couldn't care less what they said or how many quotes you can post, so I won't ask you to waste your time and FR bandwidth posting them. Their own official documents and their own Constitution, along with the fact that they wouldn't abolish slavery even as they desparately offered to in return for military aid, tells me what their real goals were.

You don't care about the quotes because they destroy your argument. Their own constitution was hardly different from the US Constitution on the issue of slavery. The fact that they offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid and the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment tell us all what their real goals were - and it wasn't preservation of slavery.

No assumptions needed. They didn't ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, even under the threat of secession and war, and even though they had the time to do so. They did, repeat DID, ratify Abolition.

False. You simply ASSUME they would never ratify the Corwin Amendment aka the North's Slavery Forever amendment even though you have zero evidence for it. Why? because its a very convenient assumption on your part. No other reason.

I never admitted that. Just the opposite, I said it didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have under the US Constitution. If you're charging the US Constitution with protecting slavery, I say guilty as charged.

But you've argued they couldn't get rid of slavery under the US Constitution. That is your excuse for them not abolishing slavery earlier. The Corwin Amendment made it explicit that slavery would be protected. Yet the original 7 seceding states turned it down. Damned inconvenient fact for you.

But if the Corbomite Maneuver had been ratified WHICH IT WASN'T, the same representatives who had voted to pass abolition would have to vote for repealing the Corbomite Maneuver, and the same states who voted to ratify abolition would have had to vote to repeal the Corbomite Maneuver. If the Corbomite Maneuver had passed, it would have only made it harder to pass abolition, but it didn't pass so it did nothing anyway.

Ergo the Corwin Amendment could not have been repealed. It would have meant slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Everybody could do basic math back then too. Everybody understood the Corwin Amendment meant slavery forever back then too. The original 7 seceding states turned it down.

While I don't disagree that racism was still a problem in the North, not all ran all the way to Canada, and that does nothing to refute my point that over 100,000 escaped slaves joined the Union Army.,/p>

Sure. As casualties mounted, Lincoln was desperate to find more cannon fodder. He was happy to have Blacks to serve in this role. Many joined voluntarily. Some were forced into service involuntarily.

That's just another way of blaming the North for the fact that Confederate soldiers were more willing to kill black soldiers than white soldiers. Never mind that escaped slaves joined the Union military, as opposed to the Confederacy forcing their slaves to work as servants for their army.

Woah! Several false claims here. Confederate soldiers were perfectly happy to kill White Yankees invading their land and did so on a mass scale. There were plenty of Blacks - some of them slavers - who fought in the Confederate Army too. You say they "forced" their slaves to work as servants. Some did. Then again, that was also true of the Union army.

While some Yanks treated contrabands with a degree of equity and benevolence, the more typical response was indifference, contempt, and cruelty. Soon after Union forces captured Port Royal, South Carolina, in November 1861, a private described an incident there that made him 'ashamed of America': 'About 8-10 soldiers from the New York 47th chased some Negro women but they escaped, so they took a Negro girl about 7-9 years old, and raped her.' From Virginia a Connecticut soldier wrote that some men of his regiment had taken 'two nigger wenches [women] . . . turned them upon their heads, and put tobacco, chips, sticks, lighted cigars and sand into their behinds.' Even when Billy Yank welcomed the contrabands, he often did so from utilitarian rather than humanitarian motives. 'Officers and men are having an easy time,' wrote a Maine soldier from occupied Louisiana in 1862. 'We have Negroes to do all fatigue work, cooking and washing clothes.'" (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 497)

The readers and FR can decide for themselves.

Correct! They were. That doesn't make their tactics laudable. But it also does not ignore the fact that they didn't suddenly appear for no reason or that the other side was blameless. That was not the case. There was terrorism, violence and massive theft inflicted on the White Southern population coming from the Union side. (Congressman Fernando Wood, "Alleged Ku Klux Outrages" published by the Congressional Globe Printing Office, 1871, p. 5). The report continued that when southern whites saw that "what little they had saved from the ravages of war was being confiscated by taxation . . . many of them took the law into their own hands and did deeds of violence . . . . history shows that bad government will make bad citizens."

Lincoln, as has been pointed out by many and acknowledged by myself, had to deal with many attitudes to keep the North together. He frequently had to talk out of both sides of his mouth, but the side that spoke abolition was the side that was made into law.

There is nothing to support any claim that Lincoln was talking out of both sides of his mouth....nothing that would suggest he did not mean it when he said he was perfectly willing to strengthen fugitive slave laws and protect slavery in the states that still allowed it.

Lincoln may have talked about supporting these laws to audiences who wanted to hear it, but none of them were passed. In fact, your whole case has been built on laws that were never passed.

Why were those laws and constitutional amendments not passed? BECAUSE THE SOUTHERN STATES REJECTED HIS OFFERS AND LEFT! Once they were gone, it was a moot point. Lincoln didn't bother trying to push those laws to be enacted any more.

Due to the "black codes" which were the Democrat's failed attempt at keeping their slave labor after slavery was abolished by the Republicans.

Due to the Black Codes that were on the books and enforced in the Northern states. White Southerners didn't force Blacks to stay. White Northerners refused to allow them to come.

Look, just because you found a book that says what you want to hear, the rest of us aren't obligated to accept the author's conclusions as proof of anything. I could post links defending Stalin and Hitler, but just because someone can cherry pick the facts to defend them, that doesn't obligate the rest of us to accept their conclusions.

So before I consider your examples, I want more details about the book "A History of the South". Who wrote it and when. I want to review its credibility and confirm you aren't posting anything out of context before addressing any of its claims. For example:

It wasn't just one book. Read the numerous quotes and sources at www.slavenorth.com. That compiles several sources nicely. The Black Codes were still on the books in the Northern states. White Northerners were extremely racist and did not want Blacks living among them. They would not permit them to come and tried to drive out the few who lived there. The "great migration" did not start until they relaxed their overtly racist ethnic cleansing Black Codes in the 1890s.

Here's the entire speech, for context. That was about all I was able to verify. Show me where any of those other claims are supported by sources other than some book that says what you want to hear, and we'll talk.

LOL! I've posted numerous quotes and sources about the disenfranchisement of most White Southerners, the massive corruption of the Occupation Governments and how newly freed and relatively unsophisticated former slaves were used as pawns for corrupt Northern White carpetbaggers to help them steal on a massive scale in the South. When the Occupation collapsed after 12 years as it was always going to, it left Blacks stuck in the South with a White population that was now extremely pissed off at them - which poisoned race relations for a long long time.

For the record, I'm not saying any of the racist laws or the horrible treatment they received afterward was justified. I'm saying it did not come from nowhere....and its not just the case that White Southerners are inherently so much more hateful or wicked than anybody else. When studying history and historical events, you can't ignore context. White Northerners played a huge role in creating the South's problems after the war. You can't just ignore that.

As for the dollar amounts, yes, the war devastated the South so of course budgets ballooned.

Besides, am I supposed to feel sorry for a country that wrote this into their Constitution? repeats snipped.

A few things. As we've discussed the US Constitution did not differ on the issue of slavery. So the same argument could be used to oppress anybody in the US by that logic. Secondly, you think it OK to oppress and steal from individuals because you don't like the policies of the governments that are over them? Do you like all the policies of the current US Government? So would it be OK to oppress and steal from you by that logic?

I know you're going to come back with "But the US Constitution also blah blah blah" and it was, but that was inherited by the Republican leadership who changed it when they got the votes they needed. OTOH, the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up with these protections from their contemporary leadership.

The Confederacy inherited the legacy of the 13 colonies and the War of Independence (aka Secession) and the US Constitution just as surely as those states that remained in the Union. Its laughable to try to blame them for not imposing wrenching change on day 1 while simultaneously excusing the Northern states for doing the same. Oh, and of course the Republicans were not interested in abolishing slavery until very late in the war and they openly said so many many times.

Why FR is allowing you to waste their bandwidth defending the Democrats on this is beyond me, but here you are.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

From Georgia.

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slaveryin reference to that property...

In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.

Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.

From Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; (How awful!)

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

From Texas

They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture... (And this is a bad thing?)

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

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?"

Repeat of claims that the slave holding states didn't secede over slavery snipped.

They (the Republicans) didn't even try (to abolish slavery). They said openly and repeatedly that they were not interested.

From Georgia.

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...

The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.

That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.

From South Carolina

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Repeats snipped.

That's called slavery. That's not a breeding program.

Selling them and forcing them to work is slavery. Having them reproduce in a closed environment and selling their children as one would sell farm animals is a breeding program.

The Confederacy's Constitution was written and approved by the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy, so yes it was written from the ground up to protect slavery.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

You haven't offered any viable alternatives.

As for abolitionists, SOME were terrorists or terrorist supporters. For example John Brown and his financial backers were certainly terrorists and murderers.

According to the residents of Dresden, so were the allied bombers.

Next, I did not pin slavery on the Confederacy or try to.

We'll see an example of you doing just that shortly.

It is you and your fellow Leftist PC Revisionists who have always tried to do that. Falsely.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

Repeat of spam of Hitler claiming in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939, I mean, the Confederates claiming secession wasn't about slavery snipped.

I couldn't care less about what the Confederates said about how it wasn't about slavery or what their accusations against the North were. I have their own statements and actions to show me what secession was really about.

If you want to read about what they really meant with their accusations against the North, allow me.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States - From Georgia

That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.

That tells me everything I need to know about what the slave holding states' motivations were, and that they would go to "the last extremity" including lying to save slavery. They said so themselves. What else do I need to read?

If you're intelligent enough to read the statement above from their own documents, then I have done you the favor of saving you from having to post any more Confederate propaganda. You're welcome.

I posted a lot more than 3 quotes....and mine were actually directly about the subject - namely why the Southern states seceded and what they were fighting for. Hint, it wasn't slavery.

From Georgia, "That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity."

Repeat snipped.

The original 7 seceding states turned down nothing.

Yet we know that thousands and thousands of Blacks DID serve in the Confederate Army...

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

The legacy of slavery IS part of America's legacy. On behalf of all Americans the answer is yes. We have to admit to the bad as well as the good when it is manifestly part of our history.

Yes this nation has a legacy of slavery, but it also has a legacy of abolishing the slavery it inherited from its previous generations. Whose side do you identify with?

Wait, I forgot, leftist plant. You're siding with the slave owners on our behalf. No thanks.

We need to acknowledge it and discuss it honestly instead of clinging to laughable wartime propaganda and trying to twist history to score political points today as Leftist PC Revisionists have been doing since the 1980s.

Sure, let's do that.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

If you're going to cite Alexander Stephens for his cornerstone speech, then what do you say about this?

What do I need to say?

Once again you build your case on policies that were never ratified.

SOME of the Western World had turned away from chattel slavery. Some had not. Neither the US nor the CSA were the last countries in the West to have slavery.

So what? They clearly knew how slavery looked to the countries they were trying to get military aid from, or they wouldn't have pretended to offer it in return for military aid.

So now you're circling back to that. As Frederick Douglas 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."

At least the Republicans followed through when they did have the votes, something the Confederacy never did on its own.

As I said, Jeffersonian Democrats wanted limited government, decentralized power and balanced budgets. You have nothing to refute that with.

On the contrary, I agreed with you. They wanted a limited to government and decentralized power to prevent it from abolishing slavery.

As for the balanced budget, did they include budgeting for a war to, do what? Take it away, Confederate leadership.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

You don't care about the quotes because they destroy your argument.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

False. You simply ASSUME they would never ratify the Corwin Amendment aka the North's Slavery Forever amendment even though you have zero evidence for it. Why?

Because they had the time to ratify it and didn't, even with the threat of secession and civil war. Those are the FACTS, so no assumptions are needed.

But you've argued they couldn't get rid of slavery under the US Constitution. That is your excuse for them not abolishing slavery earlier.

I don't excuse anything. I've stated several times that not everyone in the North was on board with abolition, and Lincoln and the Republicans had to work with that. Until the Republicans won enough seats from the Democrats they couldn't. I've said it. Frederick Douglas said it. Yet you keep regurgitating this as is I was saying the exact opposite. Which is understandable, since you can't refute what I'm actually saying.

The Corwin Amendment made it explicit that slavery would be protected. Yet the original 7 seceding states turned it down. Damned inconvenient fact for you.

The Corbomite Maneuver didn't make anything, because it was never ratified.

Let's do the basic math shall we? What does it take to get a constitutional amendment? The ratios needed are 2/3rds, 2/3rds and 3/4ths. Fact: 15 states still allowed slavery. Ergo if these 15 states refused to ratify a constitutional amendment, it would take 45 states ratifying it to pass it. But wait! 15+45 = 60. That's more states by a whopping TEN than are even in the country today. Ergo the Corwin Amendment could not have been repealed. It would have meant slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Everybody could do basic math back then too. Everybody understood the Corwin Amendment meant slavery forever back then too. The original 7 seceding states turned it down.

Once again, you build your case around a policy that was NEVER ratified, but let's run with it. You just admitted the South would not have freed the slaves without the CW. If you're correct, that only proves that secession and the CW were about preserving slavery.

Posts like this are why I suspect you are a leftist plant. On one hand you say the South was the cradle of modern conservatism, but then you say the South would not have voted to abolish slavery. Anyone who accepts you as a true Conservative would take that to mean the cradle of Conservatism would not have abolished slavery if not forced by defeat to do so.

Sure. As casualties mounted, Lincoln was desperate to find more cannon fodder. He was happy to have Blacks to serve in this role. Many joined voluntarily.

Fighting for Freedom, Black Union Soldiers of the Civil War

Some were forced into service involuntarily.

They served heroically, not as slaves forced to serve as what happened in the Democrat run Confederacy.

Except for the inconvenient facts that the policies you attribute to him were never made law while abolition was. As usual, you build your case around policies that were never ratified while ignoring policies that were.

Due to the Black Codes that were on the books and enforced in the Northern states. White Southerners didn't force Blacks to stay. White Northerners refused to allow them to come.

Is that why the black population grew at a slightly higher rate than the white population?

It wasn't just one book. Read the numerous quotes and sources at www.slavenorth.com.

I'm not reading any more of your one sided garbage. If you have a point to make from it then post it.

Besides, I haven't made the point that all of the North was on the right side of this issue anyway. I know they had racists and supporters of slavery, and I haven't excused any of them. On the contrary, I have admitted Lincoln and the Republicans had to deal with them.

As you said "Yes Republicans often did not pass these". I know the North wasn't clean when it came to either slavery or racism, but that does nothing to refute the Confederacy's own point that secession was about slavery.

Repeat snipped.

That's not why budgets ballooned. Look at what they were spending money on. Look at all the property they stole levying extremely high taxes on a devastated region that could not afford those taxes.....and then look at how they stole most of the tax money and threw people off of their family land for nonpayment of the crushingly high taxes....A few things. As we've discussed the US Constitution did not differ on the issue of slavery. So the same argument could be used to oppress anybody in the US by that logic. Secondly, you think it OK to oppress and steal from individuals because you don't like the policies of the governments that are over them? Do you like all the policies of the current US Government? So would it be OK to oppress and steal from you by that logic?

So all of the money was stolen and none went to rebuilding. OK got it.

The Confederacy inherited the legacy of the 13 colonies and the War of Independence (aka Secession) and the US Constitution just as surely as those states that remained in the Union.

Bull. The Confederacy's Constitution was written by the contemporary leaders to preserve slavery.

Its laughable to try to blame them for not imposing wrenching change on day 1 while simultaneously excusing the Northern states for doing the same.

I don't excuse the North, but it took the Republicans only 11 years after their founding to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification.

Oh, and of course the Republicans were not interested in abolishing slavery until very late in the war and they openly said so many many times.