Replies

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.",/p>

From Georgia

“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……”

Repeat snipped

"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

Repeat snipped

"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

Repeat snipped

On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."

Repeat snipped.,/p>

"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton

Repeat snipped

[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

Repeat snipped

"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

Repeat snipped

"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

The Republican party wasn't formed until 1856.

So?

Repeat Snipped

“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

Since you insist on flooding FR with selective text that doesn't show the whole context, I must include it in my reply.

That's exactly what you've been doing with the same handful of quotes and exactly how I've responded to you - but with vastly more quotes from more sources.

It went on to say blah blah blah

Yes, Georgia's declaration did talk about slavery. The Northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution WAS actually unconstitutional and provided Georgia with a perfectly valid legal argument as to why they were the aggrieved party. The fact that they went on at such length about their economic exploitation by the Northern states which was NOT unconstitutional shows where their real concerns lay. Remember they were offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and turned it down. It was independence they wanted in order to not be taxed at an exorbitant rate to benefit others - the very reason the founding fathers seceded from the British empire a couple generations earlier.

Repeat snipped

The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them...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." -General Patrick Cleburne

Finally South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" wrote the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, boohooing about how the South was expected to pay taxes to the federal government.

No, if you had actually read what he wrote it was that the Southern states were being exploited by the Northern states and taxed for the benefit of the Northern states and not their own....that their economic growth was being stunted in favor of Northern economic growth - and the North wasn't even generating much by way of exports. They were simply leeching off of the Southern states. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers had seceded from the British Empire for.

Repeat snipped

"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

A woman can only have so many children in any given time period. It's not like the South had the technology to create an octomom in the 1860s.

There were a lot of farmers around back then. They knew all about how to breed livestock. Is that what they did? No. Generally, Blacks got married. Females were not tied down waiting to be impregnated by designated studs in order to sell the offspring for profit. That's a breeding program. That's how livestock are handled. It wasn't like that at all.

Which is exactly what the slave holding states did, so thanks for admitting I'm right.,/p>

Except that its not. You're welcome for showing once again that you were wrong.

What difference does it make where they got it from? Their constitution was brand new, so they could have written it without protections for slavery if they had intended to.

They mostly carried over what they inherited - just as the Founding Fathers did when they wrote the Constitution. They did not as you claimed design the Confederate Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery. That was just more of your typical BS. They simply carried over most of the constitution they inherited.

I'll grant they were being patriotic by choosing to fight for the Union, but that doesn't prove they weren't fighting for abolition.

Many of them made it abundantly clear from the start that they were not fighting for abolition. The greatest desertion crisis in the Union army was after the EP precisely because many said this had converted the cause from nationalism to one of abolitionism which they did not support.

Poor comparison. The loyalists were already in what would become the US and didn't have to leave their homeland to fight for the crown, but the Southerners who left to fight for the North did.,/p>

Hardly. Its an apt comparison. The Loyalists fought for the existing order. So did those Southerners who headed north. That hardly "proves" they were fighting for abolitionism which was not supported by very many at all North or South prior to the war.

I never called you a Nazi, although I'm beginning to wonder. My point was the allied bombers, like John Brown, were called terrorists, criminals, or something similar, but it was the side doing the complaining that was committing the real evil. Of course you can't answer that so you hide behind your Nazi excuse.

I didn't say you called me a Nazi. I said you made numerous fatuous claims trying to compare the Confederacy to the Nazis. They were not remotely comparable. There is zero doubt John Brown set out to murder and did in fact murder innocent people. He was by any definition a terrorist...he wanted to use terror to effect political change. Allied bombers were not comparable. That was a standard practice in war at the time. The Axis side had indiscriminately bombed population centers first. And the bombing of civilian population centers did have military objectives - to destroy industrial capacity. Oh, and finally they were uniformed soldiers at war following the orders of their officers. John Brown was a terrorist who set out to murder at a time of peace. Pitiful attempt at analogy.

Once again, you accuse me of calling you a Nazi because you can't answer my real point, which is that the bad guys always deny what they're doing. In this case we have JD denying secession was about preserving the right to slave labor, which was similar to Hitler claiming he didn't want war.

Once again, I did not say you called me a Nazi. You tried to compare the Confederacy to the Nazis....and President Davis to Hitler. The bad guys always deny what they're doing....like Lincoln starting an unconstitutional war for money and empire?

Repeat snipped.,/p>

They did not secede over slavery. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned down that offer. The Upper South did not even choose to secede until Lincoln chose to start an unconstitutional war of aggression for money and empire.

Repeat snipped

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

On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb,.....Repeat snipped.

Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).

That is false. They turned down nothing. It was never ratified even though the states had the time to do it if they had intended to.

Nope! They turned down Lincoln's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

Yes, we know there were accounts of blacks serving in the Confederacy's military, although most were just serving the Confederacy as ordered by their masters. That's a big difference from the 100,000 plus who escaped from the Confederacy and volunteered to serve in the Union's military.

"As ordered by their masters". Hardly. These were thousands and thousands of armed men. They obviously were not serving against their will. Given that they had arms and in some cases horses, they could easily have deserted or gone over to the other side. Yet they fought for the CSA.

I know you'll say "but Frederick Douglas". Yes, he expressed his disgust with blacks who would serve in the Confederacy's military in the quote you posted.

Even he admitted there were plenty of Black Confederates fighting in the Confederate army.

And what did the Confederacy they were fighting for think of them? Let's ask them directly....repeats snipped

Well gosh....Free Blacks served in the Confederate Army. Slaves were promised emancipation for themselves and their families for their service in the Confederate Army and the Confederate government empowered their ambassador to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery. Seems that based on the undeniable facts, were perfectly willing to get rid of slavery to gain their independence.

I know you're going to come back with more spam of the Southern leaders saying "but we didn't mean any of this", so I hope FR has invested in more disk space.,/p>

It was simple enough just to cite the facts - they refute your PC Revisionist claims.

I identify with the Republicans who freed the slaves. I don't NOT identify with the Republicans who got us addicted to communist slave labor any more than I identify with the slave owners.

I must identify with both sides because that is part of America's history. We have to admit the bad along with the good. America's done some great but also some terrible things. A rational citizen who actually knows the country's history should be able to come to terms with this.

In reply to my point that "Wait, I forgot, leftist plant. You're siding with the slave owners on our behalf. No thanks.", you replied "I'm siding with both since both were American and slavery was part of the country's history. We must acknowledge that. Of course I wouldn't expect somebody with the mentality of a child - like you - to be able to grasp that point." Side with the slave owners on your, the Democrats, behalf, but keep me out of it.

Do you identify with the Constitution? It was mostly written by a slave owner. How about the Declaration of Independence? Another slave owner. The father of the country? Yep. Another slave owner. Most of the Founding Fathers were in fact slave owners. Ben Franklin was quite happy to take advertisement money in his papers from slave owners seeking their escaped slaves. John Adams was extremely zealous in insisting on the return of the escaped slaves who had served in the British Army (the Brits to their credit, refused). Then there is that long history and all that money generated from the lengthy New England slave trade.

If you identify with America and you have the slightest knowledge of American history and the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, you are identifying with people who were directly implicated in slavery. Guess what. You're also identifying with people who committed genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. You're also identifying with people who did lots of other extremely shitty things. You have to take the bad with the good - that goes for every country. Only people with the mentality of little kids have to think their country pure as the driven snow in order to love it or identify with it. Leftists can't manage that. Haven't you noticed? They simply cannot forgive America for failing to live up to their ridiculous notions of perfect morality or utopia.

At this point you regurgitated all of the quotes you posted about all of the nasty things the North said or are reputed to have said. I won't waste FR's bandwidth posting the same replies. I'll just point to our prior discussion on this in posts 539 and 547.

You've long since run out of new quotes about the South and have long ago resorted to regurgitating the same few.

Why is that my problem? You're the one who cited him, and he was the Confederacy's VP. If his comments contradict your narrative, that's your problem. Don't expect me to reconcile your contradictions for you.,/p>

You've cited him in the past. I merely pointed out that A) he was powerless and B) his view was directly contradicted by several others including President Davis. But hey, if you want to cite him, then we also have to note what he said about the North - ie that they were fighting for money and to centralize power.

Once again, you resort to laws and policies that were never implemented to make your case, and it's clear why. All of the policies that were ratified like abolition support my position, so your only recourse is to hide behind policies that weren't ratified.

We are talking about intentions and motivations here. The fact that the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and the fact that the Southern states turned that offer down as well as the fact that the Southern states offered to abolish slavery to gain their independence all go to show that slavery was clearly not their big motivation. Independence was. But of course, its very inconvenient for you to admit the undeniable facts here since it does not fit your dogma.

You keep framing this around "the North". I never said everyone in the North was with the good guys, but you can't refute my real point so you keep falling back to this strawman.

Hardly. The facts refute your main point. The North did not even attempt to abolish slavery and abolition did not have any significant political support until very late in the war. That's just the historical reality.

repeats snipped.

Nope! That's not why they wanted decentralized power and limited government and balanced budgets. They wanted that long before slavery became a contentious political issue. They and their descendants have wanted that long after slavery had long since been abolished. They obviously want these things for their own sake.

Repeat snipped.

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.

Let's ask the Confederate leadership what they were fighting for.....Repeat snipped

As five states had already ratified it, that in itself PROVES the other states had the time to ratify it. They didn't, even with the threat of secession and a cival war. FACT.

So? States have not always ratified a constitutional amendment as soon as they possibly could. In fact I can think of hardly any instance in American history when they did. Some states take longer. The fact that they did not ratify an amendment on day 1 is not proof that they never would have as you are trying to claim. FACT.

It was nothing. It was never made law, and never would become law. It was a last ditch effort by the Democrats to preseve slavery, and by a minority of Republicans to prevent secession and a civil war. FACT.

It would never become law because the original 7 seceding Southern states rejected it. It was a primarily Republican effort. FACT

The quotes you keep posting were politicking.

You have zero evidence for this claim. There is nothing to support the idea that this is not what the Republicans supported at the time. There are no secret closed door quotes or diary entries or anything else supporting the idea that they were only saying they did not support abolition publicly when they really did secretly support it privately. Every indication is that they did not support abolition until very late in the war.

repeat snipped

Posts like this are why I question your intelligence or honesty. You make false claims about what I've said while at the same time trying to advance the PC Revisionist anti Southern argument. The PC Revisionists are of course dyed in the wool Leftists.

If you want to make the point that blacks were willing to defend the Confrederacy because it wasn't about slavery, make that case in a black church, and what's left of you can tell us how that went.

I've made the case by citing the undeniable historical evidence that there were many thousands of Blacks who fought in the Confederate army - much of it from Union sources so you couldn't claim it was just Southerners trying to invent the evidence. You can't refute the overwhelming evidence.

Because the migration started well before then.

The Great Migration did not start until that time. You're entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

That must be Confederacy Amen Corner Speak for "I won't post anything from that link because it has already been refuted."

I've already refuted all of your Leftist Revisionism.

Numbers, from sources other than the Confederacy amen corner?

I've already posted them. I even posted a direct quote from the Sec. of the Treasuring lamenting the fact that so many of the federal agents he sent to the Southern states were just crooks.

I never said it differed from the US Constitution in that repect, but you can't answer my real point so you throw up a strawman. I said, the Confederacy's constitution was written from the ground up to protect slavery. Whether they carried that over from the US Constitution or made it up after a night of wild partying is beside the point. They wrote it to protect slavery. That differs from the US Constitution in that the Republicans inherited those protections and abolished them.

They didn't write anything as it pertains to slavery. They merely carried over what was in the US Constitution on that issue. They therefore did not "write it from the ground up to protect slavery" as you falsely claim. The US of course had the original US Constitution and they did nothing to abolish slavery even though they easily could have until very late in the war.....yet you're not troubled in the least by that.

The founders of the Republican party were abolitionists. Lincoiln said the nation can't be "half slave and half free".

While it may have been founded by abolitionists, the vast vast majority of Republican politicians and voters were not abolitionists as they went to great pains to make clear. Lincoln himself orchestrated the Corwin Amendment and publicly said he would strengthen fugitive slave laws.

The Republican platform in 1858 called for the abolition of slavery in all national terrirtory, [sic] not territories. Their stand was that the institution of slavery violated the meaning of the Constitution. Of course they had to pass abolition to make thata reality, which they did seven years later after having been blocked by the Democrats the previos [sic] year. Words backed with actions, unlike the poilicies [sic] that were never implemented that you keep spammming FR with.

The Republicans were of course referring to the Western Territory which was not at that time organized into states. They did not propose to abolish slavery where it existed. I could post dozens of quotes from Lincoln saying exactly this. All the other prominent Republicans said the same. You are clinging to a myth here.

And what did the Confederacy say about this? Let's find out, shall we? Repeat snipped

Yes, let's

“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861

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).

Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:

Finally South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" wrote the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

"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.

"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

I see the debate has picked up here, so I'll start posting here.

I don't care what else the Democrats running the Confederacy said the war was about, because they came right out and said it was about preserving slavery.

So go ahead and keep posting your Democrat generated propaganda about how they said it wasn't about slavery, because they themselves said it was and their actions prove it. Why should anyone believe them when they said it was and they would go to any lengths to preserve it?

So?

JD made those comments before the Republican party was even formed. I know you'll reply "But the North blah blah blah..." but I never said everyone in the North was the good guys. On the contrary, I have acknowledged that the North had slavery in a few states, and abolition was blocked by Democrats in the North before they were replaced with enough Republicans to abolish slavery.

None of that obligates anyone to believe JD when he said secession wasn't about slavery, when he and the declarations of secession said they were.

That's exactly what you've been doing with the same handful of quotes and exactly how I've responded to you - but with vastly more quotes from more sources.

You've done nothing but regurgitate the same Democrat propaganda for the past year. The Democrats tried to distance themselves from slavery then just as they're trying to do now, and you've done nothing but help them.

I couldn't care less how many quotes you post or how many times you regurgitate them, because they are all lies. The Democrats came out and said "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.", and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't lie in addition to waging war for that cause.

The definition is "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo".

Were the slaves considered another species, IOW animals, by their masters? Yes, except for when their daughters were being raped.

Were they in a closed environment, meaning the couldn't marry and have families outside of their plantation? Yes.

Were their children sold like animals to other slave owners? In many cases, yes.

Will FLT-bird regurgitate the same denials he/she/it has been posting? Well see.

You're admitting I'm right and you can't even see it. The writers of the Confederacy's Constitution were under no obligation to add the protections for slavery. They could have left the protections out without forcing abolition, which would have given them the flexibility in the future to abolish as you keep saying they offered. It was their intention to ensure the right to slave labor was protected, so they, the Democrat leaders of the Confederacy who wrote the constitution, added these protections:

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.

Absolute nonsense. Many abandoned because of the incompetence of the early Union generals, and the desertion rate was a larger problem in the Confederacy although more Union soldiers deserted overall.

I found the reasons for desertion in the Confederacy interesting. I'll let you read and validate the source for yourself.

American Civil War Desertions in the Union and Confederate Armies

Let's just ignore that most states in the Union had abolished slavery at the state level, or that you just admitted to the large numbers of Southerners left to join Union forces. The loyalists were already here, while the Southerners had to leave their homes to fight for the Union.

I didn't say you called me a Nazi.

From post 760, "All you have is the standard 3rd grader argument "everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi"."

I said you made numerous fatuous claims trying to compare the Confederacy to the Nazis. They were not remotely comparable.

I only compared certain actions, such as Hitler in 1945 denying he wanted war in 1939 and Germany accusing the Allies of war crimes for the Dresden bombings. You can't answer that, so you hide behind "You called me a Nazi".

That was a standard practice in war at the time. The Axis side had indiscriminately bombed population centers first. And the bombing of civilian population centers did have military objectives - to destroy industrial capacity. Oh, and finally they were uniformed soldiers at war following the orders of their officers.

I agree. It was the Germans who called this a war crime, much like the slave holding states branded abolitionists as terrorists.

I know you're going to fall back to calling on me to give examples even though I already have, so I'll post them again.

Denmark Vesey

Nat Turner

Oh, and the Confederates killed black soldiers at a higher rate than white soldiers.

John Brown was a terrorist who set out to murder at a time of peace. Pitiful attempt at analogy.

The Germans saw Dresden as a war crime, and the slave holders saw abolitionists as terrorists. As shown above, the Confederacy saw other abolitionists as terrorists.

The bad guys always deny what they're doing....like Lincoln starting an unconstitutional war for money and empire?

What a stupid argument. How much profit did he make for freeing the slaves. On the contrary, it cost him his life at the hands of a southerner who hated him for freeing the slaves.

I know you'll regurgitate your "he did it over the meanness of Lincoln", so here's the reference again.

Who Assassinated Abraham Lincoln?

Repeat snipped.

They did not secede over slavery.

When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned down that offer.

That's because they were never offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. They were offered an amendment that all but five Union states rejected.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

There's more below.

Well gosh....Free Blacks served in the Confederate Army.

And over 100,000 Southerners left the Confederacy to join Union forces.

And the desertion rate among the Condeferacy was higher than that of the Union.

Slaves were promised emancipation for themselves and their families for their service in the Confederate Army...

Confederate Law Authorizing the Enlistment of Black Soldiers, as Promulgated in a Military Order

"IV. The enlistment of colored persons under this act will be made upon printed forms, to be furnished for the purpose, similar to those established for the regular service. They will be executed in duplicate, one copy to be returned to this office for file. No slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman, and which will be filed with the superintendent."

and the Confederate government empowered their ambassador to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery. Seems that based on the undeniable facts, were perfectly willing to get rid of slavery to gain their independence.

And even more bandwidth wasted on a policy that never came close to ratification.

It was simple enough just to cite the facts - they refute your PC Revisionist claims.

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

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?"

Do you identify with the Constitution? It was mostly written by a slave owner. How about the Declaration of Independence? Another slave owner...

I was ready to write that off as a rant, but those were good questions. Yes I know many of them had slaves. I can accept the good that came without absolving the bad that came with it. I can accept the legacy of freedom, justice, and opportunity for all while condemning the times they were denied.

The difference is that while the Union was guilty of many of these crimes, they also led in abolishing them. The Confederacy never abolished slavery and fought to preserve it, so that is their only legacy.

And notice I said the Confederacy, and not the South. Many in South opposed slavery, and many others left the South to fight against the Confederacy.

You've long since run out of new quotes about the South and have long ago resorted to regurgitating the same few.

How many do I need? The Democrats said secession was about preserving slavery, and they backed it with their actions. The fact that they managed to pour out propaganda to the contrary doesn't refute this.

Absolute nonsense. He may have correctly stated that secession was about slavery as did JD in 1858 and the declarations of secession, but that doesn't obligate me to accept his accusations against the North.

There you go with "the North" again. I know everyone in the North wasn't on the right side on this issue. The Democrats in particular blocked abolition for as long as they had the votes to do it, but that ended in 1865. The Republicans passed abolition as soon as they had the votes they needed.

Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery.

That's because it's a lie. JD never came close to abolishing slavery, even if he had "offered" it in return for military aid.

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).

No dispute there. As I've said numerous times, not everyone in the South supported slavery.

The whole problem with your argument is that the Corbomite Maneuver was a desperate attempt to prevent secession and the CW, and there was enough time for five states to ratify it. That proves the rest of the states had the time, if they had intended to ratify it. They didn't even though they could have and even though it meant secession and a possible CW. FACTS.

It would never become law because the original 7 seceding Southern states rejected it. It was a primarily Republican effort. FACT

False. It was never ratified, and it was passed by a majority of Democrats, while a majority of Republicans opposed it. I know you'll reply "but Lincoln and Corwin", but the big difference between this and all of the other policies you keep posting again and again and again is that they were never made law while abolition was. FACT.

1864 when they almost had enough votes, and 1865 when they finally had enough votes. And they had spoken about abolition publicly, but they had to deal with parts of the population that wanted to hear the opposite. You insist on judging the situation by today's standards, but abolition was a radical idea to many back then, and the Republicans had to walk the line between the abolitionists who were growing frustrated with the lack of action, and the Democrats who wanted to preserve slavery. Frederick Douglas acknowledged this, even after he was one of those expressing frustration.

If you're going to accuse me of this, at least include the comments you are accusing me of. I don't post "repeat snipped" and reply without posting what I'm replying to.

The evidence is anecdotal and most certainly deniable.

The Great Migration did not start until that time. You're entitled to your own opinions.

I said quote "the migration", not "the great migration".

You are not entitled to your own facts.

And you're not entitled to your own interpretation of the English Language. Who do you think you are, Lia Thomas?

I've already posted them. I even posted a direct quote from the Sec. of the Treasuring lamenting the fact that so many of the federal agents he sent to the Southern states were just crooks.

I meant from sources other than those that have the Confederacy Amen Corner's seal of approval, so I can review the entire context rather than cherry picked excerpts.

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.

While it may have been founded by abolitionists, the vast vast majority of Republican politicians and voters were not abolitionists as they went to great pains to make clear.

They "made that clear" to audiences who wanted to hear that. When they got the votes they needed to pass abolition, they did.

Lincoln himself orchestrated the Corwin Amendment and publicly said he would strengthen fugitive slave laws.

More wasted bandwidth on policies that were never ratified, unlike abolition which was ratified. In fact, just about your entire case is built on policies that were never ratified. The Corbomite Naneuver, strengthening fugitive slave laws, and abolishing slavery in return for military aid were never ratified. On the other hand the only policy that was ratified, abolition, is the policy you keep trying to avoid.

The Republicans were of course referring to the Western Territory which was not at that time organized into states.

"Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction"

All persons. This was the context for the word territory, not territories as you keep trying to force.

They did not propose to abolish slavery where it existed. I could post dozens of quotes from Lincoln saying exactly this. All the other prominent Republicans said the same. You are clinging to a myth here.

You can post clips of comments made to audiences that wanted to hear those comments. I never denied that. But eight years after the Republican party was formed, they voted to abolish slavery in all states, but were blocked by Democrats who saw slavery as a states' rights issue. They following year, they had the numbers and voted to abolish slavery.

So go ahead and regurgitate all of your quotes. I'll give you the same response.

More Democrat lies about how secession wasn't about slavery snipped.

I don't care what they said, how many times they said it, or how many times you post it. What they said is not evidence, any more than what Hitler said in 1945 not wanting war in 1939. The evidence is in what they did. They seceded and went to war to preserve slavery as they said, and never abolished it until after they were defeated.

I know you'll reply with "but Lincoln and the Republicans said nasty things like blah blah blah", but they had to deal with parts of the Union that wanted to hear that, in addition to the impatient abolitionists. They did, and when they got the votes they needed, they passed abolition. Those are the only facts that matter.