Replies

As you said, there wasn't much time.

Of course you wasted no time posting my comments out of context. Here's my exact statement.

They didn't have any time, in the sense that secession was already happening and a civil war was coming. If they were going to pass this, they would have in the same amount of time that the five states did. They didn't. Your could haves and ifs don't prove anything.

The fact that they did not jump on it immediately does not mean they never would have passed it as you are claiming.

Post all of the alternate realities you want. The fact remains that they all had the same amount of time to ratify the law as the five states that did, if they had intended to. They didn't.

Why FR allows you to waste their bandwidth defending Leftist big government supporters like this is beyond me. But here you are again:

To summarize your latest posting of the same old talking points, the Democrats said slavery would be abolished at some point, the Democrats said they were willing to abolish slavery, and they had other grievences against the North besides abolition.

My answers are, I don't believe what the Democrats said no matter how many times you post them, JD never made good on his offer to abolish slavery, and 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."

As for the comments from Senator Robert Toombs and Robert Barnwell Rhett, both were Democrats who were also slave owners and who defended the institution of slavery. Why should I care what either of them had to say?

OBTW, Robert Barnwell Rhett accused the Confederate government of centralizing measures that infringed on states' rights, and opposed arming slaves and offering them freedom. So much for most of your drivel, but that won't stop you from posting it again.

more statements about how the Republicans actually were abolitionists but never said so publicly or even in private but that you are going to cling to that little fantasy anyway because its convenient for you snipped.

They only said so in their platform in 1858 and followed through in 1864 and 1865.

Repeats snipped.

Yes and? This is a clear statement that Virginia left among other reasons because the federal government was oppressing the Southern states.

Southern slaveholding states. That word defines the whole context of their comments.

LOL! "what difference does it make that other states did not say they had the goal of preserving slavery which was not threatened anyway? I want to believe that because its convenient for me so I'm going to simply assume it."

The states that were willing to advertise they were fighting to preserve slavery laid out their case for why it was threatened. Their actions showed they meant it.

Mommy, TwelveOfTwenty called me Hitler again. Make him stop.

Now, now little FLT-Bird, we have to accept that the Democrats deliberately and explicitly protected slavery in their Constitution when they formed the Confederacy, much like Hitler passed laws to oppress Jews and other minorities he didn't like. If you want him to stop, you'll need to stop pretending the Democrats weren't defending slavery.

I'm going to point out that like a little toddler, you cannot conceive of the fact that people who lived in a different era had entirely different views on a number of things.

I could see your point if we were talking about the Founding Fathers, but by the 1860s most of the states had already abolished slavery at the state level. Furthermore, by offering to abolish slavery in return for military aid, JD showed he could clearly see how his institution looked to others. So much for your "product of their time" excuses.

Repeat snipped.

But if course it was never really about slavery. Their own political leaders were quite willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment AND to strengthen federal fugitive slave laws.

They never did either, and ultimately went the other way and abolished slavery once they had the votes. Once again you rely on policies that were never ratified, made to a divided nation, to make your point, while ignoring the one policy that was ratified.

Slavery was something the Northern states were perfectly willing to live with - so long as they got their cut of the profits.

They were trying to walk the line between the abolitionists who were growing impatient, and avoiding secession and a civil war. Once that became moot, they abolished slavery outright as soon as they had the votes.

As long as you keep spreading PC Revisionist propaganda, I'll keep refuting it with facts, quotes and sources.

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.

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?"

actually murder was not legal in those countries when they each murdered millions.

On the books maybe, but as absolute dictators their (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) word was law.

Does not prove there was a breeding program. You've only demonstrated that they were slaves which was never in dispute....Nope! A breeding program would be a program that was designed by the owners to breed livestock. That was not the case here. You've only proven that they were captive which once again, was never in dispute.

Introduction to Captive Breeding

Were they reproducing in a closed environment? Yes.

Were their children sold as chattel or used as beasts of burden? Yes.

Will FLT-Bird waste more bandwidth trying to get around all of this? You betcha.

FLT-Bird, unable to post actual numbers, reposted all of the snippets from his sources.

I know thousands of blacks served in the Confederacy's military. What is in dispute is how many thousands.

What isn't in dispute is that the number of blacks who served for the Confederates was less than 1/10, and less than 1/5 the number of escaped slaves, who served in the Union military. Do you have an answer for that, or will you fall back to reposting the same snippets from your favorite books?

Repeat snipped.

We're discussing the definition of terrorism - not the definition of slavery. Killing babies is not merely a tragedy, when it is done for political purposes it is terrorism. As indeed, the murder of innocent people for political purposes is. That's the very definition of terrorism. Note, we are not discussing slavery here no matter how desperate you are to inject slavery into absolutely everything.

My point is that who you see as terrorists, I see as freedom fighters. Two of the three you label terrorists were slaves who rebelled against their masters.

It's always a tragedy when innocent people and children are killed, but it's the people who are committing the injustices who are at fault.

And while the freedom fighters you call terrorists were fighting for their freedom, the slave holding states were killing them and condemning children to slavery. It's not hard to see who the real terrorists were.

Emancipation was a political cause at the time. What else could it be but that? You trying to deny it shows you are massively ignorant of history - or are simply lying.

It was much more than a political cause. It was an attempt to eliminate an injustice (to put it mildly) that the nation had allowed for far too long.

LOL! You obviously haven't read much history. He's the chief PC Revisionist.

What does how much history anyone has read have to do with knowing who McPherson is?

He spent most of his career pushing the "all about slavery" myth as well as the myth of the virtuous North.

He needs to go no further than to read the Confederacy's own documents and Constitution to see it was about preserving slavery.

As for the "virtuous North", I'm not making the claim that everyone in the North was with the good guys, so stop with that strawman.

Except they weren't defending slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US. Cobb had no reason to lie about the chief concerns of Southerners being their economic exploitation by the Northern states. The vast majority of Southerners did not own any slaves. I bet the Leftist PCers are very happy to see you pushing their propaganda.

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.

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?"

At the time that ("the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction") did not include Blacks. It also did not include Indians. It also did not include Asians. It certainly did not include women. No matter how much we today may disagree with leaving all those persons out.....that was what they thought at the time.

That was what much of the country thought, sad to say. The platform said "all persons", and they backed it by abolishing slavery just seven years later.

They didn't have the votes because until very late in the war, they themselves wouldn't have voted for it. They were not abolitionists as they said many times.

They didn't have the votes because the party was only eight years old in 1864, and had to win over a country that was divided on this issue. You talk about how slow the states were to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, but then you expect instant results when it suits your narrative.

But then again, as a leftist plant, that's how you're trying to make Conservatives look isn't it?

Of course you wasted no time posting my comments out of context. Here's my exact statement.

They didn't have any time, in the sense that secession was already happening and a civil war was coming. If they were going to pass this, they would have in the same amount of time that the five states did. They didn't. Your could haves and ifs don't prove anything.

Anybody who looks at the passage of any constitutional amendment ever passed will notice that it took time and not all the states that eventually passed it did so immediately.

Post all of the alternate realities you want. The fact remains that they all had the same amount of time to ratify the law as the five states that did, if they had intended to. They didn't.

See above statement. States have in many cases taken YEARS to ratify proposed constitutional amendments. The fact that they did not ratify these amendments immediately does not mean they never would have contrary to your claims.

Why FR allows you to waste their bandwidth defending Leftist big government supporters like this is beyond me. But here you are again:

Why FR allows you to waste bandwidth posting false Leftist talking points is beyond me. Regardless, you of course falsely mischaracterized what I said. I said many Southerners knew slavery was on the way out. During the war, the CSA not only said but took concrete steps to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery in exchange for military aid. And I said the Southern states main grievances against the Northern states were over tariffs and government expenditures, not over slavery. The latter was merely something they could cite to correctly argue that it was the Northern states which had violated the constitution.

My answers are, I don't believe what the Democrats said no matter how many times you post them, JD never made good on his offer to abolish slavery, and snipped

My counter answer is it does not matter what you personally believe. The irrefutable facts are that the CSA took concrete steps to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery and

"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

Why should anybody care what you have to say since you support Leftist PC Revisionism? The fact of the matter is that both clearly articulated the economic grievances the Southern states had as a primary motivation for secession.

And? He was against centralized power and thought the Confederate government did that too much. OK. So what? He was against arming slaves and offering them emancipation in exchange for their military service. That was done anyway. He was the father of secession. Nobody said he exercised a lot of political power once the Southern states seceded.

They only said so in their platform in 1858 and followed through in 1864 and 1865.

False. They were distinctly not in favor of abolition and said so many times prior to very late in the war. You've already posted that lie many times and I've already debunked it many times.

Southern slaveholding states. That word defines the whole context of their comments.,/P>

No it doesn't.

The states that were willing to advertise they were fighting to preserve slavery laid out their case for why it was threatened. Their actions showed they meant it.

Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. 3 of them went on at length about their economic grievances even though these were not unconstitutional and refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned it down. Its clear they were not fighting over slavery - which was never threatened in the US.

,i>Mommy, TwelveOfTwenty called me Hitler again. Make him stop.

More like LOL! This person with the emotional intelligence of a grade schooler insists everybody who disagrees with him is just like Hitler. Typical Leftist.

Well little twelveoftwenty we have to accept that the Confederate Constitution did not differ from the US constitution on the issue of slavery. Oh and we must point out that Hitler agreed with Lincoln in supporting centralized power, rejecting states' rights and in waging wars of aggression for money and empire.

LOL! So it was OK in 1776 but not OK in 1860 because....ummm....reasons. So therefore its OK to admire the grandfathers who seceded from the British Empire but we must condemn the grandsons who seceded from the American Empire. By the way....many of the Northern states only very slowly abolished slavery with a few slaves still being present in New York as of the 1860 US census, Connecticut not abolishing slavery until 1854, New Jersey still having "apprentices for life" who were not free to leave as of 1860, etc. President Davis offered to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery if it would help gain mostly British military aid - Britain having abolished slavery in 1838. So all these others you laud for having abolished slavery either had not really done so yet or had done so only very recently by 1860.

Once again you ignore the fact that the Corwin Amendment was only not ratified and fugitive slave laws only not strengthened precisely because the original 7 seceding states rejected them. Then you fall back on your usual ex post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. eg "Well the fact that they did something in 1866 means they would have done it in 1860." LOL! False.

The abolitionists were a tiny minority whose candidates could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in elections. They were perfectly willing to tolerate slavery so long as they kept getting a big fat piece of the profits.

repeats 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."

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

[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions." Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas

"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter "Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848

“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate

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

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……”

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 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.

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

On the books maybe, but as absolute dictators their (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) word was law.

No argument, but murder was not as a matter of fact, legal in those countries.

repeats snipped

Once again you have failed to demonstrate that there was a breeding program for slaves. You have only demonstrated that there were slaves - which was never in dispute.

Were they reproducing in a closed environment? Yes. Were their children sold as chattel or used as beasts of burden? Yes. Will FLT-Bird waste more bandwidth trying to get around all of this? You betcha.

Were they slaves? Yes. Was there any kind of widespread program designed to control and maximize breeding in order to produce certain characteristics in the offspring? No. Will twelveoftwenty continue to try to weasel and falsely equate captivity/slavery with a captive breeding program? You betcha!

FLT-Bird, unable to post actual numbers, reposted all of the snippets from his sources.

twelveoftwenty, unable to refute arguments posts the same 3 or so sources every time in answer to practically every thing no matter how irrelevant they are to the point being discussed.

I know thousands of blacks served in the Confederacy's military. What is in dispute is how many thousands. What isn't in dispute is that the number of blacks who served for the Confederates was less than 1/10, and less than 1/5 the number of escaped slaves, who served in the Union military. Do you have an answer for that, or will you fall back to reposting the same snippets from your favorite books?

I'll point out that you are once again trying to move the goal posts. You said there were no or hardly any Black Confederates. You were once again, wrong.

My point is that who you see as terrorists, I see as freedom fighters. Two of the three you label terrorists were slaves who rebelled against their masters.

"freedom fighters" like those who murdered an unarmed Black man as their first victim when they raided Harper's Ferry? "freedom fighters" like John Brown who took 3 innocent men sitting at home with their families away at gunpoint and then hacked them to death with a sword?

It's always a tragedy when innocent people and children are killed, but it's the people who are committing the injustices who are at fault.

How about Nat Turner? Was he a "freedom fighter" too? "One of the most troubling aspects of the Southampton Revolt of 1831 was the killing of children. As a contemporary observer put it, “whole families, father, mother, daughters, sons, sucking babes, and school children” were “butchered, thrown into heaps, and left to be devoured by hogs and dogs, or to putrify on the spot. Ten children under the age of five died in the rebellion. Seventeen children under the age of 10 were murdered.

These were terrorists. They were not seeking freedom. They were looking to and did commit murder of innocent people.

It was much more than a political cause. It was an attempt to eliminate an injustice (to put it mildly) that the nation had allowed for far too long.

I've never denied it was a political cause at the time. I've pointed out - correctly - that it enjoyed very little popular support prior to very late in the war.

What does how much history anyone has read have to do with knowing who McPherson is?

If you had read much about this subject, you would have known who he is. You not knowing is a tell.

He needs to go no further than to read the Confederacy's own documents and Constitution to see it was about preserving slavery.

He needs to read the numerous newspaper editorials, statements by Southern political leaders, and rejection of the Corwin amendment by the seceding states to see it was not about preserving something that was not threatened in the US anyway.

As for the "virtuous North", I'm not making the claim that everyone in the North was with the good guys, so stop with that strawman.

The North was not fighting to end slavery.

repeats snipped

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

“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.

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, 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.

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.

That was what much of the country thought, sad to say. The platform said "all persons", and they backed it by abolishing slavery just seven years later.

They were not abolitionists and took great pains to make that clear in public and in private and never said anything to the contrary. The fact that they later changed their minds on the subject does not mean this is what they thought earlier.

They didn't have the votes because they themselves would not have voted for it until very late in the war. They were not abolitionists and said so many many times prior to the war and even in the early years of the war.

But then again, as a leftist plant, that's how you're trying to make Conservatives look isn't it?

The Leftist plant here is you. You're the one who is pushing Leftist PC Revisionist dogma. You're the one pushing the "all about slavery" myth, denigrating states' rights, glorifying centralized power, etc etc.