And anybody who reads history knows that the circumstances were more urgent than business as usual, and the rest of the states had the same amount of time to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver as the five that did. They didn't, and none of your alternate realities can refute that.
Why FR allows you to waste bandwidth posting false Leftist talking points is beyond me.
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?"
Regardless, you of course falsely mischaracterized what I said.
I was commenting on the comments from other sources you posted. As to your comments, let us see shall we?
I said many Southerners knew slavery was on the way out.
And many who allegedly saw this did everything they could to preserve it, including deliberately writing their Constitution to protect it.
I know you'll circle back to "but they just copied the Constitution", but they could have left the explicit protections out. That would have given them the leeway later to abolish slavery, if they ever intended to. We know they didn't, because they deliberately added those protections and never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so.
The irrefutable facts are that the CSA took concrete steps to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery
False! The irrefutable facts are that they talked the talk but never made good on their offer, even as their existence depended on it. In fact it was just the opposite, as we shall read again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again).
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?"
and
More bull from a New Orleans newspaper snipped.
So what?
Repeats snipped.
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.
That didn't stop you from posting his comments as if he was a credible witness. As a Democrat and a slave owner, any real Conservative would give him the credibility he deserves - zero.
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.
You haven't debunked anything. You've just posted a bunch of comments made to a divided nation. Anyone with any knowledge of history understands what the environment was at the time and the different factions the Republicans had to deal with. In fact, you've posted commentary on it yourself, but you just can't connect the dots.
No it doesn't.
The word slaveholding in the text "and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States." absolutely does set the context. If they didn't mean to say it was about slavery, they could have left that out or said "agricultural" or something else to establish the context. They made it clear what it was about by what they said.
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.
They were offered nothing. The states refused to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, even though they had the same amount of time as the five that did ratify it. As to the rest of your rant:
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.
Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...
The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
From Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
From Texas
They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture...
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
From South Carolina
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
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?"
From the Confederacy's Constitution, written by the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy.
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.
FLT-Bird, completely unable to refute the point that Hitler's actions like slavery were legal, instead replied "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."
I didn't call you Hitler. In reply to your comment that the slave holding states had a legal justification for seceding because their Constitutionally protected rights to own slaves were violated, I pointed out that everything Hitler did was legal too. Do you have a response to that, or are you going to keep crying to your mommy instead?
Well little twelveoftwenty we have to accept that the Confederate Constitution did not differ from the US constitution on the issue of slavery.
Thank you mother, but the big difference is those explicit protections were written into the confederacy's Constitution from the people who founded the Confederacy, while the Republicans inherited those protections and ultimately abolished them.
Oh and we must point out that Hitler agreed with Lincoln in supporting centralized power rejecting states' rights
Nonsense. Lincoln stood for and delivered abolition on the national level. The Democrats in the North called slavery a states' rights issue when they tried to stop it.
and in waging wars of aggression for money and empire.
If you're referring to the Civil War, 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."
Also,
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?"
If you're referring to the expansion, Lincoln never lived to carry that out, and anyone taking advantage of what freedoms we still have is a party to that. That includes the virtue signaling lefties who talk about the atrocities but take advantage of the freedoms they have to live comfortable lives.
You know the kind, who are trying to stick the Republicans with the Democrats' slave holding past. Like you.
LOL! So it was OK in 1776 but not OK in 1860 because....ummm....reasons.
As usual you can't tell the truth about what I said. You were the one who defended the Confederate leaders as being products of their time. My reply was "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." Take that in the context of the point I was replying to if you don't mind.
I never said it was OK in 1776, only that your "product of their time" defense would make more sense in 1776 than it would in 1860. IIRC, you made that defense yourself. JD could see this as you keep proving, but instead led his new nation into war to preserve slavery.
Let me save you some time. "But JD and the Confederacy weren't fighting to preserve slavery."
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?"
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.
Moot point, since I'm not saying everyone in the North was the good guys.
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.
An offer he never made good on.
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.
Which is totally irrelevant because the 1850s and 1860s are the era we're discussing.
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.
I've answered your nonsense about the Corbomite Maneuver above. As far as not voting to abolish slavery prior to 1865, the Republicans were only formed in 1856 and didn't have the votes to pass abolition in all states until 1865. Until then, they had to deal with Union states who still had slavery as well as the impatient abolitionists.
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.
1858, 1860, 1864.
1865, slavery abolished.
More comments from slave owning Democrats. Let's look them up, shall we? Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, a Democrat who supported the right to own slaves, and who fell out of favor with the South when he called for cooperation with the North after the CW.
General Patrick Cleburne sided with the South for no other reason than it was his homeland. For once you have a credible source, as he didn't support slavery, and was one of those who called for offering slaves their freedom in return for fighting for the Confederacy. Here's more on his proposal and how the Confederacy's leaders responded. You did your cause no favors by bringing him up.
If it's any consolation, you showed what I have already said, which is that not everyone in the South supported slavery.
Other than that, you threw a lot of quotes from JD at me, but I have his actions and his lack of action on one of your favorite arguments to prove my point.
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.
It wasn't my original point, but you have demonstrated to be from your defense that it most certainly was a breeding program.
After all, they were the ones who ensured the slaves could only breed within the plantation, and either kept their children as live stock or sold them. That is the definition of a breeding program. That was definitely how the slave owners saw it.
No argument, but murder was not as a matter of fact, legal in those countries.
According to their demented lawmakers, the people who were killed weren't murdered because they were guilty of "crimes" against the state, like being Jewish. The same thought process was behind kidnapping humans as slaves, in that what they did was against the law but was OK when doing it to "slave property", according to those who either did it or paid for it.
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.
I guess that depends on your definition of "hardly any". I'll grant that there were likely more than I originally estimated, but it was still less than 10% of the total number of blacks, and less than 20% of the total number of escaped slaves, that served in the Union's forces. You have yet to prove that wrong, no matter how many times you post the same snippets.
And many blacks who served in the Confederacy's military were forced to do chores that were little different than the services slaves performed for their masters anyway.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
This brings up another problem with your narrative. If so many blacks were already willing to serve in the Confederate forces, why did the Confederate leaders even need to consider offering freedom in return for fighting for the Confederacy?
"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?
You rightfully rant against what little of this is true yet excuse the people who owned slaves and patronized a system that killed many as "products of their time".
These were terrorists. They were not seeking freedom.
Bull. Many were slaves that were fighting for their freedom.
They were looking to and did commit murder of innocent people.
According to your logic, the Allies who killed German and Japanese children were also terrorists who "were looking to and did commit murder of innocent people".
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.
Let's just ignore that the majority of states had already abolished slavery within their borders as did the nations the Democrats were trying to pander to with fake offers of abolition, or 1858, 1860, and 1864.
If you had read much about this subject, you would have known who he is. You not knowing is a tell.
Why would I care to know about a liberal writer? Unless you're talking about another McPherson. Maybe you should clarify which McPherson it is I'm supposed to read up on. Remember, we're talking about a leftist writer, not a general in the Civil War.
He needs to read the numerous newspaper editorials propaganda, statements lies by Southern slave owning political leaders, and rejection of the Corwin amendment by the seceding majority of the Union states to see it was not about preserving something that was not threatened in the US anyway according to the Confederate leaders themselves.
Fixing all of your errors was a lot of work, but FIFY.
The North was not fighting to end slavery.
They just voted in enough Republicans, and voted out enough Democrats, to get it done, only nine years after the Republican party was founded. But it was by accident, or qwerty ergo typo or whatever Latin you keep trying to impress us with.
The rest of your post full of repeats snipped. Once again, we'll examine your sources.
Senator Robert Toombs, a Democrat slave owner.
Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, see above.
Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, see above.
The Leftist plant here is you. You're the one who is pushing Leftist PC Revisionist dogma from the Democrat's own documents. You're the one pushing the "all about slavery" myth from the Democrat's own documents, denigrating states' rights to own slaves, glorifying centralized power to abolish slavery, etc etc.
FIFY.
And anybody who looks at every single constitutional amendment ever passed will notice that it took some states years to pass each and every one of them.
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:
“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……”
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.
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
And many who allegedly saw this did everything they could to preserve it, including deliberately writing their Constitution to protect it.
I'd argue with "many" trying to preserve it and their constitution was no different from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
I know you'll circle back to "but they just copied the Constitution", but they could have left the explicit protections out. That would have given them the leeway later to abolish slavery, if they ever intended to. We know they didn't, because they deliberately added those protections and never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so.
Funny how you excuse the Union for the US Constitution's protections of slavery yet condemn the CSA for their constitution being no different on that score. And they offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. So clearly they were willing to.
False! The irrefutable facts are that they talked the talk but never made good on their offer, even as their existence depended on it. In fact it was just the opposite, as we shall read again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again).
FAlSE! The irrefutable fact is they took concrete steps to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery had Britain/France agreed. Did the US offer to do so during the war? Nope.
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:
“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……”
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.
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
That didn't stop you from posting his comments as if he was a credible witness. As a Democrat and a slave owner, any real Conservative would give him the credibility he deserves - zero.
I posted his comments because he was quite influential before the war - his speech outlining the economic cause for the Southern states to secede was attached to South Carolina's Declaration of Causes after all. A real Conservative would give him the credibility he deserves before the war - quite a lot.
You haven't debunked anything. You've just posted a bunch of comments made to a divided nation. Anyone with any knowledge of history understands what the environment was at the time and the different factions the Republicans had to deal with. In fact, you've posted commentary on it yourself, but you just can't connect the dots.
False. I've thoroughly debunked your BS claims for which you have ZERO evidence. The Republicans themselves went to great lengths to make it clear to one and all that they were not abolitionists. Anything statement to the contrary is fantasy.
The word slaveholding in the text "and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States." absolutely does set the context. If they didn't mean to say it was about slavery, they could have left that out or said "agricultural" or something else to establish the context. They made it clear what it was about by what they said.
LOL! S-T-R-E-T-C-H. Virginia never said it was "about" slavery. The fact that they stayed in UNTIL Lincoln chose to start a war to force a government on people who did not consent to it shows quite clearly that that and not slavery was what was motivating them. They believed what the Declaration of Independence said about government deriving its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. That had been the universal American view until Lincoln chose to start a war to prevent the Southern states - the union's cash cows - from leaving.
They were offered nothing. The states refused to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, even though they had the same amount of time as the five that did ratify it.
They were offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Every constitutional amendment passed has seen some states take years to ratify it. Your claim that because every state did not ratify it immediately that means this one time, that they never would have ratified it is laughable.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States From Georgia. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property... In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then... The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. From Mississippi Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. From Texas They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture... She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. From South Carolina A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
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.
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……”
From Rhett's address attached to and sent out along with South Carolina's Declaration of Causes
"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.
From Texas
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: repeats snipped
The chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission, Dr. Lewis Steiner, reported that he saw about 3,000 well-armed black Confederate soldiers in Stonewall Jackson’s army in Frederick, Maryland, and that those soldiers were "manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Said Steiner, “Wednesday, September 10--At four o'clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o'clock P.M., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. (Report of Lewis H. Steiner, New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1862, pp. 10-11)
* Union colonel Peter Allabach, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 131st Pennsylvania Infantry, reported that his forces encountered black Confederate soldiers during the battle of Chancellorsville:
"Under this disposition of my command, I lay until 11 o'clock, when I received orders from you to throw the two left regiments perpendicular to the road, and to advance in line of battle, with skirmishers in front, as far as to the edge of the wood bordering near the Chancellor house. This movement was explained to me as intended to hold the enemy in check long enough for the corps of Major-Generals Couch and Sickles to get into another position, and not to bring on an action if it could be avoided; and, should the enemy advance in force, to fall back slowly until I arrived on the edge of the wood, there to mass in column and double-quick to the rear, that the artillery might fire in this wood. I was instructed that I was to consider myself under the command of Major-General Couch."
"In obedience to these orders, at about 11 o'clock I advanced with these two regiments forward through the wood, under a severe fire of shell, grape, and canister. I encountered their skirmishers when near the farther edge of the wood. Allow me to state that the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes." (Report of Col. Peter H. Allabach, 131st Pennsylvania Infantry, commanding Second Brigade, in Official Records, Volume XXV, in Two Parts, 1889, Chap. 37, Part I – Reports, p. 555, emphasis added)
In a Union army battle report, General David Stuart complained about the deadly effectiveness of the black Confederate soldiers whom his troops had encountered. The “armed negroes,” he said, did “serious execution upon our men”:
Col. Giles Smith commanded the First Brigade and Col. T. Kilby Smith, Fifty-fourth Ohio, the Fourth. I communicated to these officers General Sherman’s orders and charged Colonel Smith, Fifty-fourth Ohio, specially with the duty of clearing away the road to the crossing and getting it into the best condition for effecting our crossing that he possibly could. The work was vigorously pressed under his immediate supervision and orders, and he devoted himself to it with as much energy and activity as any living man could employ. It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy’s sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men. The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. STUART, Brigadier-General, Commanding. (Report of Brig. Gen. David Stuart, U. S. Army, commanding Fourth Brigade and Second Division, of operations December 26, 1862 - January 3, 1863, in Official Records, Volume XVII, in Two Parts. 1886/1887, Chap. 29, Part I - Reports, pp. 635-636, emphasis added)
I didn't call you Hitler. In reply to your comment that the slave holding states had a legal justification for seceding because their Constitutionally protected rights to own slaves were violated, I pointed out that everything Hitler did was legal too. Do you have a response to that, or are you going to keep crying to your mommy instead?
Should I point out that Lincoln claimed everything he did was legal too? Oh, and he waged a war of aggression under false pretenses just like Hitler. He also committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the native people in areas his army conquered just like Hitler. He also loved centralized power and hated states' rights just like Hitler. Two can play at this childish game.
Thank you mother, but the big difference is those explicit protections were written into the confederacy's Constitution from the people who founded the Confederacy, while the Republicans inherited those protections and ultimately abolished them.
The difference is the Confederate Constitution just carried over almost all of the US Constitution except specific provisions limited the power of the central government and more explicitly recognizing the sovereignty of the states.
Nonsense. Lincoln stood for and delivered abolition on the national level. The Democrats in the North called slavery a states' rights issue when they tried to stop it.
LOL! Pure fantasy and BS. Lincoln most certainly did not stand for abolition. He was against abolition and made it quite clear to one and all.
repeats snipped
Lincoln waged a war of aggression for money and empire. He made it perfectly clear he was willing to protect slavery by express constitutional amendment effectively forever and he was willing to strengthen fugitive slave laws. What he was really interested in was squeezing money out of the Southern states.
repeats snipped
In a letter published in the Indianapolis Star in December 1861, a Union soldier stated that his unit was attacked by black Confederate soldiers:
A body of seven hundred [Confederate] Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed a new feature in the war. We have heard of a regiment of [Confederate] Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, and still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near home and attacked our men. (Indianapolis Star, December 23, 1861)
Union soldier James G. Bates wrote a letter to his father that was reprinted in an Indiana newspaper in May 1863. In the letter Bates assured his father that there were black Confederate soldiers:
I can assure you [his father,] of a certainty, that the rebels have Negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters and the boldest of them all here is a Negro. He dug himself a rifle pit last night [16 April 1863] just across the river and has been annoying our pickets opposite him very much to-day. You can see him plain enough with the naked eye, occasionally, to make sure that he is a "wooly-head," and with a spy-glass there is no mistaking him. (Winchester Journal, May 1, 1863)
A few months before the war ended, a Union soldier named James Miles of the 185th N.Y.V.I. wrote in his diary, “Saw several Negros fighting for those rebels" (Diary entry, January 8, 1865).
A Union lieutenant colonel named Parkhurst, who served in the Ninth Michigan Infantry, reported that black Confederate soldiers participated in an attack on his camp:
The forces attacking my camp were the First Regiment Texas Rangers, a battalion of the First Georgia Rangers . . . and quite a number of Negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day. (Lieutenant Colonel Parkhurst’s Report, Ninth Michigan Infantry, on General Forrest’s Attack at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, July 13, 1862, in Official Records, Series 1, Volume XVI, Part 1, p. 805)
In late June 1861, the Illinois Daily State Journal, a staunchly Republican newspaper, reported that the Confederate army was arming some slaves and that in some cases slaves were being organized into military units. Interestingly, the newspaper also said that the North was not fighting to abolish slavery, and that the South was not fighting to protect slavery:
Our mighty armies are gathering for no purpose of abolition. Our enemies are not in arms to protect the peculiar institution [slavery]. . . .
They [the Confederates] are using their Slave property as an instrument of warfare against the Union. Their slaves dig trenches, erect fortifications, and bear arms. Slaves, in some instances, are organized into military companies to fight against the Government. (“Slaves Contraband of War,” Illinois Daily State Journal, June 21, 1861)
After the battle of Gettysburg, Union forces took seven black Confederate soldiers as prisoners, as was noted in a Northern newspaper at the time, which said,
. . . reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers. (New York Herald, July 11, 1863)
During the battle of Gettysburg, two black Confederate soldiers took part in Pickett’s charge: Color Corporal George B. Powell (14th Tennessee) went down during the advance. Boney Smith, a Black man attached to the regiment, took the colors and carried them forward. . . . The colors of the 14th Tennessee got within fifty feet of the east wall before Boney Smith hit the dirt ---wounded. Jabbing the flagstaff in the ground, he momentarily urged the regiment forward until the intense pressure forced the men to lie down to save their lives. (John Michael Priest, Into the Fight: Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, White Mane Books, 1998, pp. 128, 130-131)
During the battle of Chickamauga, slaves serving Confederate soldiers armed themselves and asked permission to join the fight—and when they received that permission they fought commendably. Their commander, Captain J. B. Briggs, later noted that these men “filled a portion of the line of advance as well as any company of the regiment” (J. H. Segars and Charles Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, Atlanta, GA: Southern Lion Books, 2001, p. 141)
One of the last Confederate charges of the day included the Fourth Tennessee Calvary, which participated dismounted in the assault. Among the troopers of the regiment were forty African Americans who had been serving as camp servants but who now demanded the right the participate in the last combat of the day. Captain J. B. Briggs gave his permission for them to join his command on the front line. Organized and equipped under Daniel McLemore, the personal servant of the colonel of the regiment, the black troops had collected dropped weapons from battlefields during the regiment’s campaigns. . . . (Steve Cottrell, Civil War in Tennessee, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2001, p. 94)
After the war, hundreds of African Americans received Confederate veterans’ pensions from Southern state governments (Segars and Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, Atlanta, GA: Southern Lion Books, pp. 73-100).
Down in Charleston, free blacks . . . declared that “our allegiance is due to South Carolina and in her defense, we will offer up our lives, and all that is dear to us.” Even slaves routinely expressed loyalty to their homeland, thousands serving the Confederate Army faithfully. (Taking A Stand: Portraits from the Southern Secession Movement, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania: White Mane Books, 2000, p. 112)
In the July 1919 issue of The Journal of Negro History, Charles S. Wesley discussed the issue of blacks in the Confederate army: The loyalty of the slave in guarding home and family during his master’s absence has long been eloquently orated. The Negroes’ loyalty extended itself even to service in the Confederate army. Believing their land invaded by hostile foes, slaves eagerly offered themselves for service in actual warfare. . . .
At the outbreak of the war, an observer in Charleston noted the war-time preparations and called particular attention to “the thousand Negroes who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees.” In the same city, one of the daily papers stated in early January that 150 free colored men had offered their services to the Confederate Government, and at Memphis a recruiting office was opened. In June 1861 the Legislature of Tennessee authorized Governor Harris to receive into the state military service all male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty and to provide them with eight dollars a month, clothing, and rations. . . . In the same state, under the command of Confederate officers, marched a procession of several hundred colored men carrying shovels, axes, and blankets. The observer adds, “they were brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs.” A paper in Lynchburg, Virginia, commenting on the enlistment of seventy free Negroes to fight for the defense of the State, concluded with “three cheers for the patriotic Negroes of Lynchburg.”
Two weeks after the firing on Fort Sumter, several companies of volunteers of color passed through Augusta, Georgia, on their way to Virginia to engage in actual war. . . . In November of the same year, a military review was held in New Orleans, where twenty-eight thousand troops passed before Governor Moore, General Lowell, and General Ruggles. The line of march extended beyond seven miles and included one regiment comprised of 1,400 free colored men. (In Segars and Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, pp. 2-4)
"Negroes in the Confederate Army," Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesle, Vol. 4, #3, [1919,] 244-245 - "Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia."
"The part of Adams' Brigade that the 42nd Indiana was facing were the 'Louisiana Tigers.' This name was given to Colonel Gibson's 13th Louisiana Infantry, which included five companies of 'Avegno Zouaves' who still were wearing their once dashing traditional blue jackets, red caps and red baggy trousers. These five Zouaves companies were made up of Irish, Dutch, Negroes, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Italians." - Noe, Kenneth W., Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 2001. [page 270]
The 85th Indiana Volunteer Infantry reported to the Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette that on 5 March 1863: "During the fight the [artillery] battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by two rebel negro regiments."
After the action at Missionary Ridge, Commissary Sergeant William F. Ruby forwarded a casualty list written in camp at Ringgold, Georgia about 29 November 1863, to William S. Lingle for publication. Ruby's letter was partially reprinted in the Lafayette Daily Courier for 8 December 1863: "Ruby says among the rebel dead on the [Missionary] Ridge he saw a number of negroes in the Confederate uniform." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805: "There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day." Federal Official Records Series 1, Volume 15, Part 1, Pages 137-138
"Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLIX, Part II, pg. 253
April 6, 1865: "The rebels [Forrest] are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Miss., and the negroes are all enrolled in the State." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XIV, pg. 24, second paragraph -
In his book, Black Confederates and AfroYankees in Civil War Virginia, Ervin I. Jordan, a black historian, says that in June 1861 Tennessee became the first Confederate State to authorize the use of black soldiers. These soldiers were to be paid $18 a month and be provided with the same rations and clothing as white soldiers. Two regiments, he says, of blacks had appeared by September.
“They – the enemy – talked of having 9,000 men. They had 20 pieces of artillery, among which was the Richmond Howitzer battery manned by Negroes. Their wagons numbered sixty. Such is the information which our scouts gained from the people living on the ground where the enemy encamped. Their numbers are probably overrated, but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes I think the report is probably correct.” Col John W. Phelps 1st Vermont Infantry commanding Aug. 11, 1861. The War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol IV page 569
“We are not likely to use one Negro where the Rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the Rebellion.” Major General Samuel R Curtis 2nd Iowa Infantry Sept 29, 1862 The War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol XIII page 688
[Excerpt from letter to Abraham Lincoln] “I do and have believed we ought to use the colored people, after the rebels commenced to use them against us.” Thomas H Hicks, Senator, Maryland Sept 1863) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series III, Vol 3 page 768
“We pursued them closely for 7 miles and captured 4 privates of Goldsby’s company and 3 colored men, mounted and armed, with 7 horses and 5 mules with equipments and 20 Austrian rifles.” Brigadier General Alexander Asboth US Army District of West Florida Aug 1864) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 35 page 442
“We have turned up 11 bushwhackers to dry and one rebel negro.” Captain P.L. Powers 47th Missouri Infantry, Company H November 1864) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 41 page 670
“The Rebels are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Mississippi, and the negroes are all enrolled in the state.” Major A.M. Jackson 10th US colored heavy artillery April 1865) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 49 page 253
If you're referring to the expansion, Lincoln never lived to carry that out, and anyone taking advantage of what freedoms we still have is a party to that. That includes the virtue signaling lefties who talk about the atrocities but take advantage of the freedoms they have to live comfortable lives. You know the kind, who are trying to stick the Republicans with the Democrats' slave holding past. Like you.
Au Contraire. The Leftists are trying to throw mud at the South - the heart of the Conservative movement - and are trying to portray states' rights as being for bad/oppressive purposes while claiming centralized power is for good/noble purposes. And here you are like a typical Leftist spewing their lies and BS.
As usual you can't tell the truth about what I said. You were the one who defended the Confederate leaders as being products of their time. My reply was "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." Take that in the context of the point I was replying to if you don't mind.
You make excuses for slavery in 1776 but condemn it in 1860. It hadn't changed. It was the same thing in 1860 it had been a couple generations earlier. So much for your excuses about how the men of 1776 were products of their time by their grandsons in 1860 were not. President Davis knew that slavery was on the way out - he could look at the rest of the western world and see that just like most educated people in the Southern states could - and he offered to go ahead and bite the bullet/go through the upheaval it would cause, to get rid of it now rather than abolish it more gradually as the Northern states had done, in exchange for foreign military aid.
I never said it was OK in 1776, only that your "product of their time" defense would make more sense in 1776 than it would in 1860. IIRC, you made that defense yourself. JD could see this as you keep proving, but instead led his new nation into war to preserve slavery.
I pointed out that both were products of their time in 1776 and in 1860. There wasn't any significant difference. Both sets of leaders grew up in societies that had slavery. President Davis led his nation in seeking independence. He sought independence peacefully but Lincoln chose to start a war to prevent it. Davis was willing to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. He was hardly fighting to preserve slavery. He himself said during the war multiple times that that is not what they were fighting for. Both Lincoln and the Northern dominated US Congress also said slavery was not what they were fighting for as well.
Let me save you some time. "But JD and the Confederacy weren't fighting to preserve slavery."
I would offer to save you some time "all about slavery" but you've already repeated that BS several times and been refuted on it once again.
repeats snipped
In a letter published in the Indianapolis Star in December 1861, a Union soldier stated that his unit was attacked by black Confederate soldiers:
A body of seven hundred [Confederate] Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed a new feature in the war. We have heard of a regiment of [Confederate] Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, and still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near home and attacked our men. (Indianapolis Star, December 23, 1861)
Union soldier James G. Bates wrote a letter to his father that was reprinted in an Indiana newspaper in May 1863. In the letter Bates assured his father that there were black Confederate soldiers:
I can assure you [his father,] of a certainty, that the rebels have Negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters and the boldest of them all here is a Negro. He dug himself a rifle pit last night [16 April 1863] just across the river and has been annoying our pickets opposite him very much to-day. You can see him plain enough with the naked eye, occasionally, to make sure that he is a "wooly-head," and with a spy-glass there is no mistaking him. (Winchester Journal, May 1, 1863)
A few months before the war ended, a Union soldier named James Miles of the 185th N.Y.V.I. wrote in his diary, “Saw several Negros fighting for those rebels" (Diary entry, January 8, 1865).
A Union lieutenant colonel named Parkhurst, who served in the Ninth Michigan Infantry, reported that black Confederate soldiers participated in an attack on his camp:
The forces attacking my camp were the First Regiment Texas Rangers, a battalion of the First Georgia Rangers . . . and quite a number of Negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day. (Lieutenant Colonel Parkhurst’s Report, Ninth Michigan Infantry, on General Forrest’s Attack at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, July 13, 1862, in Official Records, Series 1, Volume XVI, Part 1, p. 805)
In late June 1861, the Illinois Daily State Journal, a staunchly Republican newspaper, reported that the Confederate army was arming some slaves and that in some cases slaves were being organized into military units. Interestingly, the newspaper also said that the North was not fighting to abolish slavery, and that the South was not fighting to protect slavery:
Our mighty armies are gathering for no purpose of abolition. Our enemies are not in arms to protect the peculiar institution [slavery]. . . .
They [the Confederates] are using their Slave property as an instrument of warfare against the Union. Their slaves dig trenches, erect fortifications, and bear arms. Slaves, in some instances, are organized into military companies to fight against the Government. (“Slaves Contraband of War,” Illinois Daily State Journal, June 21, 1861)
After the battle of Gettysburg, Union forces took seven black Confederate soldiers as prisoners, as was noted in a Northern newspaper at the time, which said,
. . . reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers. (New York Herald, July 11, 1863)
During the battle of Gettysburg, two black Confederate soldiers took part in Pickett’s charge: Color Corporal George B. Powell (14th Tennessee) went down during the advance. Boney Smith, a Black man attached to the regiment, took the colors and carried them forward. . . . The colors of the 14th Tennessee got within fifty feet of the east wall before Boney Smith hit the dirt ---wounded. Jabbing the flagstaff in the ground, he momentarily urged the regiment forward until the intense pressure forced the men to lie down to save their lives. (John Michael Priest, Into the Fight: Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, White Mane Books, 1998, pp. 128, 130-131)
During the battle of Chickamauga, slaves serving Confederate soldiers armed themselves and asked permission to join the fight—and when they received that permission they fought commendably. Their commander, Captain J. B. Briggs, later noted that these men “filled a portion of the line of advance as well as any company of the regiment” (J. H. Segars and Charles Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, Atlanta, GA: Southern Lion Books, 2001, p. 141)
One of the last Confederate charges of the day included the Fourth Tennessee Calvary, which participated dismounted in the assault. Among the troopers of the regiment were forty African Americans who had been serving as camp servants but who now demanded the right the participate in the last combat of the day. Captain J. B. Briggs gave his permission for them to join his command on the front line. Organized and equipped under Daniel McLemore, the personal servant of the colonel of the regiment, the black troops had collected dropped weapons from battlefields during the regiment’s campaigns. . . . (Steve Cottrell, Civil War in Tennessee, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2001, p. 94)
After the war, hundreds of African Americans received Confederate veterans’ pensions from Southern state governments (Segars and Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, Atlanta, GA: Southern Lion Books, pp. 73-100).
Down in Charleston, free blacks . . . declared that “our allegiance is due to South Carolina and in her defense, we will offer up our lives, and all that is dear to us.” Even slaves routinely expressed loyalty to their homeland, thousands serving the Confederate Army faithfully. (Taking A Stand: Portraits from the Southern Secession Movement, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania: White Mane Books, 2000, p. 112)
In the July 1919 issue of The Journal of Negro History, Charles S. Wesley discussed the issue of blacks in the Confederate army: The loyalty of the slave in guarding home and family during his master’s absence has long been eloquently orated. The Negroes’ loyalty extended itself even to service in the Confederate army. Believing their land invaded by hostile foes, slaves eagerly offered themselves for service in actual warfare. . . .
At the outbreak of the war, an observer in Charleston noted the war-time preparations and called particular attention to “the thousand Negroes who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees.” In the same city, one of the daily papers stated in early January that 150 free colored men had offered their services to the Confederate Government, and at Memphis a recruiting office was opened. In June 1861 the Legislature of Tennessee authorized Governor Harris to receive into the state military service all male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty and to provide them with eight dollars a month, clothing, and rations. . . . In the same state, under the command of Confederate officers, marched a procession of several hundred colored men carrying shovels, axes, and blankets. The observer adds, “they were brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs.” A paper in Lynchburg, Virginia, commenting on the enlistment of seventy free Negroes to fight for the defense of the State, concluded with “three cheers for the patriotic Negroes of Lynchburg.”
Two weeks after the firing on Fort Sumter, several companies of volunteers of color passed through Augusta, Georgia, on their way to Virginia to engage in actual war. . . . In November of the same year, a military review was held in New Orleans, where twenty-eight thousand troops passed before Governor Moore, General Lowell, and General Ruggles. The line of march extended beyond seven miles and included one regiment comprised of 1,400 free colored men. (In Segars and Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, pp. 2-4)
"Negroes in the Confederate Army," Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesle, Vol. 4, #3, [1919,] 244-245 - "Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia."
"The part of Adams' Brigade that the 42nd Indiana was facing were the 'Louisiana Tigers.' This name was given to Colonel Gibson's 13th Louisiana Infantry, which included five companies of 'Avegno Zouaves' who still were wearing their once dashing traditional blue jackets, red caps and red baggy trousers. These five Zouaves companies were made up of Irish, Dutch, Negroes, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Italians." - Noe, Kenneth W., Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 2001. [page 270]
The 85th Indiana Volunteer Infantry reported to the Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette that on 5 March 1863: "During the fight the [artillery] battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by [*in italics*] two rebel negro regiments. [*end italics*]."
After the action at Missionary Ridge, Commissary Sergeant William F. Ruby forwarded a casualty list written in camp at Ringgold, Georgia about 29 November 1863, to William S. Lingle for publication. Ruby's letter was partially reprinted in the Lafayette Daily Courier for 8 December 1863: "Ruby says among the rebel dead on the [Missionary] Ridge he saw a number of negroes in the Confederate uniform." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805: "There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day." Federal Official Records Series 1, Volume 15, Part 1, Pages 137-138
"Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLIX, Part II, pg. 253
April 6, 1865: "The rebels [Forrest] are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Miss., and the negroes are all enrolled in the State." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XIV, pg. 24, second paragraph -
In his book, Black Confederates and AfroYankees in Civil War Virginia, Ervin I. Jordan, a black historian, says that in June 1861 Tennessee became the first Confederate State to authorize the use of black soldiers. These soldiers were to be paid $18 a month and be provided with the same rations and clothing as white soldiers. Two regiments, he says, of blacks had appeared by September.
“They – the enemy – talked of having 9,000 men. They had 20 pieces of artillery, among which was the Richmond Howitzer battery manned by Negroes. Their wagons numbered sixty. Such is the information which our scouts gained from the people living on the ground where the enemy encamped. Their numbers are probably overrated, but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes I think the report is probably correct.” Col John W. Phelps 1st Vermont Infantry commanding Aug. 11, 1861. The War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol IV page 569
“We are not likely to use one Negro where the Rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the Rebellion.” Major General Samuel R Curtis 2nd Iowa Infantry Sept 29, 1862 The War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol XIII page 688
[Excerpt from letter to Abraham Lincoln] “I do and have believed we ought to use the colored people, after the rebels commenced to use them against us.” Thomas H Hicks, Senator, Maryland Sept 1863) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series III, Vol 3 page 768
“We pursued them closely for 7 miles and captured 4 privates of Goldsby’s company and 3 colored men, mounted and armed, with 7 horses and 5 mules with equipments and 20 Austrian rifles.” Brigadier General Alexander Asboth US Army District of West Florida Aug 1864) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 35 page 442
“We have turned up 11 bushwhackers to dry and one rebel negro.” Captain P.L. Powers 47th Missouri Infantry, Company H November 1864) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 41 page 670
“The Rebels are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Mississippi, and the negroes are all enrolled in the state.” Major A.M. Jackson 10th US colored heavy artillery April 1865) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 49 page 253
Moot point, since I'm not saying everyone in the North was the good guys.
You are trying to perpetuate the myth of the virtuous North.
An offer he never made good on.
An offer the other side did not accept.
Which is totally irrelevant because the 1850s and 1860s are the era we're discussing.
uhhh check those dates again. Connnecticut 1854. NY still had a few slaves as of 1860. New Jersey still had "apprentices for life" as of 1860.
I've answered your nonsense about the Corbomite Maneuver above. As far as not voting to abolish slavery prior to 1865, the Republicans were only formed in 1856 and didn't have the votes to pass abolition in all states until 1865. Until then, they had to deal with Union states who still had slavery as well as the impatient abolitionists.
You've been unable to refute the truth of the fact that the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment - ie the Corwin Amendment. You've also been unable to refute the fact that the Republicans were not abolitionists and Lincoln was not an abolitionist. They made that clear to one and all numerous times.
1858, 1860, 1864. 1865, slavery abolished.
The Republicans as of 1860-61 were not abolitionists and made that clear to everybody. They were perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever so long as the Northern states kept getting a big fat share of the profits.
More comments from slave owning Democrats. Let's look them up, shall we? Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, a Democrat who supported the right to own slaves, and who fell out of favor with the South when he called for cooperation with the North after the CW.
Irrelevant what he said/did AFTER the war.
General Patrick Cleburne sided with the South for no other reason than it was his homeland. For once you have a credible source, as he didn't support slavery, and was one of those who called for offering slaves their freedom in return for fighting for the Confederacy. Here's more on his proposal and how the Confederacy's leaders responded. You did your cause no favors by bringing him up.
If it's any consolation, you showed what I have already said, which is that not everyone in the South supported slavery.
Other than that, you threw a lot of quotes from JD at me, but I have his actions and his lack of action on one of your favorite arguments to prove my point.
Patrick Cleburne was but one of many prominent Southerners along with Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis and many more who made it perfectly clear they were not fighting over slavery.
Jefferson Davis did all he could as president to secure the Southern states' Independence. He made plain that they were not fighting over slavery.
It wasn't my original point, but you have demonstrated to be from your defense that it most certainly was a breeding program.You claimed from the start that there was a breeding program. You have failed to demonstrate that. In fact, I have shown that there wasn't.
After all, they were the ones who ensured the slaves could only breed within the plantation, and either kept their children as live stock or sold them. That is the definition of a breeding program. That was definitely how the slave owners saw it.
Nope! Your desperate attempt to move the goalposts has failed. What you describe is slavery, not a breeding program. There was no breeding program.
I guess that depends on your definition of "hardly any". I'll grant that there were likely more than I originally estimated, but it was still less than 10% of the total number of blacks, and less than 20% of the total number of escaped slaves, that served in the Union's forces. You have yet to prove that wrong, no matter how many times you post the same snippets.
Weasel attempt noted. There were tens of thousands of Black Confederates. That's what I maintained from the start. Your attempt to compare it to the union army is a red herring. We weren't talking about the Union army, we were talking about Black Confederates. You denied that there were tens of thousands as I've shown. You were wrong.
And many blacks who served in the Confederacy's military were forced to do chores that were little different than the services slaves performed for their masters anyway.
Some were in support/logistics roles. What do you think most of them were in the union army?
While some Yanks treated contrabands with a degree of equity and benevolence, the more typical response was indifference, contempt, and cruelty. Soon after Union forces captured Port Royal, South Carolina, in November 1861, a private described an incident there that made him 'ashamed of America': 'About 8-10 soldiers from the New York 47th chased some Negro women but they escaped, so they took a Negro girl about 7-9 years old, and raped her.' From Virginia a Connecticut soldier wrote that some men of his regiment had taken 'two nigger wenches [women] . . . turned them upon their heads, and put tobacco, chips, sticks, lighted cigars and sand into their behinds.' Even when Billy Yank welcomed the contrabands, he often did so from utilitarian rather than humanitarian motives. 'Officers and men are having an easy time,' wrote a Maine soldier from occupied Louisiana in 1862. 'We have Negroes to do all fatigue work, cooking and washing clothes.'" (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 497)
This brings up another problem with your narrative. If so many blacks were already willing to serve in the Confederate forces, why did the Confederate leaders even need to consider offering freedom in return for fighting for the Confederacy?
Many were but they wanted to access more manpower. Its not hard to figure out they'd have a manpower shortage given the total White population of the Southern states at that time was only about 5.5 million while the Northern states had a total White population of about 23 million.
You rightfully rant against what little of this is true yet excuse the people who owned slaves and patronized a system that killed many as "products of their time".
Its all true and more. I don't excuse slavery and don't like it. I do however recognize that slavery had long been legal everywhere in the world including America. Murder such as what John Brown and his terrorists engaged in was never legal.
Bull. Many were slaves that were fighting for their freedom.
John Brown and those with him? They were terrorists. They were not looking to help slaves escape. They were looking to commit murder. Nat Turner ditto. They didn't try to escape. They just murdered a bunch of people including a whole bunch of kids who hadn't done any harm to anybody.
According to your logic, the Allies who killed German and Japanese children were also terrorists who "were looking to and did commit murder of innocent people".The indiscriminate bombing of entire cities was awful. It was however within the laws of war at the time - and note that the Axis did it to Warsaw and Rotterdam and London, Coventry, Shanghai and Nanking first.
Let's just ignore that the majority of states had already abolished slavery within their borders as did the nations the Democrats were trying to pander to with fake offers of abolition, or 1858, 1860, and 1864.
Let's admit that a majority of Northern states at that time had never had slavery. Let's further admit that Republicans were not abolitionists and did not support abolition until very late in the war. That would be honest.
Why would I care to know about a liberal writer? Unless you're talking about another McPherson. Maybe you should clarify which McPherson it is I'm supposed to read up on. Remember, we're talking about a leftist writer, not a general in the Civil War.
We're talking about the chief PC Revisionist. One of the guys who came up with the "all about slavery" myth and pushed it in Academia starting in the 1980s.
He needs to read the numerous newspaper editorials propaganda, statements lies by Southern slave owning political leaders, and rejection of the Corwin amendment by the seceding majority of the Union states to see it was not about preserving something that was not threatened in the US anyway according to the Confederate leaders themselves.
He has no doubt read the truthful statements made by Southern and Northern Newspapers as well as the statements made by both Southern and Northern political leaders including the Corwin Amendment which was ratified by the Northern dominated Congress, ratified by multiple Northern states and offered by Lincoln in his inaugural address, as well as the resolution stating that they were not fighting over slavery passed by the US Congress but ignored it all to push his false Leftist "all about slavery" propaganda. Why? Because it suits his Leftist politics. The others who push that myth do so for the same reasons.
Fixing all of your errors was a lot of work, but FIFY.
Fixing all your lies, propaganda and BS is time consuming but quite enjoyable.
They just voted in enough Republicans, and voted out enough Democrats, to get it done, only nine years after the Republican party was founded. But it was by accident, or qwerty ergo typo or whatever Latin you keep trying to impress us with.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a standard logical fallacy which means "after this therefore because of this". ie just because they later supported abolition does not mean they supported it earlier - as you keep trying to claim.
The rest of your post full of repeats snipped. Once again, we'll examine your sources. Senator Robert Toombs, a Democrat slave owner. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, see above. Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, see above.,/P>
OMG! You mean I actually quoted some Southern as well as Northern political leaders???? Gasp! You've got me there!
The Leftist plant here is you. You're the one who is pushing Leftist PC Revisionist dogma from the PCers twisted reading of history. You're the one pushing the "all about slavery" myth from PCer's twisted reading of history and ignoring of key fact/quotes that do not support their narrative. They of course did this to denigrate states' rights, glorify centralized power and try to smear the South which they correctly identify as the heart of the modern Conservative movement.
FIFY.