Those other amendments didn't have the immediate issue of secession and a possible civil war pushing them. The Corbomite Maneuver did, and the states with plenty of time to ratify them said no instead, even knowing it meant secession and a civil war.
Repeats of accusations from Democrat slave owners and slavery defenders including Senator Robert Toombs, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, and of course Jefferson Davis snipped.
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
I'd argue with "many" trying to preserve it
It was ratified with those protections for slavery by the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy.
and their constitution was no different from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
Except the Confederacy's Constitution was ratified by the contemporary leaders with the protections for slavery included, while the protections in the US Constitution were inherited by the Republicans, who ultimately abolished them.
And nothing you posted changes the fact that the Confederacy's leaders could have left the protections for slavery out, which would have left abolition on the table, but their goal was to protect slavery.
FAlSE! The irrefutable fact is they took concrete steps to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery had Britain/France agreed.
Another "would have" and "maybe" that proves nothing, but that you have built your case on. A concrete step would have been to abolish slavery, then ask for aid. What did they have to lose?
Did the US offer to do so during the war? Nope.
Funny how you accuse the North of violating the US Constitution's protections for slavery and the fugitive slave act on one hand, then post comments like this. How leftist of you.
Anyway, besides the "crimes" above, the Republicans voted to abolish slavery in 1864 but were blocked by the Democrats who saw slavery as a states' rights issue.
Repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats accusations from Democrat slave owners and slavery defenders including Senator Robert Toombs, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, and of cours Jefferson Davis snipped again.
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.
A real Conservative wouldn't give a Democrat slave owner the credibility of Eric Swallwell when he denied it.
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....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.
The Republicans had to walk the line between people who were against outright abolition and the impatient abolitionists. In just a few years they got the votes they needed to abolish slavery.
Repeats snipped.
LOL! S-T-R-E-T-C-H. Virginia never said it was "about" slavery.
They said it was about the treatment of the slave holding states, not the agricultural states, not the cotton states, the slave holding states.
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.
I didn't say that, the writers of Georgia's statement of secession did.
Repeat of FLT-Bird trying to wiggle out of the Confederacy's own words snipped.
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.
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?"
He also committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the native people in areas his army conquered just like Hitler.
That was an unfortunate side effect as a result of, what? I'll let the Confederacy tell you.
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?"
He also loved centralized power and hated states' rights just like Hitler.
Like the centralized power to abolish slavery on a national level, and the states' rights to own slaves. In fact, the Democrats in the North tried to block abolition on the grounds that it was a states' rights issue.
Two can play at this childish game.
No one can play childish games better than you.
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.
Limited the ability of the federal government to abolish slavery, and explicitly protected to right of states to own slaves, both deliberate and ratified by the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy.
seven hundred [Confederate] Negro infantry
seven black Confederate soldiers as prisoners
two black Confederate soldiers took part in Pickett’s charge
At the outbreak of the war, an observer in Charleston noted the war-time preparations and called particular attention to “the thousand Negroes who...marched a procession of several hundred colored men carrying shovels, axes, and blankets Now where did I read this before? Oh, yeah. Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
Anyway, back to the numbers.
comprised of 1,400 free colored men. (In Segars and Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, pp. 2-4)
Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesle, Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia
Two regiments, he says, of blacks had appeared by September. Confederate regiment = 1000
They – the enemy – talked of having 9,000 men...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.
company and 3 colored men
If we take all of the snippets where numbers were given together and assume the "talk" of 9,000 men was accurate (which was in doubt as noted) and they were all black (which wasn't said), assume that "several hundred" was 1,000, and if we assume some of these weren't referring to the same groups, we have a total of 14,182. That is less than 20% of the number of slaves who escaped and joined the Union forces, and less than 10% of the overall numbers of blacks who served in the Union forces.
the Illinois Daily State Journal, a staunchly Republican newspaper
Proof of your characterization please?
Taking A Stand: Portraits from the Southern Secession Movement, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania: White Mane Books, 2000, p. 112)
"Taking a stand" on secession? No bias there.
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.
You gave your evidence above, and even if we took all of them at face value you didn't even make it to 15,000.
You are trying to perpetuate the myth of the virtuous North...(later) 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 have acknowledged time and time again that not everyone in the North was with the good guys. You can't refute what I have said, so you keep falling back to that strawman.
An offer the other side did not accept.
Why should they, when JD did nothing to show he would free the slaves? I know you're going to reply with he sent so and so to offer such and such, but if he had delivered it would have impressed a lot of people. And to that you will reply but he couldn't just abolish slavery, but according to you he was offering to do just that.
You've been unable to refute the truth of the fact that the North offered nothing.
Irrelevant what he said/did AFTER the war.
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. Better?
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.
Maybe they weren't personally, but the Confederacy on a whole said it was about slavery.
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.
You have proven by your denial that it was. A breeding program is breeding animals within a closed environment and either using or selling the offspring. I have even posted the description. You grant all of this but say it was slavery, not a breeding program, but that's what slavery includes from the slave owner's point of view. They saw the children of the slaves on their plantation as livestock they could either use as beasts or burden or sell. That's exactly what a breeding program is.
Another snippet from your favorite leftists author McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom snipped.
Yes I know blacks faced discrimination in the North and there were some bad guys in the Union forces, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of blacks who served in the CW served in the Union forces.
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.
But if we're to believe your sources going back to 1861, black slaves were already willing to follow their masters into war. That is the case you keep trying to make, but then you run and hide from it when it conflicts with your narrative here.
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.
I don't excuse his rash actions either, but slavery was legal because the nation said it was. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make the slave owners any less complicit.
John Brown and those with him? They were terrorists. They were not looking to help slaves escape. They were looking to commit murder.
What about all of the children who were abducted and bought by slave owners as slaves, or the children born on plantations. What did they do to deserve their fait?
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.
Nat Turner was a slave who led a rebellion against slave owners. Calling a slave fighting for his freedom a terrorist is something only a racist, or a leftist acting as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look like racists, would do.
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.
I'll meet you halfway.
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.
Wow, he must be pretty old to have written the declarations of secession and the Confederate Constitution.
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.
How much of what follows was written by modern leftists?
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.
Show me one modern leftist source in all of the text I just posted.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a standard logical fallacy which means "after this therefore because of this".
I know what it means. You're no fun.
ie just because they later supported abolition does not mean they supported it earlier - as you keep trying to claim.
Except they did. The party was founded by abolitionists, they said it in their platform in 1858, and Lincoln said the nation can't survive being half slave and half free. According to you and as you put it, they refused to enforce fugitive slave laws. Your Democrats got the message because they cited all of this as the reason for secession.
OMG! You mean I actually quoted some Southern as well as Northern political leaders???? Gasp! You've got me there!
The important point is you quoted Democrat slave owners. They could have been from the North Pole and it wouldn't have made any difference.
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.
This is coming from an entity that defended the KKK, a group targeting blacks and Republicans because they didn't want to live in a world where blacks had the same rights they did, in post 755 by saying this: The KKK was initially a response to the terrorism of the Union League during the Occupation.
Now we can see who's posing as a Conservative to make Conservatives look like racists.
They didn't say no. They just hadn't gotten around to passing them yet. You certainly don't know if they would have said no had the original 7 seceding states agreed to the North's slavery forever constitutional Amendment.
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."
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……”
It was ratified with those protections for slavery by the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy.
You mean the constitution that did not differ from the US Constitution in that respect was ratified? Yes it was. That doesn't prove your point though. The CSA Constitution was the same as the US constitution on most matters.
Except the Confederacy's Constitution was ratified by the contemporary leaders with the protections for slavery included, while the protections in the US Constitution were inherited by the Republicans, who ultimately abolished them.
The Confederate delegates inherited all the same traditions and the same constitution. They modified it wrt more explicitly limiting the power of the central government. They just copied the rest of the US Constitution. Clearly their focus was in limiting the power of the central government.
And nothing you posted changes the fact that the Confederacy's leaders could have left the protections for slavery out, which would have left abolition on the table, but their goal was to protect slavery.
And nothing you've posted changes the fact that the Confederacy's leaders kept the same constitution and only made changes to limit the power of the central government. Ergo, this was their focus, not anything else.
Another "would have" and "maybe" that proves nothing, but that you have built your case on. A concrete step would have been to abolish slavery, then ask for aid. What did they have to lose?
No would have. They did expressly authorize their ambassador with plenipotentiary power. They took a concrete step to do so.
Funny how you accuse the North of violating the US Constitution's protections for slavery and the fugitive slave act on one hand, then post comments like this. How leftist of you.
Funny how you fail to notice that it was the Northern states which violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. But trying to make strawman arguments is a standard leftist tactic.
Anyway, besides the "crimes" above, the Republicans voted to abolish slavery in 1864 but were blocked by the Democrats who saw slavery as a states' rights issue.
The Republicans didn't make any serious move to abolish slavery until after the war.
A real Conservative wouldn't give a Democrat slave owner the credibility of Eric Swallwell when he denied it.
I hate to break this to you but the overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers of America were slave owners. A real conservative would know that.
The Republicans had to walk the line between people who were against outright abolition and the impatient abolitionists. In just a few years they got the votes they needed to abolish slavery.,/p>
The Republicans didn't "walk any line". They were expressly not abolitionists and said so again and again. They did not start favoring abolition until very late in the war.
They said it was about the treatment of the slave holding states, not the agricultural states, not the cotton states, the slave holding states.A common shorthand at the time for the Southern states.
repeats snipped
I didn't say that, the writers of Georgia's statement of secession did.
They also said this:
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……”
repeats snipped
The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them...It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." -General Patrick Cleburne
“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
That was an unfortunate side effect as a result of, what? I'll let the Confederacy tell you.
Lincoln committed ethnic cleansing and genocide of native people - specifically the Santee Sioux and the nearby Winnebago. Members of his administration snapped up real estate that was formerly part of their reservation at knock down prices and immediately flipped that land for huge profits.
repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats of 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)
Like the centralized power to abolish slavery on a national level, and the states' rights to own slaves. In fact, the Democrats in the North tried to block abolition on the grounds that it was a states' rights issue.
Except Lincoln not only did not try to abolish slavery on a national level, but he orchestrated passage of a constitutional amendment to expressly protect slavery effectively forever. He also promised to strengthen fugitive slave laws. So your little fantasy that Lincoln was some kind of abolitionist has been exposed. He was perfectly willing to protect slavery.
Two can play at this childish game.
Indeed they can.
No one can play childish games better than you.
800+ pages into it I'd say you're quite accomplished at playing childish games.
Limited the ability of the federal government to abolish slavery, and explicitly protected to right of states to own slaves, both deliberate and ratified by the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy.
Ah, but this is false. Just more of your deliberate lies. The US Constitution did not grant the power to abolish slavery to the federal government. The differences between the US Constitution and the Confederate Constitution revolved around limiting the ability of the central government to spend money, making pork barrel spending impossible, limiting the ability of the Confederate Congress to spend money on things like corporate subsidies, etc for the "general welfare" and allowing states in the CSA to remove corrupt officials of the central government. Notice the lack of any differences wrt slavery.
At the outbreak of the war, an observer in Charleston noted the war-time preparations and called particular attention to “the thousand Negroes who...marched a procession of several hundred colored men carrying shovels, axes, and blankets Now where did I read this before? Oh, yeah. Black Confederates: Truth and Legend Anyway, back to the numbers. comprised of 1,400 free colored men. (In Segars and Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, pp. 2-4) Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesle, Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia Two regiments, he says, of blacks had appeared by September. Confederate regiment = 1000 They – the enemy – talked of having 9,000 men...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. company and 3 colored men If we take all of the snippets where numbers were given together and assume the "talk" of 9,000 men was accurate (which was in doubt as noted) and they were all black (which wasn't said), assume that "several hundred" was 1,000, and if we assume some of these weren't referring to the same groups, we have a total of 14,182. That is less than 20% of the number of slaves who escaped and joined the Union forces, and less than 10% of the overall numbers of blacks who served in the Union forces.
I provided numerous examples of hundreds and even thousands of Black Confederates observed by Union army sources and in the official Union Army record or in Northern newspapers. There were tens of thousands of Black Confederates contrary to your claims otherwise. How many served in the Union army is a red herring. I never questioned or disputed that. You specifically did claim Blacks did not serve in the Confederate army or at least not in any large numbers until the very end. You were wrong.
You gave your evidence above, and even if we took all of them at face value you didn't even make it to 15,000.
I overwhelmingly listed union sources and we're well beyond 10,000. My point that there were tens of thousands of Black Confederates is proven.
Why should they, when JD did nothing to show he would free the slaves? I know you're going to reply with he sent so and so to offer such and such, but if he had delivered it would have impressed a lot of people. And to that you will reply but he couldn't just abolish slavery, but according to you he was offering to do just that.
But he did do something. He and the Confederate Congress vested their ambassador with plenipotentiary power. That is all anyone would need to see to know that his offer was made in good faith.
You've been unable to refute the truth of the fact that the North offered nothing.
False. I've shown the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. You've been unable to refute that.
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. Better?
irrelevant.
Maybe they weren't personally, but the Confederacy on a whole said it was about slavery.
No they didn't.
You have proven by your denial that it was. A breeding program is breeding animals within a closed environment and either using or selling the offspring. I have even posted the description. You grant all of this but say it was slavery, not a breeding program, but that's what slavery includes from the slave owner's point of view. They saw the children of the slaves on their plantation as livestock they could either use as beasts or burden or sell. That's exactly what a breeding program is.
Nope! Weasel attempt noted. You claimed there was a specific breeding program - not merely slavery. There was not in fact any kind of breeding program. It was not as one would breed horses or cattle matching up the best bulls and the best cows to produce physically superior offspring. Nor were baby factories or the equivalent like Lebensborn for example set up. What there was was usually marriages among Blacks like there was among Whites.
Another snippet from your favorite leftists author McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom snipped.
He's a PC Revisionist. He's on YOUR side on this one - not mine.
But if we're to believe your sources going back to 1861, black slaves were already willing to follow their masters into war. That is the case you keep trying to make, but then you run and hide from it when it conflicts with your narrative here.
Huh? I never "ran and hid" from the fact that many Blacks served in the Confederate Army. In fact I've shown numerous examples of it after you tried to deny it.
I don't excuse his rash actions either, but slavery was legal because the nation said it was. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make the slave owners any less complicit.
You're trying to judge people who lived in the 17th-19th century with a moral understanding that nobody in the world had when slavery started in the 13 colonies and which only some of the West had by the 1860s. Obviously nobody in the West is going to approve of slavery today but times were very different then. Thus I'm far less quick to judge the people of that time by modern moral standards.
What about all of the children who were abducted and bought by slave owners as slaves, or the children born on plantations. What did they do to deserve their fait?
Who's arguing for the morality of slavery? Nobody.
Nat Turner was a slave who led a rebellion against slave owners. Calling a slave fighting for his freedom a terrorist is something only a racist, or a leftist acting as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look like racists, would do.
Except he wasn't "fighting for his freedom". He and his followers didn't flee and only fight back against those pursuing/attacking them. They went out and murdered a whole bunch of civilians including a LOT of little kids who had not done anything to them and who were no threat to them. Only a moral degenerate would try to make excuses for this.
Wow, he must be pretty old to have written the declarations of secession and the Confederate Constitution.
As we've discussed, the declarations of the causes of secession made by only 4 of the seceding states provided the legal basis for saying the Northern states had violated the constitution. 3 of those 4 went on at length to talk about other causes even though these causes were not unconstitutional. The 5 states of the Upper South which seceded did not do so until Lincoln started his war of aggression for money and empire.
How much of what follows was written by modern leftists? repeats snipped
About as much of the following was written by modern leftists:
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
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……”
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.
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.
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 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.
Show me one modern leftist source in all of the text I just posted.
Show me one in the text I just posted.
Except they did. The party was founded by abolitionists, they said it in their platform in 1858, and Lincoln said the nation can't survive being half slave and half free. According to you and as you put it, they refused to enforce fugitive slave laws. Your Democrats got the message because they cited all of this as the reason for secession.
Except they didn't. They were not abolitionists and said so many many times. Here is yet another example during the war.
"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . . 'I think Sumner [abolitionist Charles Sumner] and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way,' he told the Radicals. . . . 'We didn't go into this war to put down slavery . . . and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith.' Vindication of the president's view came a few weeks later, when the Massachusetts state Republican convention--perhaps the most Radical party organization in the North--defeated a resolution endorsing Fremont's proclamation." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76, emphasis added)
The important point is you quoted Democrat slave owners. They could have been from the North Pole and it wouldn't have made any difference.
I also quoted Republican non slave owners.
This is coming from an entity that defended the KKK, a group targeting blacks and Republicans because they didn't want to live in a world where blacks had the same rights they did, in post 755 by saying this: The KKK was initially a response to the terrorism of the Union League during the Occupation.
Try to grasp that the KKK has had multiple incarnations and that they were not all the same. Initially they were a resistance movement that arose to fight Northern tyranny and terrorism. That organization died out. The KKK you are thinking of is the post Birth of a Nation version whose driving motivation was to be anti Black. That was a different animal.
Now we can see who's posing as a Conservative to make Conservatives look like racists.
Now we can see who is a complete ignoramus who doesn't know must about history - and who foolishly sides with anti Conservative PC Revisionist Leftists in Academia.