Replies

You're the one who is assuming it would have been ratified.

No I'm not. I'm simply saying them not passing it immediately does not mean you can assume they never would have. You are the one assuming here.

I'm reporting what did happen, which that even with secession and a possible civil war, and even with the same amount of time as the five states who did ratify it, they didn't. Those are the facts, no assumptions on my part are needed.

Nobody has ever disputed that. You claimed this was somehow proof that they had positively rejected it and would not ratify it in the future. That is hardly a credible assumption on your part though I can see how it would be convenient for you to think so.

The only fact you presented here is that a Democrat slave owner said it wasn't about slavery. By now we have established that the Democrats knew how the institution of slavery looked to other western nations and were trying to distance themselves from it. No one was fooled then, and no one today is gullible enough to believe that bull...oh wait.

We have statements from the leaders and the newspapers at the time on both sides plainly saying it was not about slavery. Are we to believe some PC Revisionists 150+ years later know what the real motivations of both sides were rather than the people themselves? Ridiculous.

First, these are op-eds, not official statements of policy.,/p>

Yes they were op eds but they are reflective of what many were thinking. Lincoln made similar comments such as when he told a Pennsylvania audience on the campaign trail that the tariff was THE most important thing or when he told Southern peace commissioners "what about my tariff" and that without all the money the northern states were squeezing out of the South, he'd have to shut down his "housekeeping" (ie federal expenditures) at once.

Of course, as a leftist you posted snippets of the op-eds rather than links to the sources themselves.

You're the one spouting Leftist political dogma about how it was "all about slavery" and I've posted tons of links and sources. Feel free to look up any of the links and sources I've cited.

Manchester Union Democrat, February 19, 1861 "Let Them Go" This was an op-ed which started out with "Some of our Republican friends affect to be very indifferent to the secession of the Southern states. "Let them go—we can get along very well without them."" That in itself refutes the point you're trying to make, at least with this op-ed. The rest was the author's opinion of why that was wrong.

There wasn't unanimity of opinion on either side. There were those in the North who said they should let the Southern states go in peace. Remember, there was a reason Lincoln imposed censorship - unconstitutionally - and seized printing presses and shut down newspapers.

New York Evening Post, March 12, 1861 "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?" The author suggested treating products coming from ports in the South as contraband unless the duties were paid. Nothing in this called for a civil war to force the South to rejoin the Union.

From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?" "That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad.... If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop......Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports. ---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.

LOL! This directly proves my point. Thanks for bringing it up.

I couldn't find any reference to your last op-ed from The Philadelphia Press, 18 March 1861, so I'll leave it to you to prove its authenticity.

Oh well, if you can't find it then it therefore must be fake. LOL! There are plenty more.

The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched." New York Times March 30, 1861

On the very eve of war, March 18, 1861, the Boston Transcript wrote: If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon the imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties….The…[government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against.

December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: "In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860

On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."

"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually." - Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860

repeats snipped

Robert Barnwell Rhett….South Carolina attorney general (1832), U.S. Representative (1837–1849), and U.S. Senator (1850–1852) Address of South Carolina 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.

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." Anti-tariff sentiments also appeared in Georgia's Secession Declaration of January 29, 1861:

"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

It's amazing that you're admitting I'm right even as you deny it. Yes, they carried over everything, including protections for slavery. They could have left the explicit protections for slavery out, which would not have forced them to abolish slavery but would have given them that option. They didn't because their intention was to protect slavery.

Its amazing you act as though carrying everything except the things that really concerned them over from the US Constitution means they "specifically designed it from the ground up" to support slavery. The reality was their concern was in checking the power of the central government and limiting its ability to spend money. Their main concern was not slavery. They did nothing to strengthen protections of slavery. You give the union a complete free pass for the exact same thing you condemn the Confederacy for. Yet somehow you fail to notice the massive hypocrisy not to mention the irony of your position.

Once again you evade my point, which is that they could have abolished slavery to impress the nations they were trying to get aid from. What did they have to lose besides their slave labor which if we're to believe you they were willing to give up anyway?

Once again you evade my point which is that no country is going to impose wrenching economic change on itself right in the middle of a war of national survival. They were willing to abolish slavery if that would secure their independence. They were not willing to risk economic disruption in the middle of a fight to the death just to virtue signal.

I know the other nations did not agree. Why should they, when they had the reading comprehension to understand the Democrats' own statements and documents?

They had the reading comprehension to understand the Confederate Ambassador had been granted plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery? We would have to assume they could read and did understand this.

All but a few had abolished slavery altogether.

In their own states but that does not mean they supported abolishing it in other states.

1858, 1860 (according to the Democrats), 1864.The Republicans were not abolitionists until very late in the war.

The truth is the North refused to enforce the fugitive slave laws, as even the Declarations of Secession pointed out.

Yes some Northern states certainly did violate the constitution.

repeats snipped

“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/ “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA

I would if they had followed through, but they didn't. Just like everything else you've built your case on.

They did follow through. They vested their ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery. They undertook this good faith gesture to show they were serious.

Why do I need to care what a bunch of lying, slave owning Democrats said?

Why do I need care what a bunch of lying corporate fatcat backed Northern Republicans said? The answer why we need care what the principal actors at the time said is that is evidence of their intent and it is evidence as to what people who supported them thought. It is much better evidence than a bunch of Leftists in Academia think 150+ years later.

Ah so now you try to shift it from the North and Lincoln to "this country". Then you try to make some lame excuse about how the South reserved the same right to do that. The fact is that Lincoln and the North did do that.

The whole country was complicit in slavery and profiteering off of slavery. That includes everybody from yes, the Southern slave owner to the Northern slave trader who was part of the slave trade industry, to the Northern mill owners and ship builders and bankers and insurers who profited from servicing Southern exports produced in part by slave labor to the Northern corporations who got federal subsidies and who got government subsidies for contracts for infrastructure projects paid for by tariffs on imports owned by Southerners. No matter how much you would like to, you cannot cast off the North's part in slavery and project that all exclusively onto the South.

False! From Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War, "In the fall of 1861, Colonel Douglas H. Cooper, commanding the department of Indian operations under authority from the Confederate Government, made several ineffectual efforts to have a conference with the old chief of for the purpose of effecting a peaceful settlement of the difficulties that were dividing the nation into two hostile camps. Finding Hopoeithleyhola unwavering in his loyalty to the United States, Colonel Cooper determined to force him into submission, destroy his power, or drive him out of the country, and at once commenced collecting forces, composed mostly of white troops, to attack him. In November and December, 1861, the battles of Chusto Talasah and Chustenhlah were fought, and the loyal Indians finally were defeated and forced to retire to Kansas in midwinter."

LOL! You wanna try to compare fighting in the Western territories between warriors to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of entire tribes - not to mention the only mass execution in American history after ridiculous show trials - conducted by the US federal government against the Lakota Sioux and even the peaceful Winnebago in Minnesota? What a joke. By the way, the Confederacy actually had a native American general, Stand Watie. The Union certainly didn't.

the position of the Cherokee as well as most of the tribes in Oklahoma was quite clear.

Declaration by the people of the Cherokee nation of the causes which have impelled them to unite their fortunes with those of the Confederate States of America

Disclaiming any intention to invade the northern states, they [Southerners] sought only to repel the invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted in the Declaration of American Independence on which the right of Northern states themselves to self government is formed, and altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties...

But in the Northern states the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In the states which still adhered to the Union a military despotism had displaced civilian power and the laws became silent with arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right of habeas corpus guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a secretary of state or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the chief justice of the Supreme Court [who had declared that the president had no right to suspend habeas corpus] was set at naught by the military power and this outrage on common right approved by a president sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men....

Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past to complain of some of the Southern states, they cannot but feel that their interests and destiny are inseparably connected to those of the South. The war now waging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the states, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those states and utterly change the nature of the general government."

I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, since searching for the truth isn't high on your list of priorities anyway.

Hilarious coming from you who has posted one Leftist PC Revisionist lie after another while trying to explain away the truth.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due. (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.

In other words, the provisions of the Confederate constitution in this were exactly the same as the US Constitution.

And although the Confederacy did not expand for obvious reason during the war, the land they were defending was also stolen from the native tribes, so they were every bit as guilty as the North would be.

LOL! Laughable BS. The CSA did not order a mass execution of Indians after show trials. Nor did it commit ethnic cleansing and genocide of native peoples. Nor did government officials line their own pockets in the process. All of those things are true of the Lincoln administration during the war.

I have better things to do than to invest time in works from writers who say what you want to hear, but I found this snippet interesting. "In August 1862, after suffering decades of hardship, broken treaties, and relentless encroachment on their land, the Dakota leader Little Crow reluctantly agreed that his people must go to war. After six weeks of fighting, the uprising was smashed, thousands of Indians were taken prisoner by the US army, and 303 Dakotas were sentenced to death. President Lincoln, embroiled in the most devastating period of the Civil War, personally intervened to save the lives of 265 of the condemned men, but in the end, 38 Dakota men would be hanged in the largest government-sanctioned execution in U.S. history."

WOW! He "Only" allowed 38 Indians to be executed in "trials" that lasted on average TEN MINUTES EACH. Clearly he's a great humanitarian for that. Its also typical of you that you refuse to read anything that is contrary to the dogma you so desperately want to believe.

I could but for what? To hear what someone who says what you want to hear has to say about what Lincoln would have done if he hadn't been assassinated? Why not just tell me what point is being made before I invest an hour into watching this?

Its a British perspective on this rather than the PC Revisionist dogma you were spoonfed in the government schools. It contains several inconvenient facts. I can see why you run in terror from it.

Not that I need to. The link I posted above destroys your narrative anyway.

Not even close....not that you'd know because you refuse to read or watch anything that is inconvenient for the propaganda you want to cling to.

Lincoln was assassinated before he could see it through, but not before he and the Republicans passed abolition and sent it to the states for ratification.

So he didn't end slavery as you claimed.

Because the original seceding states turned down the North's slavery forever constitutional amendment.

FIFY

Rachel Dolezal is black, Rachel Levine is a woman, and the Democrats weren't the party of slavery. That's dishonest PC Revisionist dogma.

the war was "about" slavery and the North fought to free slaves. Those are PC Revisionist lies elevated to the level of religious dogma among fellow Leftists like you.

I know. Even after I gave you the last word twice you wouldn't stop. You leftists are going to try to tie your slaveholding past to the right for as long as you can.

You Leftists are going to try to push this "all about slavery" myth and are going to try to smear the South because you know the South is the heart of the modern conservative movement. You wish to equate any disagreement with leftism as being somehow racist or in favor of slavery.

Nope, these were my first two posts on this

At bare minimum you claimed there were extremely few. I proved form Union army accounts the number of Black Confederates ran well into 5 figures.

You substantiated less than 6,000. If we gave all of your numbers the benefit of the doubt you still didn't make it to 15,000.

I demonstrated many thousands by the Union army's own accounts.

Even with that number, that's a fraction of the slaves that escaped to join the Union's forces. OBTW, that's also a fraction of the whites who left the South to join the Union's forces.

Of course you neglect to mention many Blacks were literally forced to join the Union army. Many others were effectively conscripted by hunger.

He had every reason to lie. The Democrats knew how their views on slavery looked to the rest of the western world, as shown by their "offer" to abolish slavery in return for military aid. They knew they had to make it about something other than slavery.

They didn't have to do anything. The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Everybody could see the North was not fighting to abolish slavery. They still practiced slavery and they said they were not fighting to abolish slavery themselves.

"For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse provided only that the seceding states re-enter the Union.....Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!" London Quarterly Review 1862

“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale. As to secession being rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing. Massachusetts now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede again and again.” Charles Dickens.

"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." --Charles Dickens, 1862

"The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." --London Spectator, 1862

The English, abolitionists though they were, were especially good at sniffing out northern hypocrisy on the slavery issue. An 1862 editorial in an English journal commented, “They (the Northern white men) do not love the Negro as a fellow-man; they pity him as a victim of wrong. They will plead his cause; they will not tolerate his company.”

Go ahead and spin your lame excuses. The English must have hated the federal government or New England. It was all bad motive on their part. Yes it was true that Lincoln repeatedly said they were not fighting over slavery and the Northern dominated US Congress passed a resolution expressly stating that they were not fighting over slavery and yes they themselves still had slaves and yes they offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and yes they were expressly not abolitionists before the war and that therefore slavery was not threatened....but it was "all about" slavery. We know. Case closed. We have determined it and will not hear of anything to the contrary!". That's the standard Leftist argument.

Cool! Then I can give the servers a break and count on the readers to see my last post for the many occurrences of Southerners Democrats saying about how it was not about preserving slavery.

FIFY

Thank you for admitting that slavery included breeding slaves to be worked or sold as animals. I know it's hard for you to admit that since it was the Democrats who did it, which makes your confession even more impressive.

Thanks for showing once again that you were wrong and are now lying. You haven't provided a single example of slaves being bred as livestock. I've provided lots of evidence of slaves being married. Yet you continue to lie and claim there was some kind of "breeding program" despite your continuing failure to provide any evidence for it.

This is clearly an attack on conservatives that has nothing to do with pinning slavery on the Democrats.

No its not. How is stating the historical FACTS in this case some kind of attack on conservatives?

And calling the South the heart of the modern Conservative move is more divisive than anything. There are a lot of red areas in the North that are unfortunately decided by over populated cities and voter fraud. They might be on your side if secession happened again, but you just want to write them off.

Look at elections going back decades and decades. Without the South, Republicans hardly win anything since Ronald Reagan. With all those electoral votes, both Bushes (yes I'm sickened by them too) and Trump won. The South is the absolute heart of the modern conservative movement. The South has always been conservative. It has always stuck to the values of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, they were overwhelmingly Southerners themselves.

But then again, as a leftist, your goal is to split Conservatives up, isn't it? Hammering a 160 year old wedge between us would do just that, wouldn't it?,/P>

He said as he repeated the "all about slavery" myth pushed by PC Revisionists.

I'm not sure where you get that. Nat Turner and his band tried to hide but were caught. Denmark Vesey's rebellion was found out and put own before it started.,/P>

You obviously haven't read about it. They didn't sneak away in the middle of the night. They crept into people's homes and murdered them - including the little kids.

No one is promoting collective guilt. As I have said several times, the only thing tying the modern South with the Confederacy is by your choice.

The modern South IS absolutely tied to the South of 160 years ago. That is part of its history every bit as much as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Patrick Henry, George Mason and all the rest of the Founding generation.

How many children died as a direct result of slavery, or lived their entire lives in slavery?

and this excuses deliberately murdering little children how?

I know you'll reply with "but some Northern states had slavery too". Very true and I won't excuse them, but in the end they abolished slavery, while the Democrats running the South held on to them until forced to give them up, and the Democrats in the North tried to prevent abolition.

The Northern states gave it up slowly with some still having slaves in 1860. The Southern states weren't far behind as Western countries go. Several European countries only abolished slavery during the war or soon thereafter. Multiple countries in the Americas did not abolish slavery until years later. Russia did not abolish serfdom until 1861.

Except the Union was against abolition or something, according to you. You can't have it both ways.

They voted against abolition. However they also refused to prosecute open sponsors of terrorism. They also maliciously refused to provide border security to Texas as their accession treaty required.

From Texas: 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.

Yep. I mean that. They acted maliciously and supported terrorism in the Southern States. Had they been actually trying to solve the problem in a civilized fashion as was done in other Western countries, they would have sat down and agreed to a compensated emancipation scheme. Instead they moralized, acted holier than Thou (nevermind their own sordid history), preached, hurled constant insults at Southerners, engaged in partisan legislation with the distinct purpose of trying to inflict harm upon them....in short they acted just like Leftists today, many of whom come from New England. You can see exactly where that kind of behavior came from.

I'm not sure what you hoped to get out of that, though. As I said, the KKK wasted no time attacking Republicans and blacks. They were unwilling to share political power and resorted to intimidation and violence to keep blacks from the polls.

What I'm showing is that there was in addition to disenfranchisment of most of the voters, military occupation, corrupt governments of carpetbaggers and Blacks they manipulated, terrorism by the Union League and the like in addition to massive theft from Southerners. Did the KKK and other such groups arise and inflict counter violence and counter terrorism of their own? Yes. What does anybody expect given such abuses? That was the whole point of the congressional report I posted. Here it is again

Had the Republicans not used their victory and their monopoly of political power to line the pockets of the thousands of political hacks and hangers on who were the backbone of the party (the "carpetbaggers") the Ku Klux Klan would never have existed. This in fact was the conclusion of the minority report of an 1870 congressional commission that investigated the Klan. "Had there been no wanton oppression in the South," the congressmen wrote, "there would have been no Ku Kluxism" (Congressman Fernando Wood, "Alleged Ku Klux Outrages" published by the Congressional Globe Printing Office, 1871, p. 5). The report continued that when southern whites saw that "what little they had saved from the ravages of war was being confiscated by taxation . . . many of them took the law into their own hands and did deeds of violence . . . . history shows that bad government will make bad citizens."

No I'm not. I'm simply saying them not passing it immediately does not mean you can assume they never would have. You are the one assuming here.

I'm stating the facts, which are:
The rest of the states had as much time as the five that did pass it.
There were the issues of secession and the threat of civil war pushing its passage.
With all of that, the states did not ratify it.

The only thing that has to be assumed is that they would have ratified that amendment.

Repeats snipped.

We have statements from the leaders and the newspapers at the time on both sides plainly saying it was not about slavery.

You posted comments from Democrat leaders from both the South and North who supported slavery while trying to say it wasn't about slavery, and some op-eds, many of which refute the points you're trying to make as we'll discuss shortly.

Are we to believe some PC Revisionists 150+ years later know what the real motivations of both sides were rather than the people themselves?

Hitler said in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939. He knew what his motovations were too, but that doesn't prove he wasn't lying.

I know you're going to cry to your mommy about how I called you Hitler again, but the point here is that we don't have to believe them when we can see from their actions what their real motivations were.

After you're done maoning and groaning about how I called you Hitler, you'll reply with some nonsense about how JD gave someone plenty of potent power to abolish slavery, which they never made good on, and which would have been unconstitutional according to the Constitution THEY had written anyway.

So what were the Democrat's intentions when they weren't trying to garner sympathy from others? Let's find out, shall we?

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?"

So forget what everyone said, because the Democrats never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so. It's the revisionists who are the ones who say secession and the CW weren't about slavery.

Waste of bandwidth repeats snipped.

Yes they were op eds but they are reflective of what many were thinking.

Ignoring the fact that the op-ed writers were speaking for themselves, as we saw by actually reading the entire op-ed rather than the snippets you posted, the writer himself was admitting the exact opposite.

Lincoln made similar comments such as when he told a Pennsylvania audience on the campaign trail that the tariff was THE most important thing or when he told Southern peace commissioners "what about my tariff" and that without all the money the northern states were squeezing out of the South, he'd have to shut down his "housekeeping" (ie federal expenditures) at once.

Those of us who opposed our free trade deals with the communists made many of the the same comments on tarriffs on foreign made goods, but were overruled by the free traitors who wanted the cheaper goods. How has that worked out?

Coincidentally or maybe not coincidentally, the Democrats running the Confederacy and the free traitors both relied on cheaper slave labor to lower the prices. The only difference is the Democrats imported the slaves while the free traitors exported the plantations.

Funny how you've managed to find plenty to sources from the North that you think support your position during this censorship.

From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?" "That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states..." LOL! This directly proves my point. Thanks for bringing it up.

Everyone used tarriffs on imported goods, including the Confederacy. There is no gotcha here.

Once again, you posted cherry picked excerpts to prove your point, which is a common tactic among the Confederacy Amen Corner and other Democrats. Here is the link so the readers can see everything rather than just what you want them to see.

Manchester Union Democrat, February 19, 1861 "Let Them Go"

Oh well, if you can't find it then it therefore must be fake. LOL! There are plenty more.

It is completely reasonable to expect you to provide the sources of the op-eds so we can read the entire op-ed, rather than just the excerpts you want us to see. For all we know you could be making them up. The fact that you won't post any links proves more about your motives than the Union's.

It came as no surprise to me that you posted even more snippets of op-eds rather than links to the op-eds themselve so we could see the entire context. Once again, I had to do your job for you.

The Great Question. New York Times March 30, 1861

Called for tarriffs.

March 18, 1861 Boston Transcript If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy...

I couldn't find this op-ed anywhere, so I'll leave it to you to prove it was really written. A link to the full op-ed will do. That shouldn't be a problem for you if it's real, should it?

or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860

Ditto, I couldn't find the full op-ed anywhere, so I'll leave it to you to prove it was really written.

Yes, the Confederacy also relied on tarriffs on imports and taxes on exports to raise revenue. They were doing the same thing you accuse the Union of doing. So much for your claim they were for free trade.

This op-ed called for tarriffs, not war.

Democrat, slave owning Robert Barnwell Rhett said...

Who cares?

Democrat, slave owning Senator Robert Toombs said...

Who cares?

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.

Once again you evade my point which is that no country is going to impose wrenching economic change on itself right in the middle of a war of national survival.

Your point is that they were offering to do that exactly that, yet now you want to defend them for not doing it. If they couldn't abolish slavery then their offer was a lie. If they could, then they had nothing to lose by following through because they were losing anyway. They never followed through because, as England and France knew, they seceeded and were fighting to preserve slavery. No amount of phony offers could change that.

Either they could have abolished slavery ot they couldn't. If they couldn't then this offer meant nothing. If they could, they they could have done it to prove their intentions to the other countries. You can't have it both ways.

In their own states but that does not mean they supported abolishing it in other states.

Nope, they only did abolish slavery after trying but being blocked by Democrats while the war was still going on

But they didn't mean to. It just happened.

The Republicans were not abolitionists until very late in the war.

They were founded by abolitionists.

Yes some Northern states certainly did violate the constitution.

Comments like this are what make me believe you're a Democrat plant posing as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look bad. No real Conservative would condemn freeing slaves.

JD, who in 1858 asserted that secession was a justifiable response to the election of abolitionists, said...

Who cares?

Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne of the CSA said...

In all fairness, Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne was no fan of slavery, but he was still toeing the company line when it came to what the Democrats were or weren't fighting for.

Why do I need care what a bunch of lying corporate fatcat backed Northern Republicans said?

Because they followed through and voted to abolish slavery twice, once while the war was still going on.

The whole country was complicit in slavery and profiteering off of slavery.

This country also has the history of having abolished slavery, which the Republicans accomplished and which the Democrats tried to prevent for "states' rights", their words. You choose to associate with the latter, or more likely you're associating Conservatives with the latter.

No, I only PROVED that you were wrong when you said "The Southern states did not." They did.

By the way, the Confederacy actually had a native American general, Stand Watie. The Union certainly didn't.

General Ely S. Parker.

the position of the Cherokee as well as most of the tribes in Oklahoma was quite clear. Declaration by the people of the Cherokee nation of the causes which have impelled them to unite their fortunes with those of the Confederate States of America

Once again you cherry pick what you think will support what you want to believe, but as usual there's more to this than you're posting.

The Cherokee Nation was involved in its own civil war. While many joined with the Confederacy, some as well as many other tribes sided with the Union.

In other words, the provisions of the Confederate constitution in this were exactly the same as the US Constitution.

Yes, but there's a difference. The US Constitution's protections were implicit and were inherited and later abolished by the Republicans, while the explicit protections in the Democrat written Confederate's constitution were written by the contemporary leaders of the time. They could have left the explicit protections out, which would not have required them to abolish slavery, but would have given them that option if they needed military help and wanted to give their diplomats plenty of potent power to abolish slavery. They didn't because it was their intention to protect slavery.

We've already established that isn't true. I'll repost the link.

This is what the Confederacy managed to find time to do while they were fighting for their existence, yet you want me to believe the couldn't just free their slaves.

All of those things are true of the Lincoln administration during the war.

And your proof is an author and a blogger who say what you want to hear.

Not that I'll deny the point that atrocities occurred were committed against Native Americans by this nation, but your claim that the South "didn't" is clearly false. They were in on it before the war, during the war, and after, and their own constitution reserved the right to allow for slavery in the territories that would be grabbed later. I'll post it again so you can stop pretending the South was innocent on this.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

(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.

WOW! He "Only" allowed 38 Indians to be executed in "trials" that lasted on average TEN MINUTES EACH. Clearly he's a great humanitarian for that.

I was quoting your source. I don't know what the full story is.

Its also typical of you that you refuse to read anything that is contrary to the dogma you so desperately want to believe.

Maybe it's because I'm sick of your sources with their cherry picked quotes that ignore the entire context. We also saw this with your op-eds earlier. We aren't under any obligation to accept your sources when you're not prepared to substantiate them.

But let me repeat what I said before you got us started on another roller coaster ride. "No one denies what this country did to the native tribes. The Confederacy reserved the same right to take land and make them slave holding states. Everyone who chooses to live in this country and take advantage of its freedoms benefits from that. If that sounds horrible, then I made my point."

Its a British perspective on this...

Why do I need to care what the British perspective, when they have their own history of conquest, ethnic cleansing, and everything else? In fact, they were in on stealing the land from the Native Americans long before the Republicans were even formed.

rather than the PC Revisionist dogma you were spoonfed in the government schools.

The "government schools" I went to made it clear this country did commit atrocities against Native Americans, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

It contains several inconvenient facts. I can see why you run in terror from it.

All of your sources contain cherry picked facts that are usually posted out of context, and I'm sick of having to parse through your lies of omission. My sources are the full documents and speeches, which I have posted links to so you can examine the whole thing. I only asked the same of you with those op-eds.

If your point is that the South is not guilty of atrocities against Native Americans, I have already refuted that.

Not even close....not that you'd know because you refuse to read or watch anything that is inconvenient for the propaganda you want to cling to.

You said "The Southern states did not." That has been refuted.

So he didn't end slavery as you claimed.

He didn't get to finish the job, because a Confederate sympathizer who couldn't stand the thought of blacks having the same rights as whites assassinated him. I guess FDR really didn't win WWII because he didn't live to see it through either, according to your "logic".

You Leftists are going to try to push this "all about slavery" myth and are going to try to smear the South because you know the South is the heart of the modern conservative movement.

Now that coming from you is almost laughable, considering you just referred to a book bashing Republicans from a book seller that blocked Conservatives throughout 2020 to help Biden get elected.

Besides, you're the one who is smearing the South by associating it with the Confederacy and in effect slavery. What's worse, it diminishes the abolitionists from the South who opposed slavery. Funny how you are willing to defend slave owners who paid to have others kill and capture blacks for slavery, but you won't defend the abolitionists who fought back. But then again, being a lefty yourself, that's what you're trying to make Conservatives look like.

The only thing that associates the modern South with the Confederacy is by choice.

At bare minimum you claimed there were extremely few.

So I see you're moving on from your error that I said there were none, and now saying there were very few. "Very few" is relative anyway.

Here again is what I said.
441
489

I proved form Union army accounts the number of Black Confederates ran well into 5 figures.

You proved no such thing. You substantiated about 6,000, and that is if we give your sources the benefit of the doubt that they were able to count them and get accurate numbers, something even the South can't do.

If we throw in the 9,000 which we could rightfully refuse to do since it only said they "talked of having 9,000 men" and only said "but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes" and assumed the talk was correct and all but a few were black, you still only made it to less than 15,000, five figures but still far less than who fought for the Union.

Of course you neglect to mention many Blacks were literally forced to join the Union army. Many others were effectively conscripted by hunger.

Your post is an insult to blacks like those reported on in 6 Black Heroes of the Civil War

And I suppose those escaped slaves were forced to escape the comforts of the Democrat run Confederacy and join the Union forces.

But your claim does ring a bell, so let me check.

Oh yes, here it is. From Black Confederates: Truth and Legend, "Some black Southerners aided the Confederacy. Most of these were forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines. Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army--they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers."

Projection, another leftist tactic.

They didn't have to do anything.

You're right. Once they were defeated and enough Democrats were replaced with Republicans, the Republicans abolished slavery for them.

The North offered nothing. It was never ratified, and it's only an assumption that it would have been.

Everybody could see the North was not fighting to abolish slavery.

They only did it, a year after being blocked by the Democrats in 1864.

The British Empire said...

Who cares?

Fiction writer Charles Dickens said...

Who cares?

These 22 Unbelievable Ads For American Slaves From The 19th Century Will Infuriate You

I know you're going to point to the first image and say "gotcha", but I never claimed everyone in the North was innocent even as late as 1861, this was a warning to fugitive slaves to keep them from being captured, and this was BEFORE the Republican party was even formed.

No its not. How is stating the historical FACTS in this case some kind of attack on conservatives?

Because he wasn't stating historical facts as far as I'm concerned. He was tying slavery to Conservatives, as you're trying to do.

A lot of votes for Trump came from the North and Midwest. Driving a wedge between them and the South will only hurt the Conservative movement, but that's what you're trying to do anyway, isn't it?

You obviously haven't read about it. They didn't sneak away in the middle of the night. They crept into people's homes and murdered them - including the little kids.

Maybe the slave owners should have thought of what could happen to their children if they bought people who were sold into slavery against their will, just like the Germans and Japanese should have thought about their children getting killed before starting WWII.

The modern South IS absolutely tied to the South of 160 years ago.

No one in the South today would agree with the following:

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.

and this (How many children died as a direct result of slavery, or lived their entire lives in slavery) excuses deliberately murdering little children how?

They were collateral damage that resulted from the actions of the slave owners who participated in forcing people into slavery against their will, and those deaths were entirely their fault.

I know you're going to post your outrage in reply to "They were collateral damage" part, so I'll reply now. If you attempt to kidnap someone and your kids are killed as a result, that was your fault.

I know you're also going to come back with "The Founding Fathers". As you and I have agreed, while they had their flaws, they also created the government that would abolish those flaws.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the South didn't give up slavery until forced by defeat to do so?

Why should anyone who bought slaves knowing they were enslaved against their will be entitled to any compensation? Is this your idea of a justification?

What I'm showing

I don't care what you're showing, because the KKK attacking blacks had nothing to do with any of the reasons you gave.