Replies

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.

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.

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.

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...."

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.

"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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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....In the spring of 1862 the United States Government sent an expedition of five thousand men under Colonel William Weer, 10th Kansas Infantry, into the Indian Territory to drive out the Confederate forces of Pike and Cooper, and to restore the refugee Indians to their homes."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

So what? That does not mean they wouldn't have had it been clear that passing it would mean the original 7 seceding states would come back in.

No I did not. I posted the editorial opinions of several of the leading newspapers. Several of those Northern Newspapers were Republican. Feel free to look them up.

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.

Here we go again with the childish Hitler references. :rolleyes: Plenty of the leading politicians and newspapers at the time said it was not about slavery and that was true of the North, the South and the Foreign observers. Are we to suppose they were all just lying?

Correct! They real motivations as demonstrated by their actions make it clear slavery was not their big concern.

No it wouldn't have been unconstitutional. The original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Northern dominated Congress and President both ratified/endorsed slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Northern dominated Congress passed a resolution stating clearly that they were not fighting over slavery. President Davis empowered an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery. Obviously slavery was not the primary concern of either side.

repeats snipped

Yes, let's see what they were saying:

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

the Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett 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.

"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/

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.

Exactly backwards. The North explicitly stated they were not fighting over slavery and offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. It is the revisionists who are the ones who say secession and the War of Northern Aggression were about slavery.

You're clearly living in fantasyland. Firstly the op ed writers were not just individuals with their own opinions. They and their newspapers represented powerful interests....interests which were very influential both on the people and directly on politicians themselves. Secondly any claim that they somehow did not mean exactly what they clearly stated are laughable.

Two different times and totally different issues. Industry is not concentrated in one part of the country and agriculture in another now as it was then.

It was New England which imported the slaves....and which imported a lot of cheap labor from Europe to fill their factories.

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

You mean editorials in Northern newspapers which urged waging a war of aggression on the Southern states? That was Lincoln's position. That would hardly have been censored.

This directly proves MY point. LOL! You're welcome for bringing it up. Northern industrialists and corporate fatcats wanted war. (this was before censorship was imposed anyway...and of course Lincoln adopted the policy they advocated so they would hardly have been censored anyway).

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

The North wanted to jack them sky high in order to line their own industry's pockets at the expense of the South.

LOL! Its "cherry picked" when it doesn't say something YOU happen to like - old tactic of the Court Historians/PC Revisionists.

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

Yes, there were papers in the North that advocated letting the Southern states go in peace. That's when....feeling threatened by the certain loss of money, the Northern Establishment stepped in and started advocating for war.

I've posted the sources they came from and the dates. You can look it up for yourself. Insisting that I also hunt down a link (which may or may not even exist) for each quote is a classic example of trolling 101 - send your opponent on wild goose chases and no matter what he brings back, claim its not good enough and he needs to waste more of his time. The key is no matter what, no evidence he produces can ever be deemed good enough. Hopefully he's dense enough to think there is any evidence you would ever accept.

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.

LOL! See above answer. Your effort at trolling has failed.

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?

Your trolling effort still fails.

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.

Looks like you've got a lot of searching to do. Snap to it.

Uhh....what? The Southern states wanted lower tariffs. They were not getting nearly as much from the federal government in terms of corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects anyway. The fact that they would have allowed for some tariffs however small they were does not mean they were perfectly fine with sky high tariffs. Get a clue.

Read the date. Secession hadn't happened yet. The paper was making it clear the economic losses the North would suffer if the South did declare independence.

Robert Barnwell Rhett said... Who cares?

A lot of Southerners cared. He was a very influential political leader who is often called "The father of secession".

Senator Robert Toombs said... Who cares?,/P>

A lot of Southerners cared. He was a leading Southern Senator and he authored much of the Georgia declaration of causes - especially those parts laying out their economic grievances.

repeats snipped

My point is nobody is going to do that unless they are getting some major tangible benefit like oh....I dunno....foreign military aid. I'm not surprised you were incapable of grasping that point. Acting like disrupting their economy during a major was was "nothing to lose" is laughable. England and France knew both sides were not fighting over slavery as numerous English editorials and commentators made quite clear.

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.So your position is that they could have given something away at great cost to themselves during a war of national survival and then therefore they could have offered....what exactly? in exchange for British and French recognition and military aid. Your claims make zero sense and are just laughable on their face.

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

Nope. They didn't even consider much less attempt to get rid of slavery until very late in the war. In fact, the Republicans including Lincoln were opposed to it.

They were founded by abolitionists.,/P>

No they weren't.

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.,/P>

The denial of this makes me believe you're a Democrat PC Revisionist posing as a conservative. Nobody who actually studied the real history would claim that they went to war to put down slavery. By the way....nobody condemned freeing the slaves. Pitiful try.

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.

He could clearly see what both sides were fighting for - and it wasn't slavery.

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

they were perfectly clear that they were willing to protect slavery forever and that they were not fighting to get rid of slavery.

Every Western country has a history of having abolished slavery. The Republicans eventually decided to do so late in the war in order to try to give the blood bath they started a fig leaf of morality when it was really just a war for money and empire. The same people committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians for the same reasons - money and empire - shortly afterward.

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

No you did not. The Southern states had nothing to do with Lincoln's ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Lakota and Winnebago in Minnesota. Nor were Southerners running the show when the same generals acting on behalf of the same Northern corporate interest committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians shortly after the war. As for the Trail of Tears, you tried to blame that on Southerners and failed yet again given that it was the US federal government which did it.

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.

You call "cherry picking" anything that disagrees with your dogma. Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy.

you are wrong on every count. The protections of slavery in the US constitution were explicit. The Confederate Constitution did not preclude abolishing slavery and in fact, the Confederate government took steps to do so. Finally, Confederate political leaders did not "design their constitution from the ground up". They simply carried over the vast majority of it unchanged from the US constitution.

We've already established that isn't true. I'll repost the link.,/P>

We've already established this is true. Its just inconvenient for you.

Oh my gosh! There was fighting on the frontier and in the Western territories! Say it ain't so! Duh. It was war at that point after Lincoln started it. Of course there was fighting all over the place.

Your claims here are false - as usual. The South didn't commit the atrocities against the Indians the Lincoln administration did. They didn't do anything of the kind Lincoln did during the war. Obviously after the war Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were running things. They were the ones responsible for the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Plains Indians. As for before the war, the most you can claim is that the Southern states were part of the US when the US federal government committed ethnic cleansing against several tribes in the Southeast.

repeats snipped

These provisions were no different than what the US constitution allowed and they did not bar states that had already abolished slavery from joining the CSA nor did they prevent any state from abolishing slavery in the future if they wished.

I was quoting your source. I don't know what the full story is.,/p>

clearly

I have substantiated my sources and furthermore I've done so numerous times. I see you cling to your ridiculous claims that anything you don't like is somehow "cherry picked".

its an outside point of view. There were points of view that were neither Northern nor Southern. It gives us more perspective to read them.,/P>

I'm sick of your disingenuous claims that the op eds, quotes, etc I posted are "cherry picked" when its quite clear what they are saying. I'm also sick of your dishonest claims that I haven't substantiated my sources when I've done so voluminously.

You said "The Southern states did not." That has been refuted.,/P>

No it hasn't.

My "logic" is the factual reality. He didn't. He was already dead. Therefore claims that he did are factually false.

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.

There's nothing laughable about noting your fellow PC Revisionists are LEFTISTS in Academia. Its obvious why they and their fellow travelers push this LEFTIST anti Southern dogma.

Besides, you're the one who is smearing the South by associating it with the Confederacy and in effect slavery.

No I'm not. The South was of course associated with the Confederacy. The Confederacy did not form to protect slavery and did not fight for its independence to protect slavery which was not threatened in the first place.

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.

It in no way diminishes those in the South who wanted to get rid of slavery to point out the accurate fact that the Southern states did not secede over slavery and were not fighting over slavery. "Won't defend abolitionists"??? More of your made up BS.

The only thing that associates the modern South with the Confederacy is by choice.,/P>

More than choice. History and Heritage as well.

I substantiated many thousands from Union eyewitness accounts. Why would Union sources lie about it? Exact counts are of course impossible. Nineteenth century record keeping is not up to modern standards.

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.

I proved my case. I demonstrated that there were many thousands of Black Confederates from Union sources alone.

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

No its not. Its historical reality.

As always, the truth is much more complex. Some were forced. Some volunteered. Some Blacks were freedmen and worked for the Confederate Army for wages (in wartime there are often not many other jobs to go around). Some of them were childhood playmates and lifelong friends of the White Southerners they accompanied. Some were literally family. And while the Confederate Congress did not want Blacks serving in the Confederate Army, they had no choice. They had to accept the regiments from each state and if a state chose to admit Blacks then they were part of the regiment and that was it. Multiple Southern states did exactly that. Furthermore, Confederate officers in the field often simply ignored the Confederate Congress back in Richmond and employed any Blacks freedman or slave, who would join them. The Confederate Army had plenty of Blacks from the start.

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

The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

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

The Northern dominated Congress passed a resolution early on explicitly stating that they were not fighting to abolish slavery. They had several slave states still in the union for goodness sake.

Writer Charles Dickens said... Who cares?

Anybody interested in gaining some perspective.

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.

But it is stating historical facts.

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?

Without the South, the modern conservative movement is simply dead. The South is the heart of it. I'm not trying to drive a wedge into the conservative movement. You are by constantly demonizing the South and its culture and history.

Nobody is saying slavery is good. What I've said is these people do not have my sympathy because instead of simply trying to run away and gain their freedom they instead chose to murder completely innocent people.

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

Yeah and nobody in the US would agree with slavery being allowed, women not having the vote, ethnic minorities not having the vote, gays being severely punished, Indians murdered and ethnically cleansed, etc etc. What's your point? Its a different world now but our history and heritage is still what it is. Most of it is good but there are parts that are awful.

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.

"collateral damage". Disgusting. I reject that out of hand. It is not morally defensible to deliberate slaughter defenseless little kids. It wasn't remotely necessary and didn't help anyone.

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.

that doesn't make the deliberate cold blooded murder of children excusable. Especially when it was unnecessary and didn't help anybody.

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?

they weren't so "backwards" as the PCers like to claim. That was the world at that time.

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?

Why should anyone who sold slaves or who profited from the labor of slaves be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains? Yet there are a lot of slave profits that formed the basis of the Ivy League and many large Northern corporations.

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

False. The KKK arose as a response to the Union league and the corrupt Northern military governments.