"That does not mean" doesn't prove anything. The fact that they didn't ratify it even with the pressing issues of secession and a possible civil war, even though they had the same amount of time as the five that did, proves everything.
No I did not. I posted the editorial opinions of several of the leading newspapers.
You posted cherry picked snippets that you think prove your point, without posting links so we can review the entire context or even substantiate they're authentic. What few I was able to find refuted the points your were trying to make.
Several of those Northern Newspapers were Republican. Feel free to look them up.
Why do I need to prove your point? You're the one who posted these snippets in an attempt to prove your point, so you look them up.
Here we go again with the childish Hitler references. :rolleyes:
Here we go with the moaning and groaning about being called Hitler instead of replying directly to the point, which is that just because JD knew what his motivations were when he said it, we don't have to conclude he wasn't lying.
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?
No. Many were just wrong. As we discussed earlier, many from England opposed the Confederacy but didn't think the Union was serious about abolishing slavery. They were wrong.
Correct! They real motivations as demonstrated by their actions make it clear slavery was not their big concern.
What actions? Sending a diplomat with plenty of potent power to AGREE to abolish slavery which never happened? Offering slaves their freedom if they fought for the Confederacy, but only if their masters would approve? Voting against abolition over "states' rights"? No, the Democrat's actions are full of examples of avoiding freeing slaves, and the only thing that freed them was the total defeat of the Democrats in the South, and elections in the North that replaced the Democrats with Republicans.
No it wouldn't have been unconstitutional. The original 7 seceding states turned down nothing.
The Northern dominated Congress and President both ratified/endorsed slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
It was never ratified. It was passed by Congress and signed by a Democrat president. Many of them were looking for new jobs the following year.
The Northern dominated Congress passed a resolution stating clearly that they were not fighting over slavery.
Once again, you cherry pick your facts without looking at the whole picture. The Union passed this resolution after the shock of suffering a major loss in the Battle of Bull Run. Once they got over the shock, they repealed it later that year.
President Davis empowered an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery.
Did he give him plenty of potent power to abolish it himself, or just agree to do it?
Yes, let's see what they were saying:
Here we go again.
Democrat, slave owning Senator Robert Toombs said...
Who cares?
Democrat Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said...
Am I supposed to care that slave labor was tariffed?
Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, who supported the right to own slaves and called for an amendment to protect slavery, said...
Who cares?
President Jefferson Davis, who said in 1858 that secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, said...
Who cares?
Democrat, slave owning Robert Barnwell Rhett said...
Who cares?
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.
You can't even substantiate them or show the entire op-eds, yet you want us to that accept they prove your point.
Secondly any claim that they somehow did not mean exactly what they clearly stated are laughable.
The problem is we can't be sure what they stated, because you cherry picked the snippets that said what you wanted to hear without posting links to the entire op-eds for context. You posted a snippet from one op-ed as if it was the popular view, but by reading the entire op-ed we found it turned out to be the exact opposite.
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.
Totally irrelevant. The fact is that in the cases of both the Democrat run Confederacy and the free traitors, they relied on slave labor to drive down prices. The results of the former were catastrophic enough, and the results of the latter could be far worse.
It was New England which imported the slaves....
Ignoring the fact that it ended before the time period we're discussing, did New England force the South to buy their slaves, or was that the result of "consumer demand" on the part of the slave holding states? You defend the Confederacy in the same way readers of child porn defend their actions. "I wasn't the one who took those pictures." Replace "pictures" with "slaves", same defense.
and which imported a lot of cheap labor from Europe to fill their factories.
You mean the people who chose to come over here in search of a better life?
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.
So far, what little you posted from the North that I was able to substantiate supported tariffs, not going to war.
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).
Show me where this op-ed (What shall be done for a revenue) called for war. It called for tariffs, as every other nation including the Confederacy did for revenue.
The North wanted to jack them sky high in order to line their own industry's pockets at the expense of the South.
Everyone whose goods are hit with tariffs says that. Even if true, am I supposed to feel sorry for nations that use slave labor when their goods are hit with tariffs? Spoiler alert, I don't care.
LOL! Its "cherry picked" when it doesn't say something YOU happen to like - old tactic of the Court Historians/PC Revisionists.
Then post links to the entire op-eds to prove that they said what you want them to say.
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.
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?"
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.
Translation, you can't substantiate your sources.
Looks like you've got a lot of searching to do. Snap to it.
Why do I have to prove the veracity of your sources? You posted these excerpts, now prove they're real and show us the full context.
Repeats snipped.
Uhh....what? The Southern states wanted lower tariffs.
Who doesn't when their own goods are hit with 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.
What would you say is too high? For example, what rate did the Union tariff Confederate goods that you think is too high?
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.
Then I guess we can drop your reference from this discussion since you now say it's totally irrelevant.
A lot of Southerners cared. He was a very influential political leader who is often called "The father of secession"
So? Am I supposed to care what a bunch of slave owners think?
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.
You mean like this?
Lying about one's intentions would fall well within "to the last extremity".
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 don't care what your point is. They knew how slavery looked to the nations they were trying to get aid from, which is why they, well, they didn't really do anything but talk about freeing their slaves.
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 didn't have anywhere enough seats to even try to pass abolition until 1864 (eight years after they were formed), and even then they were blocked by the Democrats from passing abolition over "states' rights", the Democrats words.
No they weren't (founded by abolitionists).
Cassius Clay wasn't an abolitionist? OK.
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.
They only did it.
By the way....nobody condemned freeing the slaves. Pitiful try.
From your previous post, "Yes some Northern states certainly did violate the constitution." I'll let you tell us whether you condemn or agree with the Northern states who freed them.
He could clearly see what both sides were fighting for - and it wasn't slavery.
they were perfectly clear that they were willing to protect slavery forever and that they were not fighting to get rid of slavery.
They never did the former, and they did the latter.
Every Western country has a history of having abolished slavery.
Except the Democrat run Confederacy.
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.
I never said they had anything to do with any of Lincoln's actions, but they committed their own atrocities against Native Americans, so your statement "The Southern states did not." is wrong.
Repeats snipped.
You call "cherry picking" anything that disagrees with your dogma. Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy.
Pointing to tribes that joined with the Confederacy while ignoring that other tribes joined the Union is practically the definition of cherry picking.
What's worse, you say the civilized tribes sided with the Confederacy? What would you call the tribes that didn't? A certain slur that I've heard applied to Native Americans? If you aren't a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad, then you need to go back to Richmond in 1861 where your views were accepted.
you are wrong on every count. The protections of slavery in the US constitution were explicit.
I'll let you have this, but it doesn't help your case anyway.
The Confederate Constitution did not preclude abolishing slavery and in fact
Maybe not at the state level, but in fact...
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.
the Confederate government took steps to do so.
Yawn, here you go with your "they gave their diplomat plenty of potent power to agree to abolish slavery" nothing again.
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.
Once again you avoid the point, which is that they were writing a brand new constitution and, try to get this, could have left the explicit protections for slavery out repeat could have left the explicit protections for slavery out. That would not have required them to abolish slavery but would have given them that option if they ever intended to abolish slavery, which we all know the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy didn't.
There was fighting on the frontier and in the Western territories!
It was more than just fighting. They were atrocities committed against Native Americans by the Confederacy, something you said didn't happen. I'll share it again.
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."
Waste of bandwidth 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.
It would be nice if you would post the comment you are replying to, but it prevented the Confederacy's federal government from abolishing slavery.
clearly
Too bad I have no interest in reading the book or patronizing Amazon.
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.
Well their point of view was they didn't think the Union was serious about abolishing slavery. They were wrong.
My "logic" is the factual reality. He didn't. He was already dead. Therefore claims that he did are factually false.
WOW, it's amazing how far you're willing to go to defend the Democrats running the Confederacy, even to belittle the accomplishments of other Democrats.
BTW, I suppose those soldiers who died fighting Hitler and Tojo didn't win WWII, since they didn't live to see their downfall. Is that your point?
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.
I can hear FR's servers saying "Oh no, not again.", but here you are.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.
Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...
The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
From Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
From Texas
They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture...
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
From South Carolina
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
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?"
More than choice. History and Heritage as well.
The Southerners of today can cling to their past and heritage without having to associate with the Democrat slave owners.
I substantiated many thousands from Union eyewitness accounts.
We both agree there were thousands. If that's all you want to claim, we're done on this topic, next.
Why would Union sources lie about it? Exact counts are of course impossible. Nineteenth century record keeping is not up to modern standards.
You answered your own question.
No its not. Its historical reality.
Your idea of historical reality is the Confederacy was willing to abolish slavery even though they never did until forced by defeat to do so, and the Republicans had no intention of abolishing slavery but did it, just as the Confederacy said they would years earlier.
As always, the truth is much more complex.
Understandable considering most were forced by their masters to serve the Confedracy's military.
Anybody interested in gaining some perspective.
From a fiction writer who incorrectly thought the Union wouldn't abolish slavery? I wonder what Gene Roddenberry thought on this subject. Maybe I should get his perspective too.
But it is stating historical facts.
So now you're calling tying modern Conservatives to slavery historical facts.
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.
I suppose what just happened in Kansas is part of the Conservative movement.
Never mind the so called conservatives who signed the free trade deals that sent our manufacturing, wealth, and technology to a communist country that uses slave labor.
Yes I know the leftist companies are doing it too, but we were betrayed by many socalled Conservatives who came from the South.
As for my demonizing the South, nothing in my posts about the Democrat run Confederacy is a reflection of what I think of the modern South, any more than my condemnations of Hitler and Imperial Japan are reflections of the countries now.
The only thing that ties the modern South to the Democrat run Confederacy is choice.
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.
That's easy for you to say behind a computer screen. You weren't a slave who was forced to watch as his children were sold as animals to the highest bidder, and whose only way out was to fight his way out.
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.
I've made my point clear. The Democrat run Confederacy started and ended believing they had a right to forced slave labor. Even after they lost, they wouldn't let go and founded the KKK.
"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.
Reject it all you want. Millions of children died in Germany and Japan as a result of their leaders trying to conquer the world, and your freedom to sit safely behind a computer and post your nonsense is the result of that. If you reject that, then give up your freedom to keep posting on this topic.
Please note, I did not say the killing of those children was justified. I said it was the result of their nations' leaders' actions that they died, not the Allied bombers.
they weren't so "backwards" as the PCers like to claim. That was the world at that time.
Oh, they understood slavery was wrong and how their defense of slavery looked to other nations. I don't need the "PCers" to see that. You proved it yourself by constantly pointing out that they gave their diplomat plenty of potent power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery.
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.
No one running any of the corporations today had anything to do with the slavery of 160 years ago.
Of course many are guilty of the same thing by outsourcing their manufacturing to a communist nation that uses slave labor to make their products cheaper, but that's another debate.
False. The KKK arose as a response to the Union league and the corrupt Northern military governments.
That was just them painting their cause up in pretty language to cover their true goals, which was to maintain their perceived dominance over blacks.
Nope! It doesn't prove a thing other than that they did not pass it in the extremely limited time they had to pass a proposed constitutional amendment.
You posted cherry picked snippets that you think prove your point, without posting links so we can review the entire context or even substantiate they're authentic. What few I was able to find refuted the points your were trying to make.
LOL! Funny how every quote that is inconvenient to you is "cherry picked". Links? There aren't online links to many of these papers that were published - get this - 160 years ago. You can of course read various books and see where those sources are cited - but of course there aren't hotlinks in any of the books either so you'll probably claim that's not a valid citation either. LOL!
Why do I need to prove your point? You're the one who posted these snippets in an attempt to prove your point, so you look them up.
I have looked them up. I've also posted them and cited my sources. How hard is it for you to look up a certain newspaper and see if it was a Republican or Democrat paper if you're so curious? The answer is not hard at all. You just need to get to it.
Here we go with the moaning and groaning about being called Hitler instead of replying directly to the point, which is that just because JD knew what his motivations were when he said it, we don't have to conclude he wasn't lying.
Hitler references are so lazy, so trite that a term has been coined for them - Godwin's law. It is generally accepted that the first one to resort to Hitler/Nazi references has automatically lost the argument.
No. Many were just wrong. As we discussed earlier, many from England opposed the Confederacy but didn't think the Union was serious about abolishing slavery. They were wrong.
You believe they were wrong. They were giving their honest views which were that neither secession nor the war were about slavery. Many people at the time on both sides did not believe they were fighting over slavery. That speaks directly to motivations which is the whole point.
What actions? Sending a diplomat with plenty of potent power to AGREE to abolish slavery which never happened? Offering slaves their freedom if they fought for the Confederacy, but only if their masters would approve? Voting against abolition over "states' rights"? No, the Democrat's actions are full of examples of avoiding freeing slaves, and the only thing that freed them was the total defeat of the Democrats in the South, and elections in the North that replaced the Democrats with Republicans.
Actions like seceding in the first place when slavery was not threatened in the US. Actions like turning down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Actions like empowering an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery. Remember, they could have kept slavery by simply staying in the US. The Republicans - not being abolitionists - were more than happy to preserve slavery.
No it wouldn't have been unconstitutional. The original 7 seceding states turned down nothing.
False. They turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
It was never ratified. It was passed by Congress and signed by a Democrat president. Many of them were looking for new jobs the following year.
It was never ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was endorsed by Lincoln in his inaugural address. It had been orchestrated by Lincoln after all and introduced to the House and Senate by prominent Republicans.
Once again, you cherry pick your facts without looking at the whole picture. The Union passed this resolution after the shock of suffering a major loss in the Battle of Bull Run. Once they got over the shock, they repealed it later that year.
Once again you claim any inconvenient fact is "cherry picking" and try to gloss over the fact that it was exactly what I said it was. They passed a resolution stating that they were not fighting over slavery.
Did he give him plenty of potent power to abolish it himself, or just agree to do it?
you appear to not understand what plenipotentiary power is. Look it up.
Yes, let's see what they were saying: Here we go again. Senator Robert Toombs said... Who cares?
Anybody who looks at history and is intellectually honest?
Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said... Am I supposed to care that slave labor was tariffed?
If you are intellectually honest you are supposed to acknowledge the fact that the Southern states were paying the overwhelming majority of all taxes and were getting very little in return. That's the kind of thing that *just might* tend to piss people off.
Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas said... Who cares?
Anybody who is interested in history and is intellectually honest?
President Jefferson Davis said... Who cares?
Anybody who is interested in history and is intellectually honest?
Robert Barnwell Rhett said... Who cares?
Anybody who looks at history and who is intellectually honest?
You can't even substantiate them or show the entire op-eds, yet you want us to that accept they prove your point.
I have substantiated them and you wanting me to post long op eds as if they said anything else relevant in them is both laughable and of course intellectually dishonest.
the problem is we can't be sure what they stated, because you cherry picked the snippets that said what you wanted to hear without posting links to the entire op-eds for context. You posted a snippet from one op-ed as if it was the popular view, but by reading the entire op-ed we found it turned out to be the exact opposite.
the problem is you laughably claim any inconvenient facts or quotes are "cherry picked". As if that somehow negated the plain English of what was said. Then you even more laughably demand hotlinks you know do not exist to sources that are 160 years old. Then you top that off by lying about an earlier op ed saying the opposite of the relevant portion I posted.
Totally irrelevant. The fact is that in the cases of both the Democrat run Confederacy and the free traitors, they relied on slave labor to drive down prices. The results of the former were catastrophic enough, and the results of the latter could be far worse.
Totally irrelevant. Different times and radically different economics.
Ignoring the fact that it ended before the time period we're discussing, did New England force the South to buy their slaves, or was that the result of "consumer demand" on the part of the slave holding states? You defend the Confederacy in the same way readers of child porn defend their actions. "I wasn't the one who took those pictures." Replace "pictures" with "slaves", same defense.
Lying about the fact that New England was still illegally trading in human flesh long after the ban on slave trading went into effect in 1810, New England made a ton of money from slavery first by selling slaves, then by servicing slave produced goods and finally by lavishing federal money on themselves from imports paid for in part by slave labor. You defend New England in the same way that makers of child porn defend their actions "but there was a market to sell this too....."
You mean the people who chose to come over here in search of a better life?
No, I mean the corporate fatcats who imported European serfs, put them in horribly unsafe factories and dilapidated disease riddled tenement housing and then worked the crap out of them and their little kids all so they could have cheap labor.
So far, what little you posted from the North that I was able to substantiate supported tariffs, not going to war.
I've posted numerous well cited Northern editorials which supported going to war to maintain the sky high tariffs on Southern goods.
Show me where this op-ed (What shall be done for a revenue) called for war. It called for tariffs, as every other nation including the Confederacy did for revenue.
Here they are calling for acts of war to be committed against Southern States:
That either revenue from these 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....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent 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 Railways would be supplied from the southern ports." New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article "What Shall be Done for a Revenue?"
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.....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.
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the "rebel states", or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things de 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." New York Evening Post “What Shall be done for a revenue?”
Its clear to anybody who is honest that they are calling for war.
Everyone whose goods are hit with tariffs says that. Even if true, am I supposed to feel sorry for nations that use slave labor when their goods are hit with tariffs? Spoiler alert, I don't care.
You've just admitted it. You don't care that the Southern states were being cheated by having to pay the vast majority of the taxes and that they were getting relatively little in return with federal money being lavished on Northern states instead. You may not care, but they certainly did. This was exactly the same motivation that led their grandfathers to secede from the British Empire.
Then post links to the entire op-eds to prove that they said what you want them to say.
No. Feel free to look them up. I've provided names, dates and sources. If you're so all fired keen to read the entire op eds, have at it but don't ask me to do your research for you.
repeats snipped.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“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,
Translation, you can't substantiate your sources.
I have substantiated my sources. I've provided where the quote came from and cited the date or which author and the page number. That is a perfectly valid citation of a source.
Why do I have to prove the veracity of your sources? You posted these excerpts, now prove they're real and show us the full context.
I've already proven the veracity of my sources. See above.
Who doesn't when their own goods are hit with tariffs?
Precisely. But it wasn't just that their goods were being hit with tariffs. Its that they were responsible for the vast majority of the imports AND that the money raised from these tariffs was being spent in the North rather than in the South. This was effectively highway robbery.
What would you say is too high? For example, what rate did the Union tariff Confederate goods that you think is too high?
Well let's see, the CSA set a maximum tariff rate of 10%....
Then I guess we can drop your reference from this discussion since you now say it's totally irrelevant.
Nope. It is arguing for war. That's clear.
So? Am I supposed to care what a bunch of slave owners think?
You don't care what Washington and Jefferson and Madison and Patrick Henry and George Mason and James Monroe thought?
You mean like this?
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
Yes. Exactly like that.
I don't care what your point is. They knew how slavery looked to the nations they were trying to get aid from, which is why they, well, they didn't really do anything but talk about freeing their slaves.
Its obvious you don't care about the point being made. They were willing to abolish slavery themselves. Yet another point of evidence showing their real motivation was not the perpetuation of slavery.
They didn't have anywhere enough seats to even try to pass abolition until 1864 (eight years after they were formed), and even then they were blocked by the Democrats from passing abolition over "states' rights", the Democrats words.
They did not even attempt to get rid of slavery until very late in the war.
"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . . 'I think Sumner [abolitionist Charles Sumner] and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way,' he told the Radicals. . . . 'We didn't go into this war to put down slavery . . . and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith.' Vindication of the president's view came a few weeks later, when the Massachusetts state Republican convention--perhaps the most Radical party organization in the North--defeated a resolution endorsing Fremont's proclamation." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76)
They only did it.
You're deliberately trying to conflate a later outcome with an earlier intent.
From your previous post, "Yes some Northern states certainly did violate the constitution." I'll let you tell us whether you condemn or agree with the Northern states who freed them.
My words mean exactly what they said. Several Northern states clearly violated the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. No serious history would dispute that fact. Note, I did not say whether I agreed or disagreed with the morality of their position. I said they violated that clause of the constitution - which they did.
repeats snipped
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“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,
They never did the former, and they did the latter.,/P>
They offered to do the former and only did not do so because the Southern states refused. The fact that they did eventually do the latter does not prove that that was their intent when they started out. It clearly was not.
Except the Democrat run Confederacy.
Because it wasn't given the time. It only existed for 4 years. Certainly other western countries still had slavery in 1865.
I never said they had anything to do with any of Lincoln's actions, but they committed their own atrocities against Native Americans, so your statement "The Southern states did not." is wrong.
No it isn't. I referred specifically to Lincoln's ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Santee Sioux and Winnebago and the North's ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians.
Pointing to tribes that joined with the Confederacy while ignoring that other tribes joined the Union is practically the definition of cherry picking.
According to you "cherry picking" is anytime anybody makes their case or argues their side.
What's worse, you say the civilized tribes sided with the Confederacy? What would you call the tribes that didn't? A certain slur that I've heard applied to Native Americans? If you aren't a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad, then you need to go back to Richmond in 1861 where your views were accepted.
I didn't invent the term "the 5 civilized tribes" genius. Do try to educated yourself on some history.
Maybe not at the state level, but in fact... repeats snipped.
We've gone over this before and I've shown that the CSA allowed for states that did not allow slavery to join and that there was nothing in the Confederate Constitution which precluded any state which did allow slavery from abolishing it.
Yawn, here you go with your "they gave their diplomat plenty of potent power to agree to abolish slavery" nothing again.
Yawn. Here we go with your lame attempts to deny the obvious reality again.
Once again you avoid the point, which is that they were writing a brand new constitution and, try to get this, could have left the explicit protections for slavery out repeat could have left the explicit protections for slavery out. That would not have required them to abolish slavery but would have given them that option if they ever intended to abolish slavery, which we all know the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy didn't.
Once again you try to make the false argument that they "designed their constitution from the ground up" when in fact what they did is carry over the vast majority of it and only change certain provisions to strengthen the power of the states at the expense of the central government and to limit the central government's ability to spend money. The rest was literally the US Constitution.
It was more than just fighting. They were atrocities committed against Native Americans by the Confederacy, something you said didn't happen. I'll share it again. Repeats snipped.
There was a lot of that going around. In addition to the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed by the union government against the Santee Sioux and Winnebago in Minnesota, there was also this:
The Sand Creek massacre (also known as the Chivington massacre, the battle of Sand Creek or the massacre of Cheyenne Indians) was a massacre of Cheyenne and Arapaho people by the U.S. Army in the American Indian Wars that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 675-man force of the Third Colorado Cavalry under the command of U.S. Volunteers Colonel John Chivington attacked and destroyed a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho people in southeastern Colorado Territory, killing and mutilating an estimated 69 to over 600 Native American people. Chivington claimed 500 to 600 warriors were killed. However, most sources estimate around 150 people were killed, about two-thirds of whom were women and children.
The CSA offered the 5 civilized tribes the right to organize as a state (Oklahoma) which would be a recognized full and equal state in the CSA. The US never offered any Indians anything similar.
It would be nice if you would post the comment you are replying to, but it prevented the Confederacy's federal government from abolishing slavery.
No it didn't.
Too bad I have no interest in reading the book or patronizing Amazon.
You obviously have no interest in studying actual history and not the usual pro government PC Revisionist fair tales put out by Leftists in Academia. Though I do share your distaste for Amazon.
Well their point of view was they didn't think the Union was serious about abolishing slavery. They were wrong.
Their point of view was that neither side was fighting over slavery. They were right about that.
WOW, it's amazing how far you're willing to go to defend the Democrats running the Confederacy, even to belittle the accomplishments of other Democrats.
You claimed something that was false and I pointed out that it was false - nothing more, nothing less.
BTW, I suppose those soldiers who died fighting Hitler and Tojo didn't win WWII, since they didn't live to see their downfall. Is that your point?
LOL! That's the only comment this deserves.
repeats snipped
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“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,
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings.
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
The Southerners of today can cling to their past and heritage without having to associate with the Democrat slave owners.
The country was founded by slave owners. Its part of our past like it or not. We can still venerate the men and their principles and ideas even while we disagree with some of them.
We both agree there were thousands. If that's all you want to claim, we're done on this topic, next.,/P>
Several tens of thousands.
You answered your own question.
No I didn't. Why would union sources lie about their eyewitness accounts of there being thousands of Black Confederates?
Your idea of historical reality is the Confederacy was willing to abolish slavery even though they never did until forced by defeat to do so, and the Republicans had no intention of abolishing slavery but did it, just as the Confederacy said they would years earlier.
My idea of historical reality is the confederacy was willing to abolish slavery and offered to do so. Also, the Republicans did not start out intending to abolish slavery. They only came to that position after years of fighting. My idea and THE reality happen to fit 100% based on the evidence.
Understandable considering most were forced by their masters to serve the Confedracy's military.
I have seen no evidence that "most" were "forced" to serve in the Confederate Army.
From a fiction writer who incorrectly thought the Union wouldn't abolish slavery? I wonder what Gene Roddenberry thought on this subject. Maybe I should get his perspective too.
He was of course a journalist and political commentator in addition to being a writer. He correctly thought that the union was fighting a war of aggression for money and empire. It was.
So now you're calling tying modern Conservatives to slavery historical facts.
Most Southerners today are Conservative. We are tied to the history of our region and of the whole country. Guess what. Slavery was tied to both like it or not. Of course slavery was also tied to the North though they try desperately to pass it off as an entirely Southern thing. They were implicated up to their eyeballs in slavery too.
I suppose what just happened in Kansas is part of the Conservative movement. Never mind the so called conservatives who signed the free trade deals that sent our manufacturing, wealth, and technology to a communist country that uses slave labor. Yes I know the leftist companies are doing it too, but we were betrayed by many socalled Conservatives who came from the South.
Sadly, RINOs come from everywhere but yes, there were and are plenty from the South....just as there are a lot of MAGA patriots from the South - more of them than in other regions.
As for my demonizing the South, nothing in my posts about the Democrat run Confederacy is a reflection of what I think of the modern South, any more than my condemnations of Hitler and Imperial Japan are reflections of the countries now.
The PC Revisionists have always had the goal of demonizing the South via means of claiming it fought for slavery when the reality is it did no such thing. Patrick Cleburne saw that coming over 160 years ago. He wasn't the only one.
The only thing that ties the modern South to the Democrat run Confederacy is choice.
History and heritage. There's no choice in that.
That's easy for you to say behind a computer screen. You weren't a slave who was forced to watch as his children were sold as animals to the highest bidder, and whose only way out was to fight his way out.
but that's just it. That wasn't the only way out. In fact, that wasn't any way out at all. If they had wanted out, they could have simply fled. Many others did and obtained their freedom. Just go. Don't murder anybody if you don't have to much less innocent defenseless little kids.
I've made my point clear. The Democrat run Confederacy started and ended believing they had a right to forced slave labor. Even after they lost, they wouldn't let go and founded the KKK.
My point is that both sides had slavery and neither side was fighting over slavery. The North thought it had the right to impose a government by force upon people who did not consent to it. After the war it trampled on the constitution by disenfranchising the vast majority of the voters and imposing corrupt military governments which stole everything in sight......and from people they claimed were their countrymen.
Reject it all you want. Millions of children died in Germany and Japan as a result of their leaders trying to conquer the world, and your freedom to sit safely behind a computer and post your nonsense is the result of that. If you reject that, then give up your freedom to keep posting on this topic.
Flattening entire cities did little to help the war effort. The resources would have been better deployed elsewhere in the war.
Oh, they understood slavery was wrong and how their defense of slavery looked to other nations. I don't need the "PCers" to see that. You proved it yourself by constantly pointing out that they gave their diplomat plenty of potent power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery.
They weren't defending slavery which was not under attack anyway.
No one running any of the corporations today had anything to do with the slavery of 160 years ago.
There sure were plenty in 1860 in New England who did...or who had fathers or grandfathers who built the family fortune on the backs of slaves.
That was just them painting their cause up in pretty language to cover their true goals, which was to maintain their perceived dominance over blacks.
As the Congressional report at the time stated:
The Ku Klux Klan was created to terrorize the ex-slaves out of participating in this political plundering racket operated by the Republican Party. The Republicans kept promising to share the property of white southerners with the ex-slaves, which of course they never did and never intended to do. 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."