Replies

My statement proves that given the same amount of time as the five states that did ratify it, and with secession and the threat of a civil war, they didn't repeat didn't ratify it. It's your alternate realities about what might have happened that don't prove anything.

You claimed the fact that they didn't pass it in the limited time available somehow proves they wouldn't have. It is you who bears the burden of proof here.

For what? All that would prove is they were able to dig up the op-eds but were only willing to post the excerpts that they think prove their point.

So what? The citations prove that the sources they cited said what they quoted.

I read the op-eds I could find since you were unwilling or more likely unable to substantiate them. Taken in their entirety rather than just the excerpts you cherry picked, they said the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove.

I did substantiate them and your claim that the editorials somehow said the opposite of what was quoted is simply false.

Why should I? All that would prove is that the authors posted the excerpts you say they posted. That doesn't prove anything about whether they were authentic or what the full op-eds said. These are books that say what you want to hear, but there are any number that say the exact opposite. All I'm asking for is the full op-eds, and that's after I did your job and found two of them myself. We don't have to take the authors' of those books word for it just because they said what you want to hear.

Why should you? Because that would prove the quotes are accurate and authentic - which they are. There are of course none of the op eds cited which say the opposite of what was quoted in the excerpt.

They were able to post excerpts, so if those excerpts were legitimate then they should have been able to post the entire op-eds. They didn't, either because they made them up, or more likely because posting the entire op-eds would nullify the point they were trying to make.

they didn't because nobody ever posts an entire op ed. That would be asinine. And how often does an op ed say the opposite in its entirety of what is said in part? Almost never. That is certainly never the case in any of the op eds I've cited.

No, I'm not going to go looking for books that only say what you want to hear, or take it upon myself to substantiate what you're taking on faith, that is that the books are telling the truth. Prove the op-eds are legitimate and say what you claim they say by either posting the entire op-ed or posting a link. Any other reply will be rightfully taken as a confession that you can't.

Nobody posts an entire op ed or an entire book when they are quoting a source. Your demand for such is simply laughable. You don't read books that say the opposite of what you want to hear? Shocker! You obviously cannot handle anything other than the propaganda you were spoon fed. Nobody posts a link when citing a source. More of your clown show. My quotes are substantiated. I provided sources.

Because they also said the exact opposite, and never freed the slaves until forced by total defeat to do so.

But they didn't say the exact opposite and they didn't free the slaves during the war just like the Union didn't free its slaves during the war. Its ridiculous to expect anybody to do so unless they would gain some kind of military advantage thereby.

Oh, and there's this Repeats snipped

But then there's also this

We protest solemnly, in the face of mankind, that we desire peace at any sacrifice, save that of honor. In independence we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we have lately been confederated. All we ask is to be let alone--that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. 1, pp. 283-284; see also Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, p. 367)

Speaking of which...If you can't see how these excerpts refute your own case, then keep posting them. I don't mind letting you refute your own case with their own words.

If you can't see how them pointing out that the Northern states violated the compact, that they violated their obligation to secure the border simply out of spite, that they supported domestic terrorism against Southern states, that they treated the Southern states as their cash cows, then I don't know what to tell you. You obviously completely lack reading comprehension skills.

Actions like turning down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment

FIFY

Also a resolution they repealed later that year after getting over their shock of losing at Bull Run and before they won any substantial victories, so that shows they were fighting to abolish slavery, which they did. Funny how you don't think any of that shows their real intentions.

Lincoln said they were explicitly not fighting to end slavery. The Congress passed a resolution explicitly stating they were not fighting to end slavery. Indeed, they had slavery themselves. But you conclude they were fighting to put down slavery. Natch!

More of your twisted logic. The slave owners and slavery defenders weren't fighting to preserve slavery, and the side that abolished slavery wasn't actually trying to.

No, I merely said that someone could both own slaves AND think that secession was not about slavery. As has been made abundantly clear, slavery was not threatened in the US.

The resistance movements in Nazi Germany were illegal too, while everything the Nazis did was legal. Making atrocities legal doesn't make them right.

Godwin. Good lord, you argue from a kindergartner's perspective. Everybody you disagree with is equivalent to Nazi Germany....no matter how ridiculous the claim - typical Leftist tactic.

defences like these make it look that way.

nobody is defending slavery.

It did no such thing, as the op-eds you referenced clearly showed. It was just the opposite, it provoked the call for higher tariffs.,/P>

Of course it would do exactly that - ie massively reduce tariffs on Southern trade. The Confederate Constitution had a maximum 10% tariff.

Now ask me if I care that the products produced by slave labor were tariffed.

Actually the products produced at least in part by slave labor were not hit directly with the tariff. Those were exports. It was the manufactured goods that were purchased mostly in the UK for import into the US that were hit with the tariff.

Not when the entire op-ed refutes the point you're trying to make in the first sentence, which I'll repeat here so the readers won't have to parse through your spam to find it.,/P>

Except it doesn't do that.

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

This was an op-ed which started out with "Some of our Republican friends affect to be very indifferent to the secession of the Southern states. "Let them go—we can get along very well without them.""

This op-ed was answering that view with the writer's own opnions.

OK. Some editorials in Northern Newspapers especially early on did say let them go in peace. It was mostly the corporate fatcats who, through the newspapers they owned, then started shrieking about how much MONEY the Northern states stood to lose by no longer being able to economically exploit the Southern states. It is this which motivated the Lincoln administration to start a war to prevent secession.

I don't have to. The war was won and slavery was abolished. End of story.

We are talking about the causes, not the end results. Neither secession nor the war were caused by slavery. The war did result in the end of slavery but that is not the same thing as saying it was the cause of secession or the war.

Once again your twisted logic is shown. On one hand the North couldn't do without slave produced products, but on the other hand they hit those same products with tariffs large enough to force the buyers to choose home grown, and provoked the slave holding states to secede.

Your historical ignorance is shown once again. The North benefitted greatly from goods produced at least in part by slave labor....what do you think fed those Northern cotton mills? Those same products were not hit directly with tariffs. They were exported. It was the manufactured goods purchased in Europe that were hit with the tariffs. Tariffs intended to price those exports out of the market....to allow Northern manufacturers to both raise price and profit margins while simultaneously gaining market share....tariffs that were designed to raise a lot of money which the Northern states could then vote to use for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects for themselves.

Wall Street may be in New York, but many of the companies as well has Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 who signed those free trade deals with China and gave them MFN status, along with many in Congress who voted for those trade deals, were from your "cradle of conservatism".

Some indeed were. Many were from the Northeast and the Midwest also.

Tell that to the slaves who were forced to watch as their own children were sold into slavery in slave auctions.

We are talking about the importation of slaves here. That is what was referred to as the slave trade in the US Constitution. That is what was given a 20 year grandfather clause which expired officially in 1810.

Show me the excerpts where they called for war instead of tariffs.

Most didn't urge war specifically though some did.

"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go." The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861

then there's this:

The Philadelphia Press in their 1861 edition proposed one of the most interesting ideas that made its way to Lincoln, January 15. This also seems to be the basis for Lincoln's Inaugural Address. The paper said that: If South Carolina were to take the forts by force, this would be levying war against the United States and high treason against the Constitution" In other words, if South Carolina could be "tricked" into firing on the Forts in Charleston Harbor, that would be enough to go to War to stop the State from Seceding and thus reeking havoc on Northern and government revenues. The paper went on to say:

"In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws. Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but of enforcing the revenue laws. The practical point, either way, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports."

As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor" by reprovisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that "This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South."

Good, then you're OK with the North raising tariffs on slave made goods. So am I.,/p>

and I'm OK with the Southern states seceding to look out for their own economic interests in response.

Good. We should do that with goods from Communist China now, but the profit loving conservatives from your cradle of conservatism won't do it.

Do try to stay on point. Look at how many Southern states voted for Trump who jacked up tariff rates on China. Now look at how many states in the Northeast or even the Midwest voted for Trump. The South supported him far more than those two regions.

I said I didn't care about what the Democrats said about secession and war not being about slavery. If the founding fathers said they were against slavery I wouldn't believe them, but they did form a Union where slavery would ultimately be abolished, unlike the Democrats who formed their country to preserve slavery.

LOL! None of the Founding Fathers expressed any desire for abolition. Oh, and of course the Southern states did not secede nor did they form the CSA to preserve slavery.

We have both agreed that the founding fathers were flawed men who created a great if flawed nation, and they built the framework that led to the abolition of slavery. Why do we have to keep going back and forth on this when we have already agreed on it?

They didn't build a framework that led to the abolition of slavery. That's ridiculous whitewashing. They were all long dead when slavery was abolished some 76 years after the Constitution was ratified.

Their only intent was to get military aid. Promising to abolish slavery only showed that they understood how wrong it was. Apart from that, we don't know their intent since they never moved to actually abolish slavery. Actually, we know their intent by the fact that they didn't abolish slavery.

Their intent was to gain their independence. Promising to abolish slavery shows that was not what they were fighting for. Nobody offers to sacrifice that which he is fighting for. Otherwise, there would be no point in fighting. If not abolishing slavery during the war shows they had no intent to do so then the Northern states had no intent to abolish slavery either since they didn't do so during the war either.

Nine years after they were formed, and after they had enough representation to prevent the Democrats from blocking abolition, they passed the 13th Amendment.

Its not that they tried and were blocked by Democrats as you are trying to portray it. Its that they did not try. They did not support it until very late in the war.

I'm not going to waste FR bandwidth playing your game. We've been over this. Here are the links to that discussion.

Yes, we've been over it. And there is zero evidence to support a claim that Republicans favored abolition prior to very late in the war.

Yet more of your twisted logic. They were founded by abolitionists Like Cassius Clay, said in their platform they wanted to end slavery, and then between 1859 and 1863 abandoned that policy until 1864. In between that time, the slave holding states accused them of being abolitionists and accused the North of offering sancuary to escaped slaves even though they weren't. Yeah, that makes sense.

“There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them.” Abraham Lincoln

"“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln

I believed you before, but I'm not so sure now. You seem more angry with the Northerners who offered escaped slaves sanctuary than you are with the slave owners.

I am crushed. YOU don't believe me. Whatever shall I do? As for providing sanctuary for escaped slaves, no matter how sympathetic I am to this morally, there is another side to it. That is not what they agreed to when the Constitution was ratified. The Southern states had a completely valid point when they said the Northern states had violated the deal.

Then you must really be impressed with the Republicans, who managed to abolish slavery nine years after being formed and immediately after getting the votes they needed to abolish slavery.

The Republicans did so to try to give the bloodbath they started over money and empire some veneer of respectability and to pretend they had some noble purpose. They had to tell the voters in the Northern states something after getting so many of their men killed and mangled fighting a war of aggression for money.

Part of a long line of atrocities carried out by the entire nation, whose freedoms you are willing to use to attack it for its treatment of the poor, slavery loving CSA and the Democrats who formed it.

So now you want to concentrate on "5 civilized tribes" although you didn't use that term in you original comment on this issue, which was "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." Now that you've been called out, you want to hide behind "5 civilized tribes".

The Civilized Tribes was obviously in reference to the 5 civilized tribes genius.

Whoever coined that phrase is dead, but the person who said "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." is sitting in front of your computer. My question to that person stands.

My point about your massive historical ignorance stands. The vast vast majority of the Indians in Oklahoma were members of one of the "5 Civilized Tribes".

That doesn't answer my point, which is they could have left the explicit protections for slavery out of their Constitution if they had wanted to, but they intended to preserve slavery.

The Union could have chosen to abolish slavery if they wanted to. Instead they chose to preserve it.

First, taking the land didn't all happen in the 12 years.

Second, irrelevant repeat snipped

Everything you talk about is in this article, and the CSA had plenty of time for this while, as you put it, were fighting for their existance.

The CSA did indeed fight against union leaning Indians just as the Union fought against confederate leaning Indians. The point remains that the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Santee Sioux and Winnebago was done entirely by the union and given how politically powerless the Southern states were after the war, the Northern states bear the overwhelming responsibility of the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians. Hell, Little Bighorn happened when the Southern states were still under military occupation.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Another offer they never made good on. Your whole case is built on policies that were never ratified, and you write off the only policy that was ratified, abolition.

They did not win the war, therefore that is somehow to be held to mean they didn't offer the things they offered. LOL!

Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.

Back to Hitler. smh.

repeats snipped

Turnabout is fair play

"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 <.p>

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.

Now who is playing "Look over there"? I know the North is sending alot of RINOs to Washington, but we also did alot of RINO hunting this year. Besides, I'm not the one calling my region the cradle of Conservatism.

If you look at my numerous posts on the subject, I've said RINO's are enemy #1 and must be hunted to destruction - even at the cost of putting Democrats temporarily in some seats they otherwise would not win. We must purge the RINOs completely. And yes the South is the cradle of conservatism. Look at how the Southern states vote vs how the Northeast or even the Midwest votes. Its not close.

I made the point to someone who said the Southern states were coerced into ratifying the amendment. He disagreed and challenged me to debate him on it, but it wasn't a hill I considered worth fighting for, especially after a year spent with your appalling defense of the Confederacy loaded with half truths and cherry picked facts. If you want to defend the South on that point, take it up with him.,/P>

I have simply pointed out the truth that the Southern states did not secede nor did they fight over slavery. They chose to fight for the same reason people always choose to fight - money. That goes for the 94.63% of White Southerners who did not own slaves as well as some of very small percentage who did. They knew they would be much better off financially if they were independent. The Northern states knew that too which is why they fought to keep them in. People usually fight over money, not for moral crusades.

You didn't fix anything. This is just more of your cherry picking. This was the minority report, written by Democrats. The same party that founded the KKK.

It was true. Take away the military occupation, the widespread disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the voters, the massive corruption and theft of hearth and home from many and the terrorism of the Union League, there would have been no KKK. Notice, nobody is "defending" the KKK so don't even try to spin that crap. What I'm saying is if you're really nasty to people and you really oppress them, they will tend to fight back - often in ways that are extremely nasty in return.

repeats snipped

More of your twisted logic. The slaves could have escaped, but the North was wrong for offering them sanctuary.

No. While I of course agree with helping slaves escape morally, that does not mean the Southern states did not have a legitimate gripe. The Northern states agreed to return escaped slaves then they broke their word. No matter how much you or I sympathize morally the response is "if you thought it so immoral, why did you make the deal in the first place?" and "if you're not going to keep your end of the bargain we made, then we are out and we are not the ones who broke the deal - you are." The Southern states had a good argument here. Yes, even though I don't like slavery. You seem incapable of grasping that.

If some states get to decide what they agreed to in the past is immoral, do they get to break the law, repudiate their agreements, etc? The answer is of course, No. Otherwise every state gets to decide which laws and which parts of the constitution it cares to obey and which part it cares to ignore.

Of course, all of this is easy for you to say because you never lived as a slave on any of those planatations. Alot easier than it was for the slaves to escape. If you had to watch families including yours split as children were sold to other masters, you would be singing a different tune.

I do not and never have supported slavery. I also think it can be ended without violence and do not think deliberately murdering innocent children who did no harm to anybody in any way justified even if the murderers are people who are themselves victims of slavery.

Bad players in the North arranged the sales illegally, and it was the slave states who bought them and sold their children to other masters as if they were animals.,/P>

The Slave Trade was THE major trade in New England for quite a while. It wasn't just a few bad players. Most of New England society was engaged in or was profiting from the slave trade in some form or fashion. Even after it formally ended they were still servicing goods produced at least in part by slave labor if not getting direct raw material inputs made at least in part from slave labor - think of the extensive cotton mills for example. They were furthermore lavishing the money raised from tariffs on imports which was the return journey for those goods sent to Europe in order to pay for their infrastructure and to pay corporate subsidies to Northern businesses.

Not entirely true. The constant bombing of the German and Japanese homelands made it impossible for their citizens to support the war effort. At least that was the goal. Whether it had its intended effect is open to debate.

Not true, their citizens continued to support the war efforts and the studies done after the war showed that the bombings only hardened their resolve to keep fighting - just as it had done in the UK.

Just as it was the slave owners and not the slaves who are responsible for their own children getting killed.

Disagree. Lots of slaves escaped without murdering anybody, let alone innocent children. The escaped slaves themselves are responsible for their actions.

This just proves the point that Lincoln had to work with all viewpoints to get things done, and the Democrats were blocking him as late as 1864.

They weren't blocking him. He wasn't trying to abolish slavery until 1864. He had no desire to do so and was himself blocking some of the few radicals who wanted to abolish slavery.

This is a perfect example of your cherry picking. That was the minority report, in this case the Democrat report, the same party that founded the KKK, in opposition to the majority. The idea that the Democrats of that time had any credibility on that issue is beyond rediculous.

This isn't "cherry picking". This is reality. This is what actually happened. When you militarily occupy a region, disenfranchise the voters, steal hearth and home from a lot of people and allow thugs to commit terrorist acts against them, you can expect them to fight back - and they're probably going to be just as nasty in return. The Democrat party did not found the KKK. Also, it very likely did not represent the minority in the Southern states at the time. The minority was governing - backed by federal troops. The majority had been disenfranchised.

Why should slave owners be compensated for losing the right to commit human rights abuses. Would we compensate the buyers of traficked women today for the loss of their services? I know you're going to say 1865, but they would have had no problem seeing what was wrong with paying human traffickers to capture people for slavery it if happened to them or their own children. You didn't need to be born after 1990 to understand that.

Why should the sellers of slaves be allowed to keep their blood money? Ditto those who profiteered from slavery like ship builders, sailors, shipping companies, Warehousing and Distribution for same, Law Firms, Insurers, Banks, etc? How come the moral outrage seems to magically stop at the Mason-Dixon line when the culpability for slavery and the profiteering from slavery certainly didn't stop there?

No matter how much you or I may dislike it, slavery was legal at that time just like owning a car with an internal combustion engine is legal now. Maybe in the future people will be horrified by that but so be it. If you want people to give up their legal property, then they are owed fair market value in compensation. Other than Haiti in the 18th century, just about every other Western country figured that out and adopted a compensated emancipation scheme. The Northern political class was bitterly opposed to that.

Besides, the person he cited was among those who voted against abolishion period, not abolition unless the slave owners were compensated. My point stands. This Democrat, slavery defender was not a credible source on the KKK.

Of course he's a credible source on the KKK. He was from the region and lived at the time. He saw what was happening and why it was happening.

You claimed the fact that they didn't pass it in the limited time available somehow proves they wouldn't have. It is you who bears the burden of proof here.

With the same amount of time to ratify the Corbomite maneuver as the five states that did ratify it, and with the issues of secession and a possible civil war pressing it, they never ratified it. Nothing else needs to be proven, and nothing else on this subject matters.

One repeat snipped.

So what? The citations prove that the sources they cited said what they quoted.

That's all it proves. That doesn't prove the authors didn't just make them up or what the full op-eds say.

Since you have either failed or were unwilling to provide the full op-eds so we can see the excerpts in their their full context rather than what your Confedracy Amen Corner™ approved sources shared with us, and since the entire op-eds I was able to find refuted the points you were trying to make, I will rightfully and correctly conclude that you are unable to substantiate your point with them.

The rest of your comments on this were literally begging me to accept your excerpts at face value. No I won't, and I won't waste FR bandwidth discussing them until you post full links to them.

One repeat snipped.

But then there's also this. We protest solemnly, in the face of mankind, that we desire peace at any sacrifice, save that of honor. In independence we seek no conquest,

I had to stop you there. Remember this?

"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."

This alone puts a lie to what JD said, but let's continue.

no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we have lately been confederated. All we ask is to be let alone--that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. 1, pp. 283-284; see also Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, p. 367)

JD also said that secession was a justifiable response to the election of abolitionists. Unlike you and your Confedracy Amen Corner™ approved sources, I'm willing to post a link to the entire speech, rather than just an excerpt.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

No, you lack the capacity to understand that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right in any sense.

I have already refuted your comments on that resolution in my last post (among others), but it comes as no surprise you chose to ignore it and just repost your same comments. Here is it again.

"Also a resolution they repealed later that year after getting over their shock of losing at Bull Run and before they won any substantial victories, so that shows they were fighting to abolish slavery, which they did. Funny how you don't think any of that shows their real intentions."

We'll discuss Lincoln's comments (again) later.

No, I merely said that someone could both own slaves AND think that secession was not about slavery. As has been made abundantly clear, slavery was not threatened in the US.

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.

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?"

Four repeats snipped.

Godwin. Good lord, you argue from a kindergartner's perspective. Everybody you disagree with is equivalent to Nazi Germany....no matter how ridiculous the claim - typical Leftist tactic.

It comes as no surprise that you chose to hide behind Godwin rather than answer the point. I'll make it again.

The resistance movements in Nazi Germany were illegal too, while everything the Nazis did was legal. Making atrocities legal doesn't make them right.

nobody is defending slavery.

From your post later, "No. While I of course agree with helping slaves escape morally, that does not mean the Southern states did not have a legitimate gripe. The Northern states agreed to return escaped slaves then they broke their word. No matter how much you or I sympathize morally the response is "if you thought it so immoral, why did you make the deal in the first place?" and "if you're not going to keep your end of the bargain we made, then we are out and we are not the ones who broke the deal - you are." The Southern states had a good argument here. Yes, even though I don't like slavery. You seem incapable of grasping that."

You defended the legality if not the morality of slavery, and you can't even see anything wrong with that. To help you understand, Stalin and Hitler passed laws that made their crimes legal too. Would you agree if someone defended the legality of their actions?

The fact that you cited a Democrat opponent of abolition to defend the KKK also puts a lie to this.

Two repeats snipped.

Of course it would do exactly that - ie massively reduce tariffs on Southern trade. The Confederate Constitution had a maximum 10% tariff.

Tariff of the Confederate States of America Approved by Congress, May 21, 1861.

So what? We should be doing that with communist made goods now, but thanks to the globalists your cradle of conservatism voted into the White House and Congress we're too addicted to cheap communist slave labor to do it.

One repeat snipped.

Secession had already happened, and the Democrats fired the first shot.

That's beside the fact the Democrats participation in slavery was an act of war against those people in itself. Notice I said Democrats instead of the South, so you don't need to go crying to your mommy about how the North did it too.

Some indeed were. Many (free trators) were from the Northeast and the Midwest also.

I don't deny that. We have them at FR. But it was the representatives from your cradle of Conservatism that passed the free trade deals that sent our manufacturing, technology, and money to the communists. We can't even make our own computer chips now, thanks to the representatives you sent to Washington.

Additionally, the state representatives from Georgia didn't even try to force verification of the 2020 vote count, even though anyone who was watching that night (as I was) could see something wasn't right.

This is nothing but a leftist ploy to split Conservatives, and you're either a leftist who's trying to split Conservatives and tie modern Conservatives to the Democrat run Confederacy, or a useful idiot doing their work for them.

Two repeats snipped.

You might be trying to limit the debate to exclude the Confederacy, but I'm not. Slave owners would sell of offspring of their slaves as animals, with no regard for the families they were breaking up. The Democrats fought to preserve this in the South and voted against ending it in the North. Nothing repeat nothing you've posted refutes that.

and I'm OK with the Southern states seceding to look out for their own economic interests in response.

Then you must also be OK with this.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

These were the economic interests they seceded over.

LOL! None of the Founding Fathers expressed any desire for abolition.

Now you try to stay on point. I never said they did. My point was if they had said it.

That framework allowed us to replace Democrats with Republicans from a party founded less than a decade earlier who would ultimately abolish slavery.

Its not that they tried and were blocked by Democrats as you are trying to portray it. Its that they did not try. They did not support it until very late in the war.

They didn't have enough votes to make a serious attempt until 1864, and they were blocked by the Democrats. You defend the Democrats for not abolishing slavery because they didn't have the time, and then you gloss over the fact that the Republicans managed to get enough representatives elected to abolish slavery less than a decade after they were formed.

Yes, we've been over it. And there is zero evidence to support a claim that Republicans favored abolition prior to very late in the war.

I'm not going to waste FR bandwidth playing your game. Here are the links to that discussion again.

539

547

As usual, you cherry pick what you think proves your point. Lincoln started off this speech with "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." This was the audience he was speaking to. As I have pointed out, Lincoln had to deal with a nation that was split into different camps on this issue, and he had to work with all of them. As Frederick Douglas, himself an escaped slave and abolitionist, said, "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

"“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln

Once again you cherry pick what you think proves your point, and ignore the overall context of the situation. Below is a link to the speech, including the audience's reaction.

Abraham Lincoln, First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858 (excerpt)

One reading of this and anyone can see he would have been booed off the stage if he had spoken out for complete abolition in front of this audience. This is what he and the Republicans had to work with, as Frederick Douglas pointed out. Only a few years later, there were enough Republicans to pass the 13th Amendment.

One repeat snipped.

I am crushed. YOU don't believe me. Whatever shall I do?

I take back what I said about you not being any fun.

What a stupid reply. I suppose the escaped slaves who joined the Union's military weren't fighting to free slaves. Or the black soldiers in the North. Or the over 100,000 fighting age white men who left the South to join the Union's cause.

Some of that horrible treatment Native Americans got was indeed done with the support of Southerners. You can't lay this one at the feet of Southerners though - not even in part. This was all Northerners who did this. The same goes for the wars of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians. The South was politically powerless after having been subjected to military occupation and widespread voter disenfranchisement when that happened. That's all on the North....The CSA did indeed fight against union leaning Indians just as the Union fought against confederate leaning Indians. The point remains that the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Santee Sioux and Winnebago was done entirely by the union and given how politically powerless the Southern states were after the war, the Northern states bear the overwhelming responsibility of the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians.

Another stupid reply. I can lay it at the feet of the South. They occupied land that had also been taken from the natives, so the idea they had nothing to do with it in itself is beyond ludicrous. I also find it absolutely amusing that you say the South couldn't just free their slaves after only four years, but they never would have expanded if they had more than four years, when both their Constitution and their actions prove they would have. You can't keep anything straight.

The Civilized Tribes was obviously in reference to the 5 civilized tribes genius...My point about your massive historical ignorance stands. The vast vast majority of the Indians in Oklahoma were members of one of the "5 Civilized Tribes".

No, you said "civilized tribes", not "5 civilized tribes". You can't just hide behind "5 civilized tribes" after getting called out on it. The question stands. If the "civilized" tribes joined the Confederacy, then what does that make the tribes that didn't in your eyes?

The Union could have chosen to abolish slavery if they wanted to. Instead they chose to preserve it.

They abolished it, as soon as they replaced enough Democrats with Republicans. That process had been going on since 1858, which is why the slave holding states seceded.

Second, irrelevant repeat snipped

"Irrelevant" is leftist speak for "I can't refute your point so I'm calling it "irrelevant"." Tough, because what the Democrats put in their shiny new constitution is indeed relevant, so I'll post it again.

Hell, Little Bighorn happened when the Southern states were still under military occupation.

So what?

They did not win the war, therefore that is somehow to be held to mean they didn't offer the things they offered. LOL!

The fact that they even offered to free the slaves only proves the knew they were in the wrong. It doesn't prove anything about whether they would have done it. Of course your whole case is built on policies that were never ratified while ignoring the one policy that was ratified.

Back to Hitler. smh.

I didn't say anything about Hitler. I was asking about the troops who gave their lives fighting to defeat him.

I'll repeat again. Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.

Turnabout is fair play

So was slavery, according to the Democrats who ran the Confederacy.

You keep making this about the North and the South. Yes the North agreed to this, decades before the time period we're discussing, and decades before the Republican party was even formed. Nine years after the Republicans were formed, they abolished slavery everywhere in the US.

Absolute nonsense. The Democrats could see the writing on the wall and responded by doing everything they could to preserve slavery, even in the North. It wasn't until the Republicans had enough votes to pass the 13th Amendment that slavery could finally be abolished.

I do not and never have supported slavery.

Good. That means you're not a free traitor.

I also think it can be ended without violence and do not think deliberately murdering innocent children who did no harm to anybody in any way justified even if the murderers are people who are themselves victims of slavery.

You also never lived as a slave on a Southern plantation and watched as your children were sold to other masters.

The Slave Trade was THE major trade in New England for quite a while.

It was abolished long before the period we're discussing.

Not true, their citizens continued to support the war efforts...

How, when their means of supporting the war were disrupted by the destruction of their factories?

and the studies done after the war showed that the bombings only hardened their resolve to keep fighting - just as it had done in the UK.

Did you actually read my full reply, where I pointed out both viewpoints? I'll post it again.

Not entirely true. The constant bombing of the German and Japanese homelands made it impossible for their citizens to support the war effort. At least that was the goal. Whether it had its intended effect is open to debate. According to some Germans after the war, it was the USAF's precision bombing of their industry that had the most effect.

And nothing you said answers my point that it was the Germans and Japanese, not the Allies, who were at fault for starting wars of conquest and forcing the Allies to destroy them to protect themselves, just as it was the slave owners and not the slaves who are responsible for their own children getting killed. You just waste more bandwidth dragging out a discussion that could have ended months ago.

Disagree. Lots of slaves escaped without murdering anybody, let alone innocent children. The escaped slaves themselves are responsible for their actions.

You can disagree all you want. If you try to enslave someone against their will, don't be surprised when your family members are killed as a consequence.

Do you mean like Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey? Can't we also expect them to fight back? Or do you only grant that right to former slave owners?

The Democrat party did not found the KKK.

Fair enough. Maybe the party didn't, but Democrats did.

Also, it very likely did not represent the minority in the Southern states at the time. The minority was governing - backed by federal troops. The majority had been disenfranchised.

The person who drafted the report on the KKK that he and you cited, Congressman Fernando Wood, was a Democrat from New York. This was a minority report.

Good points. I never said they should. I would extend that to the companies that use communist slave labor today.

And "the Northern political class" were right. The idea that people who paid others to capture humans as animals for slave labor are owed something for losing their services is beyond appalling.

Of course he's a credible source on the KKK. He was from the region and lived at the time.

None of that obligates us to believe he, as a Democrat who opposed abolition, was telling the truth about the KKK. You can beg me to take his word for it all you want, but he was a Democrat who opposed abolition repeat a Democrat who opposed abolition.

He saw what was happening and why it was happening.

So did Fredrick Douglas, but unlike your KKK defending, abolition opposing friend, he was an unbiased, credible source.