Are today's Southern Conservatives any different than Southern Conservatives from the Civil War?

[bripat9643]

...
But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

When the South wrote their Declarations of Causes to secede -- *they* made pretty much all about slavery. You ever read them?

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I have read them and the issue of their right to maintain the institution of slavery was indeed at the forefront. It could have just as easily been mules and horses if that had been the property federal government threatened to take from them.

Let's try this... Imagine for a moment it's 2024... Liberal morons have been totally unsuccessful at pushing their 'green' agenda and decide that internal combustion engines are immoral and have to go! They are electing candidates who are talking crazy stuff... like the government seizing all cars and trucks operating on internal combustion, or rendering such engines inoperable. Several times it has gone to court and SCOTUS keeps saying the same thing... people have the right to own cars and trucks and keep them as property.

Now when things finally come to a head and the liberals have elected a man who speaks of abolishing cars and trucks, the secession documents will likely mention cars and trucks and our inalienable right to own them and how it's unconstitutional for the government to take them. But that does not mean the ensuing war is about the morality of the internal combustion engine. You can turn it into that after the war is over, and you can promote that myth for the next 200 years, teaching all the little kiddies about those mean old people who hated the environment and didn't see the evils of internal combustion. After a while, many will just come to accept that was what the war was all about.

No, it wasn't anything like that.

Hang on...sorry for the long one here folks:
The seceding States themselves to told us exactly why they were seceding ...

Louisiana:
"Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages....

That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."

Geo. Williamson
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention
The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states:

"We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....

We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States."Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by Convention of South Carolina
Texas:
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 [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

"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 an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. 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.Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

Speech to Tennessee Legislature by the Governor:
In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio " a person charged in the State (of Tennessee) with the crime " of slave stealing, who had fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio.' The Governor refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him, said: 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the comity which should exist between sister States of the same great Confederacy; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted.
It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders.
It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their fathers.

It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment.

It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southern States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to insurrection.

It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad," amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to materially impair their value.
Alabama."
Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris for Secession

(I particularly like this speech; if slavery was abolished and slaves set free, then Whites would be forced to commit murder!):

ALABAMA:
"I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME!

Speech of E.S. Dargan Secession Convention of Alabama 1861
South Carolina:

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." [Fugitive Slave Clause]

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.
In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed....

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. 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; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
================
(note how they assert their States' Rights plea, while at the same time asserting their Right to interfere with Northern States' Rights.)
=================
Mississippi:

Quote:
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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Declaration of Secession

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...

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. 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. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South...
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.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property** in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.
**property = humans

Liberty! Equality! Security! -- except for the nearly half of our population that are in bondage and we own as one might own a horse or cattle and place up on auction blocks..
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War

Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War

The bottom line: Lincoln didn't give a hoot about the slaves. He invaded Virginia to enforce the Morrill tariff and mulct the South of its wealth.

 

[bripat9643]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

Exactly right. You can call the Democrats back then or you can call them Republicans today. Doesn't matter. The racist south was, and is, Conservative right.

Historically, Conservatives have opposed the expansion of rights in this country at virtually every turn, generation by generation,

issue by issue.

Why are they called conservatives, afterall?

Because they want to CONSERVE things the way they are. Or, they want to move backwards, and then conserve things the way they were.

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

 

[Asclepias]

...
But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

When the South wrote their Declarations of Causes to secede -- *they* made pretty much all about slavery. You ever read them?

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I have read them and the issue of their right to maintain the institution of slavery was indeed at the forefront. It could have just as easily been mules and horses if that had been the property federal government threatened to take from them.

Let's try this... Imagine for a moment it's 2024... Liberal morons have been totally unsuccessful at pushing their 'green' agenda and decide that internal combustion engines are immoral and have to go! They are electing candidates who are talking crazy stuff... like the government seizing all cars and trucks operating on internal combustion, or rendering such engines inoperable. Several times it has gone to court and SCOTUS keeps saying the same thing... people have the right to own cars and trucks and keep them as property.

Now when things finally come to a head and the liberals have elected a man who speaks of abolishing cars and trucks, the secession documents will likely mention cars and trucks and our inalienable right to own them and how it's unconstitutional for the government to take them. But that does not mean the ensuing war is about the morality of the internal combustion engine. You can turn it into that after the war is over, and you can promote that myth for the next 200 years, teaching all the little kiddies about those mean old people who hated the environment and didn't see the evils of internal combustion. After a while, many will just come to accept that was what the war was all about.

No, it wasn't anything like that.

Hang on...sorry for the long one here folks:
The seceding States themselves to told us exactly why they were seceding ...

Louisiana:
"Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages....

That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."

Geo. Williamson
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention
The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states:

"We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....

We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States."Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by Convention of South Carolina
Texas:
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 [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

"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 an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. 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.Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

Speech to Tennessee Legislature by the Governor:
In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio " a person charged in the State (of Tennessee) with the crime " of slave stealing, who had fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio.' The Governor refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him, said: 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the comity which should exist between sister States of the same great Confederacy; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted.
It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders.
It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their fathers.

It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment.

It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southern States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to insurrection.

It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad," amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to materially impair their value.
Alabama."
Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris for Secession

(I particularly like this speech; if slavery was abolished and slaves set free, then Whites would be forced to commit murder!):

ALABAMA:
"I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME!

Speech of E.S. Dargan Secession Convention of Alabama 1861
South Carolina:

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." [Fugitive Slave Clause]

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.
In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed....

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. 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; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
================
(note how they assert their States' Rights plea, while at the same time asserting their Right to interfere with Northern States' Rights.)
=================
Mississippi:

Quote:
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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Declaration of Secession

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...

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. 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. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South...
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.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property** in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.
**property = humans

Liberty! Equality! Security! -- except for the nearly half of our population that are in bondage and we own as one might own a horse or cattle and place up on auction blocks..
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War

Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War

The bottom line: Lincoln didn't give a hoot about the slaves. He invaded Virginia to enforce the Morrill tariff and mulct the South of its wealth.

Thats the first time I have seen you type anything resembling intelligence.

 

[Pheonixops]

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

Hey numbskull, what happened when the South did it?

They had their asses handed to them but good.


Boom. Bye bye idiocy

yeah, we know Lincoln invaded Virginia and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Southerners. The fact that you're proud of that says all we need to know about you.

But the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, right?

LOL, I certainly do hear a few conservative pundits saying "We are the Party of Lincoln!". See hannity and co.

 

[paperview]

...
But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

When the South wrote their Declarations of Causes to secede -- *they* made pretty much all about slavery. You ever read them?

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I have read them and the issue of their right to maintain the institution of slavery was indeed at the forefront. It could have just as easily been mules and horses if that had been the property federal government threatened to take from them.

Let's try this... Imagine for a moment it's 2024... Liberal morons have been totally unsuccessful at pushing their 'green' agenda and decide that internal combustion engines are immoral and have to go! They are electing candidates who are talking crazy stuff... like the government seizing all cars and trucks operating on internal combustion, or rendering such engines inoperable. Several times it has gone to court and SCOTUS keeps saying the same thing... people have the right to own cars and trucks and keep them as property.

Now when things finally come to a head and the liberals have elected a man who speaks of abolishing cars and trucks, the secession documents will likely mention cars and trucks and our inalienable right to own them and how it's unconstitutional for the government to take them. But that does not mean the ensuing war is about the morality of the internal combustion engine. You can turn it into that after the war is over, and you can promote that myth for the next 200 years, teaching all the little kiddies about those mean old people who hated the environment and didn't see the evils of internal combustion. After a while, many will just come to accept that was what the war was all about.

No, it wasn't anything like that.

Hang on...sorry for the long one here folks:
The seceding States themselves to told us exactly why they were seceding ...

Louisiana:
"Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages....

That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."

Geo. Williamson
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention
The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states:

"We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....

We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States."Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by Convention of South Carolina
Texas:
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 [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

"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 an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. 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.Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

Speech to Tennessee Legislature by the Governor:
In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio " a person charged in the State (of Tennessee) with the crime " of slave stealing, who had fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio.' The Governor refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him, said: 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the comity which should exist between sister States of the same great Confederacy; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted.
It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders.
It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their fathers.

It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment.

It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southern States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to insurrection.

It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad," amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to materially impair their value.
Alabama."
Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris for Secession

(I particularly like this speech; if slavery was abolished and slaves set free, then Whites would be forced to commit murder!):

ALABAMA:
"I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME!

Speech of E.S. Dargan Secession Convention of Alabama 1861
South Carolina:

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." [Fugitive Slave Clause]

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.
In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed....

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. 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; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
================
(note how they assert their States' Rights plea, while at the same time asserting their Right to interfere with Northern States' Rights.)
=================
Mississippi:

Quote:
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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Declaration of Secession

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...

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. 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. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South...
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.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property** in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.
**property = humans

Liberty! Equality! Security! -- except for the nearly half of our population that are in bondage and we own as one might own a horse or cattle and place up on auction blocks..
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War

Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War

The bottom line: Lincoln didn't give a hoot about the slaves. He invaded Virginia to enforce the Morrill tariff and mulct the South of its wealth.

Lost cause is Lost cause.

Too bad the rebel idiots decided to leave Congress before the Tariff could be voted on --

Let's listen to Vice President Alexander "Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy" Stephens address the Georgia legislature in November 1860:


"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment.

About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen?

The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself.

And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

Alec Stephen s Speech to the Georgia Legislature

Stephens then goes on to talk about how powerless Lincoln would in getting things passed (and people appointed) because of the "large majority of the House of Representatives against him."

 

[Pheonixops]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

Exactly right. You can call the Democrats back then or you can call them Republicans today. Doesn't matter. The racist south was, and is, Conservative right.

Historically, Conservatives have opposed the expansion of rights in this country at virtually every turn, generation by generation,

issue by issue.

Why are they called conservatives, afterall?

Because they want to CONSERVE things the way they are. Or, they want to move backwards, and then conserve things the way they were.

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly right. You can call the Democrats back then or you can call them Republicans today. Doesn't matter. The racist south was, and is, Conservative right.

Historically, Conservatives have opposed the expansion of rights in this country at virtually every turn, generation by generation,

issue by issue.

Why are they called conservatives, afterall?

Because they want to CONSERVE things the way they are. Or, they want to move backwards, and then conserve things the way they were.

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

 

[Asclepias]

Historically, Conservatives have opposed the expansion of rights in this country at virtually every turn, generation by generation,

issue by issue.

Why are they called conservatives, afterall?

Because they want to CONSERVE things the way they are. Or, they want to move backwards, and then conserve things the way they were.

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

I didnt know national parks was a form of slavery. Socialism takes care of things like that.

 

[Pheonixops]

Historically, Conservatives have opposed the expansion of rights in this country at virtually every turn, generation by generation,

issue by issue.

Why are they called conservatives, afterall?

Because they want to CONSERVE things the way they are. Or, they want to move backwards, and then conserve things the way they were.

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

What "socialism" do you think I support? Now granted, just like Ben Carson *(1996 &2012) I do support some government run programs (like FEMA for instance) but I don't think that we should be a socialist country.
This is the same hero that recently called Obamacare "the worst thing that happened in our country since slavery.".
LOL
Articles Ben Carson s Problematic Views on Health Care

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

I didnt know national parks was a form of slavery. Socialism takes care of things like that.

Socialism = National Parks? Really? Is that the special wisdom you come here to share with everyone?

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

What "socialism" do you think I support? Now granted, just like Ben Carson *(1996 &2012) I do support some government run programs (like FEMA for instance) but I don't think that we should be a socialist country.
This is the same hero that recently called Obamacare "the worst thing that happened in our country since slavery.".
LOL
Articles Ben Carson s Problematic Views on Health Care

Do you support the following?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Obamacare
Public Schools
Public Universities
Welfare of any kind
Interstate Highways
High speed rail
Space program
EPA
SEC
FDA
FCC

 

[Faun]

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

LMAO

You're easily entertained.

No, that was really funny.

 

[Boss]

There are MANY aspects of the Civil War that we don't have the frame of reference for in a post-Civil War America. And I think that is worth a great deal of consideration when trying to comprehend the times and what was actually happening. We have to realize the federal government was not outlawing slavery and the South rebelled, there had been no legislation suggesting any sort of a thing. We outlawed slave trade, the slave markets, etc., that had been done years before, it wasn't happening in America in 1860. The SCOTUS had ruled in several cases and the US law of the land said slaves were property and the fundamental right to own them rests with their owner. The Southern states didn't do this on their own. This was the actions of US Presidents and Congress all the way up to Lincoln.

So from a purely Constitutional standpoint, what power does the government have to come seize your property? It's covered in the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It was literally for this very reason the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the seceded states... they weren't protected by the Constitution anymore. It was well after the end of the war that Congress got around to drafting the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments rendering slavery unconstitutional.

Now, as much as there was any kind of "conservatives" back then, they were the business men who mostly favored states having the right to decide on slavery. Cotton was our #1 trade good.... King Cotton. Mills all along the Eastern seaboard were making tons of money on cotton thanks to Eli Whitney, and life was sweet. New York threatened to secede over the war because they simply didn't want to fight it. But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

The war was entirely about slavery because if you take slavery out of the equation it is impossible to envision a plausible scenario where 11 states would secede while unifying around the forming of a completely new nation,
the result being a war between that nation and the states remaining in the Union.

I have to say yes and no. The war was actually about whether states have the right to secede from the US. It happened to involve the slavery issue, but the issue was not enslavement of people. SCOTUS and Congress had determined slavery was legal and constitutional. Slave owners had the constitutional right to own slaves as property protected by the 4th Amendment. Slaves had no constitutional rights.

Thats what they want you to think. If it was about the right to secede instead of slavery they would not have mentioned they were seceding because of slavery. It says it right in the articles of secession. It also says the same thing in the Keystone address. It was the most important issue of the day for decades leading up to the civil war. Slavery in the US was a money maker like none other in history. Its thee reason the US became an economic power. Of course for the south slavery was the issue.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

That simply leaves no room for doubt.

Thats what they want you to think.

Who is "they?" I have been intrigued by Civil War history my entire life. I have probably read more books on this than you've read books of any kind. I have studied about the lead-up and causes of the war, from various different sources and from different perspectives. It's sort of a hobby, to be honest. I speak for myself, no one is telling me what to think.

Yep... slavery was a money maker. It was the backbone of the Southern economy and virtually the entire US agricultural economy, which was most of the economy in 1860. Not only did slaves make money, they had real value as property. They were assets. It is estimated their property value at the time of the war was somewhere close to $1 billion. (That's like a trillion in today's world.)

So on what Constitutional basis does the federal government have to render their property rights null and void? I'm not asking you a moral question but a constitutional one, and it was the prevailing constitutional question of the day. Lincoln could not legally apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the Union States, it would have been unconstitutional at that time.

As for the "negro equality" issue, that is another animal entirely from slavery. About 97% of American white society did not believe blacks were equal to whites. Lincoln reiterated this in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The issue of slavery was not an "equality" issue, it was a humanitarian issue. It's like how most of us are opposed to animal cruelty... doesn't mean we believe they deserve constitutional rights as our equals. It took another century for blacks to gain equal rights, so let's not pretend the Civil War was a civil rights issue.

Back to the Southern perspectives... Plantation owners represented about 2% of the population and owned about 75% of the land in the South, and most of the slaves. The remaining 98% who weren't slaves, were poor farmers who worked along side the slaves or people who worked to support the large plantation system all through the South. Their paychecks were tied to the Plantation, so they had some vested interest in what was best for them. But for the most part, it was the perspective of protecting their homeland.

People are sometimes shocked when I tell them that no slave owners died fighting the Civil War. This may not be absolute truth, but it has to be pretty damn close. As crazy as it sounds today, back then you had an option afforded the wealthy and powerful whereby they could send "proxies" to do their fighting. No wealthy plantation owner or his sons had to go off to war, they sent proxies. Now some of them did go, but they went as officers and generals. The 600k men who died with muskets in hand on the battlefields were not slave owners.

 

[Faun]

They had no legal jurisdiction to order federal employees to vacate the fort. The section you highlighted above in no way granted them the authority to do so; and they certainly didn't have the authority because you're too fucking stupid to understand the section you highlighted.

For example ... even if the state of SC determined those federal employees had violated SC law -- the limit of SC's jurisdiction was to serve them subpoena's.

Capiche?

Or are you still stuck on stupid?

It doesn't say that, numskull. It says "all processes, civil and criminal."

To demonstrate how retarded you are -- YOU added a period to end that sentence where no such period exists. You tried to alter that resolution to meet your deranged definition of it since its actual meaning paints you as the imbecile you are.

Thanks for providing that tell.

Desperate.

I added a period to the sentence that contained the quote. Don't you know the most basic rules of English?

Adding the period altered the context of the sentence; which of course, is why you modified the sentence. Placing a period where you did excludes the limits of their jurisdiction encoded in that sentence.

You altered the fucking meaning of the sentence and then have the audacity to pretend it doesn't matter.

At any rate, realize it or not, you threw in the towel on that one by tacitly admitting SC did not retain ALL legal jurisdiction on the land. You had to remove the section where they say the retain only process serving rights on individuals who may violate SC law.

Nope, it retained authority over "all processes, civil and criminal." The later part says "and any person there being who may be implicated by law." That means in addition to "all processes, civil and criminal."

You really need to take some remedial English.

Umm ... if the sentence said what you delude yourself into believing it meant, you wouldn't have had to alter it.

Here's part of the sentence you removed ... what do you think it means ...

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

 

[paperview]

... The issue of slavery was not an "equality" issue, it was a humanitarian issue. It's like how most of us are opposed to animal cruelty... doesn't mean we believe they deserve constitutional rights as our equals. It took another century for blacks to gain equal rights, so let's not pretend the Civil War was a civil rights issue.

Lincoln believed when the Declaration of Independence said "All Men are Created Equal" -- they meant it -- even in regards to slaves.

Back to the Southern perspectives... Plantation owners represented about 2% of the population and owned about 75% of the land in the South, and most of the slaves. The remaining 98% who weren't slaves, were poor farmers who worked along side the slaves or people who worked to support the large plantation system all through the South."

25 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Heard time and time again is the apology to somehow cast the southerners who went to war as fighting only for a noble cause, and not to protect slavery.

But when you consider more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the boys did too.

However, that slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South.

The vast majority of slaveholding families (just shy of 90%) had under 20 slaves, 50% under 5. Now consider the sheer volume of slaves: Just shy of 4 million. Out of a total 9 million populace.

Slavery was everywhere, and touched their lives in every way -- they were full up to the brim in it, immersed in it, and that is why the "most southerners didn't own slaves" -- while true in raw numbers -- belies the notion in actuality those boys were fighting to preserve what they knew was literally their lifeblood.

People are sometimes shocked when I tell them that no slave owners died fighting the Civil War.

Not true. see above.

 

[Pheonixops]

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

What "socialism" do you think I support? Now granted, just like Ben Carson *(1996 &2012) I do support some government run programs (like FEMA for instance) but I don't think that we should be a socialist country.
This is the same hero that recently called Obamacare "the worst thing that happened in our country since slavery.".
LOL
Articles Ben Carson s Problematic Views on Health Care

Do you support the following?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Obamacare
Public Schools
Public Universities
Welfare of any kind
Interstate Highways
High speed rail
Space program
EPA
SEC
FDA
FCC

Social Security: Sure because most workers in this country are already invested into the Social Security system. BUT , I'm not against a program where people can opt out of it and have their own private "social security" as long as they don't go running to the government if something catastrophic happens or they go broke.

Medicare: It should be voluntary if one wants to opt out "as they don't go running to the government if something catastrophic happens or they go broke".

Medicaid: Poor people do need access to healthcare, this benefits society at large. Imagine if some poor person caught the ebola virus (or the like) and was too poor to see a doctor and get treatment, thus having the ability to spread a deadly contagious disease to everyone, including rich people.

Obamacare: I'm disappointed that he didn't keep his promise to make it VOLUNTARY and NOT mandatory (thus following the lead of the Heritage plan). So the answer is NO.

Public Schools: I have no problem with public schools because they are pretty much VOLUNTARY, if people want to opt out they can home school or send their children to a private school as long as they don't use services (that they don't pay for) that are meant for public school children.

Public Universities: Same as above.

Welfare of any kind: "Don't be afraid of the angry man, be afraid of the hungry man.". I have no problem with it as long as it is not finite and they have to pay back their benefits before they can get on it again.

Interstate Highways: Of course!!!!

High speed rail: What about it? Many private companies will benefit from it.

Space program: Sure because it helps with our national security.

EPA: Of course, who would want some idiots dumping toxins in our waterways and poisoning us?

SEC: Sure, we have enough ponzi schemes to deal with already.

FDA: See my EPA answer.

FCC: In a very limited role.

 

[bripat9643]

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

LMAO

You're easily entertained.

No, that was really funny.

I'll bet you think Barney the Purple Dinosaur is a riot.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't say that, numskull. It says "all processes, civil and criminal."

To demonstrate how retarded you are -- YOU added a period to end that sentence where no such period exists. You tried to alter that resolution to meet your deranged definition of it since its actual meaning paints you as the imbecile you are.

Thanks for providing that tell.

Desperate.

I added a period to the sentence that contained the quote. Don't you know the most basic rules of English?

Adding the period altered the context of the sentence; which of course, is why you modified the sentence. Placing a period where you did excludes the limits of their jurisdiction encoded in that sentence.

You altered the fucking meaning of the sentence and then have the audacity to pretend it doesn't matter.

At any rate, realize it or not, you threw in the towel on that one by tacitly admitting SC did not retain ALL legal jurisdiction on the land. You had to remove the section where they say the retain only process serving rights on individuals who may violate SC law.

Nope, it retained authority over "all processes, civil and criminal." The later part says "and any person there being who may be implicated by law." That means in addition to "all processes, civil and criminal."

You really need to take some remedial English.

Umm ... if the sentence said what you delude yourself into believing it meant, you wouldn't have had to alter it.

Here's part of the sentence you removed ... what do you think it means ...

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

I've posted the entire thing multiple times. You're the one trying to alter its meaning. Here it is again:

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;
​

Note: the stuff coming after the last "and" is in addition to the stuff referred to prior to it. People may be served IN ADDITION TO "processes civil and criminal"

 

[bripat9643]

... The issue of slavery was not an "equality" issue, it was a humanitarian issue. It's like how most of us are opposed to animal cruelty... doesn't mean we believe they deserve constitutional rights as our equals. It took another century for blacks to gain equal rights, so let's not pretend the Civil War was a civil rights issue.

Lincoln believed when the Declaration of Independence said "All Men are Created Equal" -- they meant it -- even in regards to slaves.

Of course, Lincoln didn't believe it. He was a white supremacist:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

- Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.​

Back to the Southern perspectives... Plantation owners represented about 2% of the population and owned about 75% of the land in the South, and most of the slaves. The remaining 98% who weren't slaves, were poor farmers who worked along side the slaves or people who worked to support the large plantation system all through the South."

25 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Heard time and time again is the apology to somehow cast the southerners who went to war as fighting only for a noble cause, and not to protect slavery.

But when you consider more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the boys did too.

However, that slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South.

The vast majority of slaveholding families (just shy of 90%) had under 20 slaves, 50% under 5. Now consider the sheer volume of slaves: Just shy of 4 million. Out of a total 9 million populace.

Slavery was everywhere, and touched their lives in every way -- they were full up to the brim in it, immersed in it, and that is why the "most southerners didn't own slaves" -- while true in raw numbers -- belies the notion in actuality those boys were fighting to preserve what they knew was literally their lifeblood.

People are sometimes shocked when I tell them that no slave owners died fighting the Civil War.

Not true. see above.

That's all totally irrelevant since the white supremacist, Abraham Lincoln, did not invade Virginia to free the slaves.

 

[rdean]

You are irreversibly retarded. No one doubted there are racist blacks who kill whites due to their racism.

You were given an example of where racist whites killed blacks because you doubted that ever occurred over mere words.

Too bad you don't possess the character required to simply admit you were wrong and move on.

1. The original claim implied that such incidents were common. So far there has only been one example posted. Whereas, I posted multiple examples of black atrocities committed against whites.
2. The second implication of the claim was that it was something unique to whites. That obviously isn't the case.

Why should anyone be concerned about a unique occurrence of white on black crime?

Lynch Law By Ida B. Wells

I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

BTW, ass breath, no one ever claimed there were never any lynchings in the South.

You said: I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

I can't believe you said that when the most famous lynching of all was Emmett Till.

It wasn't listed in the post I was responding to, numskull.

Let me make sure I understand this. You said: I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman." So I pointed out the most famous lynching of all. And you apparently, after making such a comment admited you didn't know shit. Then you call me "numskull". Since I don't know what that is, I'm guessing it's supposed to be a "retort"?
You not knowing anything doesn't make me stupid. I thought that was obvious.