Civil War and some Myths.

[Publius1787]

Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.

I've put forth a lot of documented history. History the Publius has chose to ignore.
It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.

Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?

Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?

No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman. These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to. Cherrypicking.

That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.

Yeah. The Confederate Vp that voted against secession? The Confederate VP that wanted to remain loyal to the union? The same Confederate Vice President that disaproved of the Lecompton Constitution for Kansas making it a slave state? The same Vice President that wasent a Democrat until shortly before the war? He was against secession and for maintaining peace until the south seceded dispite his views.

Here is a quote from THE SAME SPEECH you left out in reards to trade and tarrifs the Constitution etc. It is the first part of his speech to mostly wealthy people from Georgia who got the best seats up front. I wonder if they owned slaves. The speech goes on after this segment with three paragraphs about slavery and the overwhelmingly majority about war. I would bolden, highlight and underline it but theres too much substance to do so.

[At this point the uproar and clamor outside was greater still for the speaker to go out on the steps. This was quieted by Col. Lawton, Col. Freeman, Judge Jackson, and Mr. J. W. Owens going out and stating the facts of the case to the dense mass of men, women, and children who were outside, and entertaining them in brief speeches -- Mr. Stephens all this while quietly sitting down until the furor subsided.]

MR. STEPHENS rose and said: When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time-I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. [Loud applause.] I very much regret that every one who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or any thing very entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear them.

I was remarking, that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]

This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark. It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. [Applause.] Some changes have been made. Of these I shall speak presently. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but these, perhaps, meet the cordial approbation of a majority of this audience, if not an overwhelming majority of the people of the Confederacy. Of them, therefore, I will not speak. But other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.]

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system.The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way-but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?

The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefitted by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice. [Applause.] And it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Another feature to which I will allude, is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives-may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government. It is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle.

Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, inforcing, or defending his views of policy; his only resort was through the medium of an organ. In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to. This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system. In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ. [Rapturous applause.]

[A noise again arose from the clamor of the crowd outside, who wished to hear Mr. Stephens, and for some moments interrupted him. The mayor rose and called on the police to preserve order. Quiet being restored, Mr. S. proceeded.]

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy. [Applause.]

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

3 paragraphs about slavery The rest on war. I honestly dont want to continue to throw this material in your face. My snippits are newspaper articles and in context quotes. Your the only one providing these one sentence snippits. Enough of this shit allready.

 

[Ringel05]

Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.

I've put forth a lot of documented history. History the Publius has chose to ignore.
It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.

Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?

Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?

No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman. These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to. Cherrypicking.

That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.

I have no idea why or even if he ignored those, I didn't read your full exchange. Besides what I have read here is both sides cherry picking, but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue. It's called lack of objectivity.

 

[Publius1787]

Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.

I've put forth a lot of documented history. History the Publius has chose to ignore.
It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.

Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?

Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?

No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman. These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to. Cherrypicking.

That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.

I have no idea why or even if he ignored those, I didn't read your full exchange. Besides what I have read here is both sides cherry picking, but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue. It's called lack of objectivity.

My source comes from the worlds leading scholar on tax law who is a northerner. Objectivity in tact. It was an article about him that I referenced about his book that sits on my shelf.

 

[Ringel05]

I've put forth a lot of documented history. History the Publius has chose to ignore.
It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.

Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?

Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?

No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman. These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to. Cherrypicking.

That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.

I have no idea why or even if he ignored those, I didn't read your full exchange. Besides what I have read here is both sides cherry picking, but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue. It's called lack of objectivity.

My source comes from the worlds leading scholar on tax law who is a northerner. Objectivity in tact. It was an article about him that I referenced about his book that sits on my shelf.

I stated both sides, not all sides. There is a definite distinction.

 

[Publius1787]

I have no idea why or even if he ignored those, I didn't read your full exchange. Besides what I have read here is both sides cherry picking, but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue. It's called lack of objectivity.

My source comes from the worlds leading scholar on tax law who is a northerner. Objectivity in tact. It was an article about him that I referenced about his book that sits on my shelf.

I stated both sides, not all sides. There is a definite distinction.

I dont get overheated or emotional. I dont call people names though there are a few exceptions. I dont resort to profanity or name calling in a debate in the absence of an arguement. I have fun and I learn things. Thats whats great about the history section. More people should visit here in this part of the forum.

 

[Toronado3800]

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.

I found this at the end of that speech. Interesting.

This state's rights stuff is convenient hogwash now as it was then. Republicans now do not want Oregon to have any rights under the Constitution which disagree with Republican views on life, death, or burning cloth.

Sure in 1860 some folks who were born before 1776 might have thought of themselves as Georgians or Carolinians. Someone in Texas might have even thought Texas was honestly a nation for a year so if they were born that year they were Texonian.

I figure it just comes down to racism and economics. I'm white so I get to hear all the finer details of racism in the 21st century when I go to white bars in Missoura. Economic problems like loosing all your slaves/captive labor would upset folks also. Heck, modern economic problems got a black man with a funny name elected President.

 

[Publius1787]

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.

I found this at the end of that speech. Interesting.

This state's rights stuff is convenient hogwash now as it was then. Republicans now do not want Oregon to have any rights under the Constitution which disagree with Republican views on life, death, or burning cloth.

Sure in 1860 some folks who were born before 1776 might have thought of themselves as Georgians or Carolinians. Someone in Texas might have even thought Texas was honestly a nation for a year so if they were born that year they were Texonian.

I figure it just comes down to racism and economics. I'm white so I get to hear all the finer details of racism in the 21st century when I go to white bars in Missoura. Economic problems like loosing all your slaves/captive labor would upset folks also. Heck, modern economic problems got a black man with a funny name elected President.

Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.

 

[paperview]

Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.

You see. This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.

Madison, sometimes called the “Father of the Constitution” - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.

Here's some reading for you to catch up on:

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster

The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People

There’s No Room for Secession in the Constitution

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes

 

[Ringel05]

Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.

You see. This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.

Madison, sometimes called the “Father of the Constitution” - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.

Here's some reading for you to catch up on:

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster

The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People

There’s No Room for Secession in the Constitution

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes

Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it. Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this. It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.

 

[Publius1787]

Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.

You see. This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.

Madison, sometimes called the “Father of the Constitution” - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.

Here's some reading for you to catch up on:

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster

The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People

There’s No Room for Secession in the Constitution

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes

Your not the one to talk about reading >>>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3695881-post101.html

Thomas Jefferson:

First Inaugural Address said,

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

letter to John C. Breckinridge,Aug. 12, 1803):

“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

letter to To Dr. Joseph Priestley, Jan. 29, 1804

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

letter to Secretary of War William Crawford

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.”

letter to former U.S. Attorney General Richard Rush

“The experiment of separation would soon prove to both that they had mutually miscalculated their best interests. And even were the parties in Congress to secede in a passion, the soberer people would call a convention and cement again the severance attempted by the insanity of their functionaries.”

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said,

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.

Federalist Paper 39, James Madison

The father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

 

[paperview]

Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.

You see. This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.

Madison, sometimes called the “Father of the Constitution” - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.

Here's some reading for you to catch up on:

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster

The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People

There’s No Room for Secession in the Constitution

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes

Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it. Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this. It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.

My opponent claimed James Madison "believed in secession," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like Madison believed in secession." His grasp of basic facts is lacking. Read back for further major errors. You'll see.

As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to reinstate slavery...that's just hogwash. I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now. It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.

It's not about anyone wanting to reinstate slavery. It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept they lost.

 

[Publius1787]

You see. This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.

Madison, sometimes called the “Father of the Constitution” - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.

Here's some reading for you to catch up on:

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster

The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People

There’s No Room for Secession in the Constitution

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes

Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it. Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this. It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.

My opponent claimed James Madison "believed in secession," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like Madison believed in secession." His grasp of basic facts is lacking. Read back for further major errors. You'll see.

As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to reinstate slavery...that's just hogwash. I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now. It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.

It's not about anyone wanting to reinstate slavery. It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept they lost.

I never broke topic with you or changed it. You refused to respond to my response and responded to my response to another. Now your drawing concludsions based on nothing other than the way you wished things were. And your attempt to accuse people of wanting to reinstate slavery must be your true beleife on those who have my view. Thats BS!

 

[paperview]

Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it. Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this. It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.

My opponent claimed James Madison "believed in secession," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like Madison believed in secession." His grasp of basic facts is lacking. Read back for further major errors. You'll see.

As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to reinstate slavery...that's just hogwash. I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now. It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.

It's not about anyone wanting to reinstate slavery. It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept they lost.

I never broke topic with you or changed it. You refused to respond to my response and responded to my response to another. Now your drawing concludsions based on nothing other than the way you wished things were. And your attempt to accuse people of wanting to reinstate slavery must be your true beleife on those who have my view. Thats BS!

Jesus Christ Almighty. You can't even read.

For God sakes man. READ my post again. I said no such thing, as a matter of fact I was disputing Ringle's false claim.

Man.

 

[paperview]

Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.

You see. This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.

Madison, sometimes called the “Father of the Constitution” - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.

Here's some reading for you to catch up on:

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster

The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People

There’s No Room for Secession in the Constitution

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes

Your not the one to talk about reading >>>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3695881-post101.html

Thomas Jefferson:

First Inaugural Address said,

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

letter to John C. Breckinridge,Aug. 12, 1803):

<blah blah>

Totally ignoring what I posted about Madison...

Snippets is what you bring, majority from Jefferson, who was not even there when the Constitution was written. He was also an anti-federalist. I should remind you, the anti-federalists lost.

You were presented with Madison's words, the guy who was, you know there, and who helped write it, and you ignored it.

You're not here to learn. You're here to regurgitate Lost Cause pablum.
Let nothing stand in your way!

 

[Publius1787]

My opponent claimed James Madison "believed in secession," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like Madison believed in secession." His grasp of basic facts is lacking. Read back for further major errors. You'll see.

As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to reinstate slavery...that's just hogwash. I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now. It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.

It's not about anyone wanting to reinstate slavery. It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept they lost.

I never broke topic with you or changed it. You refused to respond to my response and responded to my response to another. Now your drawing concludsions based on nothing other than the way you wished things were. And your attempt to accuse people of wanting to reinstate slavery must be your true beleife on those who have my view. Thats BS!

Jesus Christ Almighty. You can't even read.

For God sakes man. READ my post again. I said no such thing, as a matter of fact I was disputing Ringle's false claim.

Man.

ooo. sorry. Its just that your responces that invoke me are becoming less and less about the actual topic and I dont generaly take as much time to read bs that is off topic or tries to pin an unqualified label to anyone. You still havent responded to my confederate vp post. But then again that speaks volumes in it of itself. I wouldent recomend quoting someone who voted against secession to prove your point.

 

[paperview]

Yeah. Obviously, tariffs. lol

Stephan Dodson Ramseur, Confederate general: "...Slavery, the very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us."

Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, December 27, 1860: "Mr. President, it seems to me that northern Senators most pertinaciously overlook the main point at issue between the two sections of our Confederacy. We claim that there is property in slaves, and they deny it. Until we shall settle, upon some basis, that point of controversy, it is idle to talk of going any further."

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama, speaking to the Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861: "The question of Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause of secession."

John B. Baldwin, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery...."

 

[paperview]

ooo. sorry. Its just that your responces that invoke me are becoming less and less about the actual topic and I dont generaly take as much time to read bs that is off topic or tries to pin an unqualified label to anyone. You still havent responded to my confederate vp post. But then again that speaks volumes in it of itself. I wouldent recomend quoting someone who voted against secession to prove your point.

Yeah. I figured you weren't even reading. Maybe you should slow down and digest the information, rather than be so quick to make yourself look like an idiot.

Alexander Stephens did vote again secession, but he also, at that same convention asserted the right to secede Union continued to allow the North to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law..

That was a big part of the secession declarations, or did you forget? Perhaps didn't even know?

By claiming Stephens was somehow a transient and insignificant dishrag when it came to the Confederacy, when he was elected as the DAMN VICE PRESIDENT, and remained VP until his arrest after the war, shows the weakness of your argument in and of itself.
He was moderately pro-slavery, earlier, and was ready to try and compromise, yes, given the implications, but he most assuredly moved to the full throated call of secession after.

Even still, look at how vigorously he defended the right to extend slavery, years earlier:

"...[Stephens] was a vigorous opponent of the Wilmot Proviso, which would have barred the extension of slavery into territories acquired by the United States during the war with Mexico. This would later nearly kill Stephens when he argued with Judge Reuben Cone, who stabbed him repeatedly in a fit of anger. Stephens was physically outmatched by his larger assailant, but he remained defiant during the attack, refusing to recant his positions even at the cost of his life.
​

With his life.

His Cornerstone speech, years later, made it clear, however much you want to deny, what it was about.

I'll remind you, the President of the Confederacy, also called slavery the Cornerstone.

You're going to have to live with them facts.

 

[paperview]

The most primary of primary sources---> the seceding states themselves.

South Carolina made it's case by telling us how pissed off they were 14 states that " deliberately refused...to fulfill their Constitutional obligations."
They then point to that Constitutional obligation directly: the 4th Article of the US Constitution.

Yeah, that would be the Fugitive Slave clause written into the Constitution protecting slaveowners property rights.

It was so material to them, they told us their representatives never would have signed the Constitution, were that not there.

They then go on to tell us that since the election of a Republican - a war would “be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States” and the agitation against the slaveholding had been going on now for 25 years, and therefore, they had no choice but to secede.

Alabama lamented Lincoln's election and scowled that “a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions” of the state. [domestic institutions = slavery]

Georgia said the (anti-slavery) Republican rise to power “will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia” to secede.
She provided a reason by stating “a brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed.“

Texas blamed “an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery.”

Mississippi made no bones about it. Right up front in it's secession document, it begins:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of dollars, or we must secede from the Union.”

All there, for anyone who wants to read them: Declaration of Causes of Secession

 

[paperview]

In a broadside dated January 5, 1863, and published at Richmond ::

Original here: http://international.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe18/rbpe187/18702100/001dr.jpg

"An Address To the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy..."

"...all free Negroes in the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever."

So EVEN THE FREE BLACKS AFTER 1863 WERE NO LONGER FREE!
Even their children and children's children were bonded into slavery FOREVER!

These were, prior to 1863, FREE BLACKS in the South.

Neo-confederates: Wanna tell me again how this wasn't about slavery -- and that, as some like pretend, the Institution itself was "on its way out???"

Go head. Try if you can.

 

[paperview]

Moreover, in that broadside, Davis proclaimed that all Negroes who were captured in states where slavery did not exist were to be adjudged to occupy the status of slaves,

"...so that the respective normal condition of the white and black races may be ultimately placed on a permanent basis."

Any of these neo-confederates starts to tell you the South did not fight primarily to defends slavery, or had any intention of before, during the war, or long after - of getting rid of slavery - or allowing it to "die out" Remind them of this declaration by the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis.