Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
And slavery!
And slavery!
Yes, the Confederacy practiced slavery, as did the Union. Neither side has the moral high ground on that issue.
Are you serious?! The union, led by Abraham Lincoln and 350,000 dead union soldiers don't have the moral high ground on the issue of slavery? I realize that not everyone in the north was a saint that went off to war to end the suffering of the black man but that is what it was all about and I think the USA can most assuredly claim the moral high ground over the traitors from the CSA.
Are you serious?! The union, led by Abraham Lincoln and 350,000 dead union soldiers don't have the moral high ground on the issue of slavery? I realize that not everyone in the north was a saint that went off to war to end the suffering of the black man but that is what it was all about and I think the USA can most assuredly claim the moral high ground over the traitors from the CSA.
Delaware, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri were all slave states that remained in the Union. If it was all about the "suffering of the black man," then why didn't Lincoln end slavery in those states?
In the middle of a war where they could defect to the other side... hmm, I do wonder why.
Lincoln grabbed onto it after the war had started to motivate the troops and keep them from leaving, since many of them were coming to the end of their enlistment, conscription wasn't an option, and he was short of money to pay them.
The North gave up slavery primarily because it was a bad fit for their type of economy, not through any moralistic view of it. .
So basically, "We'll declare freedom for all the slaves in the states we don't control, and let the states on our side keep THEIR slaves as a bribe to stay in the Union." Yeah, some "moral high ground".
They couldn't form a confederation while still a part of the Union, but once they seceded, which is not prohibited in the Constitution, they were no longer part of the Union and the Constitution no longer applied.
You guys are really stuck on "exact" words..on certain things. Yes..secession is prohibited by the Constitution.
There is, maybe, one way, it could legally be done..and that would be by an act of congress.
But that would be near to impossible.
I'll ask you again to show me the article, paragraph, clause, or amendment in the Constitution that prohibits secession.
You can't. There is none.
No, the Union doesn't get to claim "moral high ground" on the slavery issue, no matter how much people want to pretend the war was fought to free the slaves. The North gave up slavery primarily because it was a bad fit for their type of economy, not through any moralistic view of it. And you'd be hard-pressed to find people in the Union army who thought they were there to free slaves.
personal-liberty laws, in U.S. history, pre-Civil War laws passed by Northern state governments to counteract the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Acts and to protect escaped slaves and free blacks settled in the North.
Contravening the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which did not provide for trial by jury, Indiana (1824) and Connecticut (1828) enacted laws making jury trials for escaped slaves possible upon appeal. In 1840 Vermont and New York granted fugitives the right of jury trial and provided them with attorneys. After 1842, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act was a federal function, some Northern state governments passed laws forbidding state authorities to cooperate in the capture and return of fugitives. In the reaction to the Fugitive Slave Act contained in the Compromise of 1850, most Northern states provided further guarantees of jury trial, authorized severe punishment for illegal seizure and perjury against alleged fugitives, and forbade state authorities to recognize claims to fugitives. These laws were among the many assaults on states rights cited as a justification for secession by South Carolina in 1860.
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, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
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.
What is the differences between the Confederacy and al qaeda, seeing that both declared war on the United States?
The Confederacy didn't want to do anything more than leave.
and how many Americans died? how many were crippled and maimed? what are the consequences of actions?
Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
And slavery!
Interesting story. He actually thought the South was going to have to eventually lose slavery and industrialize like the North, or be in big trouble. He just wasn't a big believer in the ability of freed slaves to take care of themselves. And considering how little education the vast majority of slaves had, he had a point.
But no, he didn't join the South's side of the war for slavery.
You guys are really stuck on "exact" words..on certain things. Yes..secession is prohibited by the Constitution.
There is, maybe, one way, it could legally be done..and that would be by an act of congress.
But that would be near to impossible.
I'll ask you again to show me the article, paragraph, clause, or amendment in the Constitution that prohibits secession.
You can't. There is none.
Of course I showed it to you.
And the Constitution is online as well.
No, the Union doesn't get to claim "moral high ground" on the slavery issue, no matter how much people want to pretend the war was fought to free the slaves. The North gave up slavery primarily because it was a bad fit for their type of economy, not through any moralistic view of it. And you'd be hard-pressed to find people in the Union army who thought they were there to free slaves.
Northern opposition to slavery was obviously about more than just economics.
personal-liberty laws (United States history) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
personal-liberty laws, in U.S. history, pre-Civil War laws passed by Northern state governments to counteract the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Acts and to protect escaped slaves and free blacks settled in the North.
Contravening the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which did not provide for trial by jury, Indiana (1824) and Connecticut (1828) enacted laws making jury trials for escaped slaves possible upon appeal. In 1840 Vermont and New York granted fugitives the right of jury trial and provided them with attorneys. After 1842, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act was a federal function, some Northern state governments passed laws forbidding state authorities to cooperate in the capture and return of fugitives. In the reaction to the Fugitive Slave Act contained in the Compromise of 1850, most Northern states provided further guarantees of jury trial, authorized severe punishment for illegal seizure and perjury against alleged fugitives, and forbade state authorities to recognize claims to fugitives. These laws were among the many assaults on states rights cited as a justification for secession by South Carolina in 1860.
See South Carolina bitching and moaning about northern opposition to slavery in their Dear John letter:
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, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.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.
The North gave up slavery primarily because it was a bad fit for their type of economy, not through any moralistic view of it. .
Your personal agenda aside, that is not accurate.
What is the differences between the Confederacy and al qaeda, seeing that both declared war on the United States?
The Confederacy didn't want to do anything more than leave.
and how many Americans died? how many were crippled and maimed? what are the consequences of actions?
The North gave up slavery primarily because it was a bad fit for their type of economy, not through any moralistic view of it. .
Your personal agenda aside, that is not accurate.
The North gave up slavery primarily because it was a bad fit for their type of economy, not through any moralistic view of it. .
Your personal agenda aside, that is not accurate.
They gave it up because European immigrants to the North refused to work alongside blacks and Northerners didn't want them there. That's why the Northern states amended their state constitutions to prevent blacks from moving within their borders.
The North gave up slavery primarily because it was a bad fit for their type of economy, not through any moralistic view of it. .
Your personal agenda aside, that is not accurate.
That's actually very accurate.
Your personal agenda aside, that is not accurate.
That's actually very accurate.
No it's not, because it suggests that moral opposition to slavery was not a consideration when in fact it was. There were a number of other considerations as well, but that one cannot be discounted.
That's actually very accurate.
No it's not, because it suggests that moral opposition to slavery was not a consideration when in fact it was. There were a number of other considerations as well, but that one cannot be discounted.
There weren't enough people morally opposed to slavery in the north to make it a consideration. .
