The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Daily.

But the fact remains that Lysander Spooner despised Lincoln.

Wow.

Lysander Spooner - an anarchist who advocated violence and slave revolts despised Lincoln.

Stop the presses!

lol.

Advocated violence? Spooner opposed Lincoln's violent Civil War because he knew that the southern states had the right to secede, and that if it really was about freeing the slaves then the U.S. could have found a peaceful way to do so like every other country in the world did up to that point.

Advocated slave revolts? That's the reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation. He wanted to incite the slaves in the south to rise up and attack.

 

[Citizen]

So once again we get to hear from the people that think somehow fighting to keep slavery was a States right. That enslavement of other people was a right the States should be able to keep.

The southern states fought for their independence. To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.

Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.

You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.

Maybe you could point out the part of the US Constitution that prohibits the states that voluntarily joined the union from voluntarily leaving it, if that is their wish.

If not just shut up about it, unless you want to discuss something like Lincoln's violation of the US Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia proposed a requirement for a two-thirds majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of adopting the Constitution, but ratification was with the understanding that it could be rescinded if the powers granted the federal government were used to oppress, and that Virginia could them withdraw from the Union.

Let us not forget that there were at least 250,000 slaves held in the 19 Northern states that fought for the union, which were not freed during the war, but had to wait until the 13 amendment was ratified.

The war was really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on the side of the South.

The South knew that it was their import trade that drew from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, which were mainly expended in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These were the reasons the people of the North did not wish the South to secede from the Union.

In December 1860, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coast wise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We would lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

One more example would be the NY Times on March 22, 1861.

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States. It is apparent that the people of the principle seceding states are for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from the Northern to Southern ports...by a revenue system verging on free trade."

So, now maybe you can understand why we refer to the war as, The War of Northern Aggression.

Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.

Also, part of our Southern heritage is the fact that our forefathers fought against Northern aggression when the North was forcing the South to pay for most of the Northern improvements, paid for by the federal government, via tariffs imposed upon the South.

As examples, in 1840 the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. The South paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which has a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports.

The South was paying tribute to the North, and the only way to stop it was to withdraw from the Union they had voluntary entered, with nothing included in the US Constitution to prevent such separation.

A great constitutional failure would be correct it that secession did not violate the US Constitution, while the suspension of Habeas Corpus did violate that document, as did the invasion of the South by the Northern armies.

In March 1861, over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, and a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs that they would not pay duties on imported gods unless the same duties were collected at Southern ports. This was followed by a threat from New York to withdraw from the Union and establish a free-trade zone. Prior to these events, Lincoln's plan was to evacuate Fort Sumter and not precipitate a war, but now he determined to reinforce it rather than suffer prolonged economic disaster in a losing trade war. The reinforcement was met with force by the South, and the war was upon us.

 

[paperview]

Daily.

But the fact remains that Lysander Spooner despised Lincoln.

Wow.

Lysander Spooner - an anarchist who advocated violence and slave revolts despised Lincoln.

Stop the presses!

lol.

Advocated violence? Spooner opposed Lincoln's violent Civil War because he knew that the southern states had the right to secede, and that if it really was about freeing the slaves then the U.S. could have found a peaceful way to do so like every other country in the world did up to that point.

Advocated slave revolts? That's the reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation. He wanted to incite the slaves in the south to rise up and attack.

I'm going to ask this nicely: Are you still in High School?

 

[paperview]

Maybe you could point out the part of the US Constitution that prohibits the states that voluntarily joined the union from voluntarily leaving it, if that is their wish.

If not just shut up about it, unless you want to discuss something like Lincoln's violation of the US Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus.

Your very own Confederate president suspended Habeas Corpus as well, tigerboy.

<crap snipped>

Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.

Here we go again. Yes, a majority did, but about 25 -30% of southern families that owned slaves was not a minuscule amount.

Keep in mind, some southern states actually were a MAJORITY population. You read right - more slaves than free folks.

Slavery was the blood and engine of the south.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wow.

Lysander Spooner - an anarchist who advocated violence and slave revolts despised Lincoln.

Stop the presses!

lol.

Advocated violence? Spooner opposed Lincoln's violent Civil War because he knew that the southern states had the right to secede, and that if it really was about freeing the slaves then the U.S. could have found a peaceful way to do so like every other country in the world did up to that point.

Advocated slave revolts? That's the reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation. He wanted to incite the slaves in the south to rise up and attack.

I'm going to ask this nicely: Are you still in High School?

There's no nice way to ask that, as you are insinuating that my intelligence must be less than yours by comparing me to a high school student. However, the answer is no.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maybe you could point out the part of the US Constitution that prohibits the states that voluntarily joined the union from voluntarily leaving it, if that is their wish.

If not just shut up about it, unless you want to discuss something like Lincoln's violation of the US Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus.

Your very own Confederate president suspended Habeas Corpus as well, tigerboy.

<crap snipped>

Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.

Here we go again. Yes, a majority did, but about 25 -30% of southern families that owned slaves was not a minuscule amount.

Keep in mind, some southern states actually were a MAJORITY population. You read right - more slaves than free folks.

Slavery was the blood and engine of the south.

Kevin has still not even touched on his burden of proof. Let's add to the weight bearing down, down, down. 90% of every dollar of capital in the South, directly and directly, supported the cotton empire.

Kevin, that means all those yeoman farmers were supporting the plantation economies and their slaves by selling the masters all the goodies necessary for continuing slave planting, harvesting, and transporting.

 

[paperview]

Advocated violence? Spooner opposed Lincoln's violent Civil War because he knew that the southern states had the right to secede, and that if it really was about freeing the slaves then the U.S. could have found a peaceful way to do so like every other country in the world did up to that point.

Advocated slave revolts? That's the reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation. He wanted to incite the slaves in the south to rise up and attack.

I'm going to ask this nicely: Are you still in High School?

There's no nice way to ask that, as you are insinuating that my intelligence must be less than yours by comparing me to a high school student. However, the answer is no.

I did ask sincerely because the level of your understand of the subject seems quite elementary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KK, I don't think you are still in high school. But you have clearly and unequivocably not carried your burden of proof. Please concede.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe you could point out the part of the US Constitution that prohibits the states that voluntarily joined the union from voluntarily leaving it, if that is their wish.

If not just shut up about it, unless you want to discuss something like Lincoln's violation of the US Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus.

Your very own Confederate president suspended Habeas Corpus as well, tigerboy.

<crap snipped>

Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.

Here we go again. Yes, a majority did, but about 25 -30% of southern families that owned slaves was not a minuscule amount.

Keep in mind, some southern states actually were a MAJORITY population. You read right - more slaves than free folks.

Slavery was the blood and engine of the south.

Kevin has still not even touched on his burden of proof. Let's add to the weight bearing down, down, down. 90% of every dollar of capital in the South, directly and directly, supported the cotton empire.

Kevin, that means all those yeoman farmers were supporting the plantation economies and their slaves by selling the masters all the goodies necessary for continuing slave planting, harvesting, and transporting.

What burden of proof have I not touched on? I notice that you still completely ignore the quotes that you asked for.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm going to ask this nicely: Are you still in High School?

There's no nice way to ask that, as you are insinuating that my intelligence must be less than yours by comparing me to a high school student. However, the answer is no.

I did ask sincerely because the level of your understand of the subject seems quite elementary.

By all means continue to try and undermine the legitimacy of what I posted by questioning my level of intelligence rather than addressing the points that I made.

 

[rdean]

Let me just point out that the Confederacy is NOT dead. It even has it's own political party. Only it's not called the "Confederate" Party, oh no, it's called the "Republican" Party.

 

[paperview]

There's no nice way to ask that, as you are insinuating that my intelligence must be less than yours by comparing me to a high school student. However, the answer is no.

I did ask sincerely because the level of your understand of the subject seems quite elementary.

By all means continue to try and undermine the legitimacy of what I posted by questioning my level of intelligence rather than addressing the points that I made.

I believe I did, but it's kind of hard when you consider a legitimate argument to be "Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln!" (so there!) and Alexander Stephens had the same philosophy as Lincoln regarding blacks.

I mean really...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let me just point out that the Confederacy is NOT dead. It even has it's own political party. Only it's not called the "Confederate" Party, oh no, it's called the "Republican" Party.

You're aware that it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that opposed the Confederates, right? I also hope you're aware that RetiredGySgt is a Republican and does not believe that the states have the right to secede, as he has argued in this very thread.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I did ask sincerely because the level of your understand of the subject seems quite elementary.

By all means continue to try and undermine the legitimacy of what I posted by questioning my level of intelligence rather than addressing the points that I made.

I believe I did, but it's kind of hard when you consider a legitimate argument to be "Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln!" (so there!) and Alexander Stephens had the same philosophy as Lincoln regarding blacks.

I mean really...

You mentioned abolitionists having started the whole Colonization trend, and I mentioned that Lysander Spooner, a noted abolitionist, hated Lincoln. You then pointed out that it should be no surprise that someone who advocated violence and slave rebellions would hate Lincoln, when Lincoln himself supported violence and slave rebellions. Then you tried to cast dispersions on my intellect to try and nullify my points rather than actually address the hypocrisy of your statement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, none of the contemporaries of the Civil War agree with you in their writings. Not one said it was not slavery. They all recognized that slavery and race drove the argument of secession, states' rights, the economies, immigration, the tariff, the territories, etc.

You have conceded in fact because you have posted no evidence demonstrating the contemporaries agreed with you.

 

[paperview]

By all means continue to try and undermine the legitimacy of what I posted by questioning my level of intelligence rather than addressing the points that I made.

I believe I did, but it's kind of hard when you consider a legitimate argument to be "Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln!" (so there!) and Alexander Stephens had the same philosophy as Lincoln regarding blacks.

I mean really...

You mentioned abolitionists having started the whole Colonization trend, and I mentioned that Lysander Spooner, a noted abolitionist, hated Lincoln. You then pointed out that it should be no surprise that someone who advocated violence and slave rebellions would hate Lincoln, when Lincoln himself supported violence and slave rebellions. Then you tried to cast dispersions on my intellect to try and nullify my points rather than actually address the hypocrisy of your statement.

You seem to fail to understand that not all abolitionists were cut from the same thread - and now, in a really stunning blow to your own argument, you are calling Lincoln an even more radical abolitionist than he really was, while at the same time saying he echoed the beliefs of the VP of the confederacy who called slavery the cornerstone of the confederacy.

And the funniest thing is, you don't even know you did it!

 

[rdean]

Let me just point out that the Confederacy is NOT dead. It even has it's own political party. Only it's not called the "Confederate" Party, oh no, it's called the "Republican" Party.

You're aware that it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that opposed the Confederates, right? I also hope you're aware that RetiredGySgt is a Republican and does not believe that the states have the right to secede, as he has argued in this very thread.

Oh please. Lincoln died in what, 1865 or something? Since then, the Southern White wackos ran from the Democratic Party to the Republican party, thereby making the Republican party the party of choice for the Aryans, for the Klan, those that want to replace "science" with "mysticism". You know, those that worship a blue-eyed Jesus. Those that look back "fondly" on slavery and yearn for the "good old days".
The Republican Party has a shrinking base of old and uneducated. Ironically enough, the very people that need health care the most. Once again, fighting against their own self interest. Pathetic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow, that's unkind and some of it unfair. But you are right about the Demo racists coming over beginning in 1968 to the GOP (Nixon's Southern Strategy) or George Wallace's clear cut straight out racist American Party. Ever since the whites in the South have generally been Republican. Not all are racists, but almost all Southern white racists are Republican.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Before you yerks tell us about Brother Byrd, tell us about Brother Strom Thurmond, the once-Democrat candisate of the 1948 all-racist Dixiecrat Party and then long-time Republican senator from SC with the black daughter.

 

[rdean]

Wow, that's unkind and some of it unfair. But you are right about the Demo racists coming over beginning in 1968 to the GOP (Nixon's Southern Strategy) or George Wallace's clear cut straight out racist American Party. Ever since the whites in the South have generally been Republican. Not all are racists, but almost all Southern white racists are Republican.

No one said the "truth" is "kind".