Jefferson Davis' speech to the Mississippi Democratic Convention, 1859

DOTR

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
2,541
Points
290
The “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God” was not with slaveholders and their “civilization,” now gone with the wind, but on the side of “liberty for all,” as Lincoln had understood and we should understand today. Whether we are black or white, wherever we may live, we need to embrace our revolutionary American heritage. The terrible Civil War which ended legal slavery was in truth the “Second Great American Revolution.” Revolutions are terrible things and they don’t always work out exactly the way we would wish. But compromises with slavery had been tried and failed, and war became inevitable.

The Civil War didn't end slavery. An amendment did. When Fort Sumter was fired upon there were more slave states in the north than the south. And until the end of the war three slave states remained with and were coddled by the union...including DC.

The Law of God, as seen by theAmerican Revolutionaries, was that any people who desired could reconstitute their government as they saw fit. The slavery-was-legal revolutionaries.
 

DOTR

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
2,541
Points
290
The caliber of men who were in favor of the slave trade, and said things like this?

"I have said that I would prefer to leave the subject of the importation of African slaves to the States respectively; but, viewing it as utterly impracticable to obtain the repeal of the act of 1818, so as to reopen the African slave-trade, it is perhaps needless to speak of the case which would arise in such contingency. Yet, as my purpose if the freest interchange of opinions, I will say that in such event, the State being left free from any Congressional intervention on the subject, my policy would be to maintain the existing law of Mississippi, which was designed, and would no doubt be effective, to prevent the importation of Africans into the limits of our State. Let no one, however, suppose that this indicates any coincidence of opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the trade. No consequences which would justify such denunciation can flow from the transfer of a slave from a savage to a Christian master. It is not the interest of the African, but of Mississippi, which dictates my conclusion. Her place in history, her rank among the States, her power to maintain constitutional and natural rights, depend upon her people - the free, intelligent, high-minded sons of the governing race."

Also, Jefferson Davis was a traitor, which kind of wrecks the whole "great American" theory.
Are you bi-polar or something? He wanted to keep the ban on importing Africans that our hallowed Founding Fathers decreed. You just quoted it.

An no he wasn’t a traitor. Which is why he lived out his days a free man...respected and honored. Which is is why the United Stares government issued stamps and coins to honor him. Which is why his stature stands in the hall of the US Capital today.
Not one Confederate was ever tried as a traitor.
Read it again. He wanted to continue Mississippi's ban because he didn't want too many black people in the state. He was all in favor of repealing the federal ban, because he thought Cuba would need more slaves to cultivate than the American supply could provide and would require resuming the trade.

"This conclusion in relation to Mississippi, is based upon my view of her present condition, not upon any general theory. For instance, it is not supposed to be applicable to Texas, to New-Mexico, or to any future acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande."

"The cultivation of the island requires African labor, and the African as a rule will only work in the condition of servitude. Thus the presence of slaves increases the value of the island, and so much the more as the number in the United States would not enable us to supply the requisite amount of labor. "

Also, United States Constitution, Article III, Clause 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." What, exactly, did Jeff Davis do from 1861 to 1865, again?

He defended his country against an invasion. And I ask again...how many treason trials came out of the Civil War?

How many ships of the US Navy named after Confederate Generals? How many Military bases? How many coins and stamps issued to honor them?

You do know that the US Government considers all confederate vets to be American veterans correct? In fact they are obligated to maintain the graves of Confederate vets equally with Union soldiers. Confederates are buried at Arlington. West Point named barracks after Confederates and ther statues stand in the Hall of Statuary in the US Capital.

The only Confederates hung were the ones, such as Robert Cobb Kennedy, who fought out of uniform since the US recognized Confederates as enemy soldiers rather than traitors or insurgents. Confederates in the uniform of their nation were treated as POW..and never tried for any crime.

In other words your treason claims are late stage revisionism and foreign to the American experience.
He led a rebellion against his country. Learn the difference. Treason is a political crime and it wasn't politically expedient to charge him with it during Reconstruction. That doesn't mean he didn't obviously commit the acts. As to the rest, the lenient treatment of former Confederates wound up permitting them to lose the war but win the culture for the next hundred years. This was their backup plan, as I can go into at great length with primary sources if you persist.
He certainly did not. He was elected president of his country and led it in a war against invasion.

You shy away from your original claim. Jefferson Davis was not a traitor as you claimed. And was never even charged as such. That's a late, Marxist invention.

But yes it does take a generous measure of cultural genocide to correct doesnt it? A war on the culture you think he won.
 
Last edited:

DOTR

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
2,541
Points
290
The Union soldiers who fought the war would despise you. They met in joint camps with ex-Confederates until 1901.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
44,552
Reaction score
8,278
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
The media was a powerful force even in the 19th century. After he was assassinated Lincoln became a saint above political and social reproach. By the fifth grade every American kid in the last hundred and fifty + years learned that "Lincoln preserved the Union". The fact is that the Union fell apart under Lincoln's watch and he was either distracted by his personal problems or intimidated by advisers but he failed in every way to avoid the bloodshed of the Civil War. Lincoln should have reasoned with radical (drunk?) southern congressmen. He should have lied and cajoled and offered to kiss the ass of every radical in congress to preserve the union but he did nothing. He was apparently advised by his incompetent stooges that a Southern uprising would not last the first summer. Even today it's not possible to argue about Lincoln's incompetence without being dismissed as a traitor.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,928
Reaction score
2,441
Points
290
Location
Texas
I believe the most revealing speech of this period was by Alexander Stephens, V.P of the Confederacy, in his famous "Cornerstone Speech" of 1861, given three weeks after Lincoln's election, after the first seven Confederate states had already seceded.
I stopped reading by the end of this sentence. seven states had not seceded '3 weeks after Lincoln's election', and only one had seceded by December after his election, and that was over the Morill Tariff bills being introduced. By the end of January of the year after the election, 5 states had seceded, as a direct result of Buchanan's attempted blockade and reinforcement of Sumter, at Charleston. most of the rest seceded after Lincoln's inauguration and his attempting the same thing Buchanan did, and hoping for the same results Buchanan got. By this time it was known the southern states were making arrangements in Britain and France to ship directly to Europe and bypass the Yankee merchant marine, and also were setting up their own tariffs, of around 10%, far lower than Lincoln's, which would have given them the vast bulk of the Mississippi and western trade, and deprive Yankee railroads, shippers, manufacturers, a captive market protected by high tariffs, and in turn reduce profits for the bankers as well. This is all in most of the biggest newspapers of the day , and no big secret; the north did not give a rat's ass about slaves nor slavery, but northern whites most certainly wanted to keep the northwest and the new territories white. Any claims to the contrary are total nonsense. Lincoln ran on what would be called a white nationalist ticket today.

Throw in the Homestead Acts and the Union Pacific pork barrel which changed the entire tax structure of the FEderal govt. to favor the north with massive subsidies and welfare paid for by taxing the crap out of the South, and you have your recipe for secession and war, and with Lincoln you have a corrupt railroad lawyer who was glad to cook that recipe.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,928
Reaction score
2,441
Points
290
Location
Texas
This thread needs to be merged with the other 6 million threads on the same topics.
 

Dr Grump

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
26,916
Reaction score
4,156
Points
280
Location
From the Back of Beyond
The Civil War didn't end slavery. An amendment did. When Fort Sumter was fired upon there were more slave states in the north than the south.
How many Confederate states has slavery at the beginning of the war? How many Union states had slavery at the beginning of the war?
 

Tom Paine 1949

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
700
Reaction score
526
Points
873
Whitehall, of course you can argue that Lincoln was incompetent ... I can't imagine anyone calling you "a traitor" for that. This is a free country still. You can freely speak your opinion about almost anything. I just disagree with what you say. In fact I believe we all still have that freedom in large part precisely because Lincoln was not incompetent.

The older I get, the more I read and think about the almost impossible situation Lincoln confronted, the more I am convinced that Lincoln was the greatest American political figure in our history, perhaps the only man in the country with the political skills and personal integrity capable of cutting the Gordian Knot of slavery and saving the nation. I don't claim he was perfect or an angel or a master of judging military matters. But I believe he was fully deserving of our praise and of the respect most historians give him.

I think Lincoln was elected President at the most difficult moment in our nation's history, when compromise was already impossible. Besides war I believe the only alternatives were acceptance of secession (the destruction of the nation and interminable and inevitable future wars) or national capitulation to slavery. Your advice (of "kissing ass" and "lying and cajoling" -- never a very manly course) would have made him a one term president remembered only as the coward who allowed slavery to triumph and all hope for the "American Dream" to die. As it was, the new "Rebirth of Freedom" he hoped for was not to prove sustainable for the freedmen, but the Union was saved and slavery was formally ended -- making our country both the next great world power, and giving us at least a long postponed opportunity to try to reclaim the dream of "Liberty for All."
 
Last edited:

Tom Paine 1949

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
700
Reaction score
526
Points
873
I believe the most revealing speech of this period was by Alexander Stephens, V.P of the Confederacy, in his famous "Cornerstone Speech" of 1861, given three weeks after Lincoln's election, after the first seven Confederate states had already seceded.
I stopped reading by the end of this sentence. seven states had not seceded '3 weeks after Lincoln's election', and only one had seceded by December after his election, and that was over the Morill Tariff bills being introduced. By the end of January of the year after the election, 5 states had seceded, as a direct result of Buchanan's attempted blockade and reinforcement of Sumter, at Charleston. most of the rest seceded after Lincoln's inauguration and his attempting the same thing Buchanan did, and hoping for the same results Buchanan got. By this time it was known the southern states were making arrangements in Britain and France to ship directly to Europe and bypass the Yankee merchant marine, and also were setting up their own tariffs, of around 10%, far lower than Lincoln's, which would have given them the vast bulk of the Mississippi and western trade, and deprive Yankee railroads, shippers, manufacturers, a captive market protected by high tariffs, and in turn reduce profits for the bankers as well. This is all in most of the biggest newspapers of the day , and no big secret; the north did not give a rat's ass about slaves nor slavery, but northern whites most certainly wanted to keep the northwest and the new territories white. Any claims to the contrary are total nonsense. Lincoln ran on what would be called a white nationalist ticket today.

Throw in the Homestead Acts and the Union Pacific pork barrel which changed the entire tax structure of the FEderal govt. to favor the north with massive subsidies and welfare paid for by taxing the crap out of the South, and you have your recipe for secession and war, and with Lincoln you have a corrupt railroad lawyer who was glad to cook that recipe.
Well since you "stopped reading" after my very first introductory sentence I shall feel free NOT to comment on anything you say beyond your first sentence, or bother to refute any of the tedious neo-Confederate arguments you make -- all completely unrelated to the Cornerstone Speech I introduced. The Cornerstone Speech is an important historical document, not just some nobody's opinion. It was notable because it showed so clearly the immense gap between Southern aims for a completely race-based civilization and our own today. But of course ... you didn't read it.

As for dates, here you are correct. I meant and should have written that the Cornerstone Speech was given three weeks after Lincoln's Inauguration. Actually it was two weeks and three days after. Lincoln was inaugurated on August 4, 1861 and Stephen's infamous Cornerstone Speech was given on August 21, when -- as I said -- seven Southern states had already seceded.
 
Last edited:

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,928
Reaction score
2,441
Points
290
Location
Texas
The Civil War didn't end slavery. An amendment did. When Fort Sumter was fired upon there were more slave states in the north than the south.
How many Confederate states has slavery at the beginning of the war? How many Union states had slavery at the beginning of the war?
Doesn't matter; Lincoln didn't start a war over slavery, and said so several times. The North didn't care about slavery, they cared about keeping black people out of the northern states and the new territories of the West, which is why Illinois, Indiana, and several other states strengthened their Black Codes from 1853 to 1857, and Lincoln led the way in his own state in that project. . In fact, Lincoln lost seats in Congress and the Senate in the mid-term elections of 1862 due to suspicions he was making abolition an issue and not 'The Union'. He only held on by a very thin margin by his personal control of some 75,000 soldiers loyal only to him and their control of the ballots in the border states.

It was all propaganda aimed at dumbass immigrants who were clueless about American geography; the slave system wasn't viable outside the boundaries it had already reached by 1850, and wasn't going to expand any further. Climate and geography dictated that, not laws or Lincoln. See Walter Prescott Webb's The Great Plains for how that works, also see Daniel Webster's speeches on the Wilmot Proviso for two trustworthy sources.
 

DOTR

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
2,541
Points
290
The Civil War didn't end slavery. An amendment did. When Fort Sumter was fired upon there were more slave states in the north than the south.
How many Confederate states has slavery at the beginning of the war? How many Union states had slavery at the beginning of the war?
There were seven states in the original CSA when the war began. I believe there were 8 slave states in the Union...plus DC which was slaveholding with huge slave pens and markets. I’m going from memory. Look it up but that’s about right.
Four of those slave holding states joined the CSA After fighting started angered at seeing troops attacking sister states. Two fought their own bloody civil wars within themselves over The issue. And Deleware and Maryland remained in the union and fought against the south.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,928
Reaction score
2,441
Points
290
Location
Texas
I believe the most revealing speech of this period was by Alexander Stephens, V.P of the Confederacy, in his famous "Cornerstone Speech" of 1861, given three weeks after Lincoln's election, after the first seven Confederate states had already seceded.
I stopped reading by the end of this sentence. seven states had not seceded '3 weeks after Lincoln's election', and only one had seceded by December after his election, and that was over the Morill Tariff bills being introduced. By the end of January of the year after the election, 5 states had seceded, as a direct result of Buchanan's attempted blockade and reinforcement of Sumter, at Charleston. most of the rest seceded after Lincoln's inauguration and his attempting the same thing Buchanan did, and hoping for the same results Buchanan got. By this time it was known the southern states were making arrangements in Britain and France to ship directly to Europe and bypass the Yankee merchant marine, and also were setting up their own tariffs, of around 10%, far lower than Lincoln's, which would have given them the vast bulk of the Mississippi and western trade, and deprive Yankee railroads, shippers, manufacturers, a captive market protected by high tariffs, and in turn reduce profits for the bankers as well. This is all in most of the biggest newspapers of the day , and no big secret; the north did not give a rat's ass about slaves nor slavery, but northern whites most certainly wanted to keep the northwest and the new territories white. Any claims to the contrary are total nonsense. Lincoln ran on what would be called a white nationalist ticket today.

Throw in the Homestead Acts and the Union Pacific pork barrel which changed the entire tax structure of the FEderal govt. to favor the north with massive subsidies and welfare paid for by taxing the crap out of the South, and you have your recipe for secession and war, and with Lincoln you have a corrupt railroad lawyer who was glad to cook that recipe.
Well since you "stopped reading" after my very first introductory sentence I shall feel free NOT to comment on anything you say beyond your first sentence, or bother to refute any of the tedious neo-Confederate arguments you make -- all completely unrelated to the Cornerstone Speech I introduced. The Cornerstone Speech is an important historical document, not just some nobody's opinion. It was notable because it showed so clearly the immense gap between Southern aims for a completely race-based civilization and our own today. But of course ... you didn't read it.

As for dates, here you are correct. I meant and should have written that the Cornerstone Speech was given three weeks after Lincoln's Inauguration. Actually it was two weeks and three days after. Lincoln was inaugurated on August 4, 1861 and Stephen's infamous Cornerstone Speech was given on August 21, when -- as I said -- seven Southern states had already seceded.
I'm not a 'neo-confederate', whatevef that is; you just don't know squat about the history, you're just here to peddle some dogwhistle virtue signaling or other pretending to have some moral authority to bash the South and indirectly Trump and conservatives. Too bad there are real liberals still around like myself who clearly remember the black vote in Demcratic Party machine controlled Manhattan and NYC wasn't any higher in percentages than Mississippi's, and that was after the Civil rights and Voting Rights Acts passed by LBJ in by 1965, and we also remember those wonderful enlightened Boston types throwing bricks at school busses, and all the northern riots that were still going on long after Memphis and Bull Connors' police dogs were dead of old age, so spare us the hypocritical fake news and spin.

It wasn't until around 1971 or so Nixon made the Voting Rights Acts apply to the entire country that such requirements as literacy tests were struck down in New york and California and 18 or os other northern and western states outside the South. I doubt the current propagandists brainwashing kids in schools today even bother teaching the kids those Acts in 1964 -1965 only applied to a few southern states when they were first passed, since making them apply to the entire country would have killed the bills dead. So much for the 'nobility' of the res tof the U.S., which is why southerners should pay no attention to the frauds.

Anybody care to guess when northern or California Democrats will have yet another race riot? NYC's wonderful liberals rioted over JOOOSSSS!!! recently, apparently it's 'racist' for Jews to use ambulances they paid for themselves, and in LA they rioted over an Asian woman who defended herself from some feral animal who assaulted her.
 
Last edited:

Dr Grump

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
26,916
Reaction score
4,156
Points
280
Location
From the Back of Beyond
The Civil War didn't end slavery. An amendment did. When Fort Sumter was fired upon there were more slave states in the north than the south.
How many Confederate states has slavery at the beginning of the war? How many Union states had slavery at the beginning of the war?
There were seven states in the original CSA when the war began. I believe there were 8 slave states in the Union...plus DC which was slaveholding with huge slave pens and markets. I’m going from memory. Look it up but that’s about right.
Four of those slave holding states joined the CSA After fighting started angered at seeing troops attacking sister states. Two fought their own bloody civil wars within themselves over The issue. And Deleware and Maryland remained in the union and fought against the south.
Splitting hairs. Those four - Virginia, Arkansas, Tennesse and North Carolina were always going to join the south.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
700
Reaction score
526
Points
873
I believe the most revealing speech of this period was by Alexander Stephens, V.P of the Confederacy, in his famous "Cornerstone Speech" of 1861, given three weeks after Lincoln's election, after the first seven Confederate states had already seceded.
I stopped reading by the end of this sentence. seven states had not seceded '3 weeks after Lincoln's election', and only one had seceded by December after his election, and that was over the Morill Tariff bills being introduced. By the end of January of the year after the election, 5 states had seceded, as a direct result of Buchanan's attempted blockade and reinforcement of Sumter, at Charleston. most of the rest seceded after Lincoln's inauguration and his attempting the same thing Buchanan did, and hoping for the same results Buchanan got. By this time it was known the southern states were making arrangements in Britain and France to ship directly to Europe and bypass the Yankee merchant marine, and also were setting up their own tariffs, of around 10%, far lower than Lincoln's, which would have given them the vast bulk of the Mississippi and western trade, and deprive Yankee railroads, shippers, manufacturers, a captive market protected by high tariffs, and in turn reduce profits for the bankers as well. This is all in most of the biggest newspapers of the day , and no big secret; the north did not give a rat's ass about slaves nor slavery, but northern whites most certainly wanted to keep the northwest and the new territories white. Any claims to the contrary are total nonsense. Lincoln ran on what would be called a white nationalist ticket today.

Throw in the Homestead Acts and the Union Pacific pork barrel which changed the entire tax structure of the FEderal govt. to favor the north with massive subsidies and welfare paid for by taxing the crap out of the South, and you have your recipe for secession and war, and with Lincoln you have a corrupt railroad lawyer who was glad to cook that recipe.
Well since you "stopped reading" after my very first introductory sentence I shall feel free NOT to comment on anything you say beyond your first sentence, or bother to refute any of the tedious neo-Confederate arguments you make -- all completely unrelated to the Cornerstone Speech I introduced. The Cornerstone Speech is an important historical document, not just some nobody's opinion. It was notable because it showed so clearly the immense gap between Southern aims for a completely race-based civilization and our own today. But of course ... you didn't read it.

As for dates, here you are correct. I meant and should have written that the Cornerstone Speech was given three weeks after Lincoln's Inauguration. Actually it was two weeks and three days after. Lincoln was inaugurated on August 4, 1861 and Stephen's infamous Cornerstone Speech was given on August 21, when -- as I said -- seven Southern states had already seceded.
I'm not a 'neo-confederate', whatevef that is; you just don't know squat about the history, you're just here to peddle some dogwhistle virtue signaling or other pretending to have some moral authority to bash the South and indirectly Trump and conservatives. Too bad there are real liberals still around like myself who clearly remember the black vote in Demcratic Party machine controlled Manhattan and NYC wasn't any higher in percentages than Mississippi's, and that was after the Civil rights and Voting Rights Acts passed by LBJ in by 1965, and we also remember those wonderful enlightened Boston types throwing bricks at school busses, and all the northern riots that were still going on long after Memphis and Bull Connors' police dogs were dead of old age, so spare us the hypocritical fake news and spin.

It wasn't until around 1971 or so Nixon made the Voting Rights Acts apply to the entire country that such requirements as literacy tests were struck down in New york and California and 18 or os other northern and western states outside the South. I doubt the current propagandists brainwashing kids in schools today even bother teaching the kids those Acts in 1964 -1965 only applied to a few southern states when they were first passed, since making them apply to the entire country would have killed the bills dead. So much for the 'nobility' of the res tof the U.S., which is why southerners should pay no attention to the frauds.

Anybody care to guess when northern or California Democrats will have yet another race riot? NYC's wonderful liberals rioted over JOOOSSSS!!! recently, apparently it's 'racist' for Jews to use ambulances they paid for themselves, and in LA they rioted over an Asian woman who defended herself from some feral animal who assaulted her.
I see you still haven’t read or commented on Confederate V.P. Stephen’s infamous Cornerstone Speech. If you think his speech was “bashing the South” — that is your problem, or his.

I in no way “bashed the South,” but merely presented an important often overlooked historical speech. The OP also centered on an (in my opinion too long) similar document.

You make charges and claims and insult me for no reason whatever. You have no idea who I am or what I know. Why on earth would I debate your views after all this? I have heard them all a hundred times before. By the way, I never called you a “neo-Confederate.” I spoke only of your arguments (and the way you present them).

Show me some basic courtesy, and a little intellectual discipline, by responding to the speech I introduced — and then maybe I will take you more seriously.

From what I have read of your other comments here, your claims of being a “real liberal” ... seem a bit disingenuous, to say the least. Do you really normally describe yourself as “a Liberal”?

I myself am liberal in some areas, conservative in others, a proud American internationalist. But let’s not get personal. I don’t think we will get along at all.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in understanding the terrible reality of Northern and Western racism before, during and after the Civil War — and putting it all into context — they would probably do well to start with the groundbreaking 1961 North of Slavery, by Leon Litwack. It is a text every Northern liberal who simple-mindedly “bashes the South” will find mind opening, written by an activist opponent of Jim Crow, and a much respected longtime leftwing Professor at the University of California. I read it as a young man and it affected me deeply. I read it again quite recently.

North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860: Litwack, Leon F. F.: 9780226485867: Amazon.com: Books
 
Last edited:

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
44,552
Reaction score
8,278
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Whitehall, of course you can argue that Lincoln was incompetent ... I can't imagine anyone calling you "a traitor" for that. This is a free country still. You can freely speak your opinion about almost anything. I just disagree with what you say. In fact I believe we all still have that freedom in large part precisely because Lincoln was not incompetent.

The older I get, the more I read and think about the almost impossible situation Lincoln confronted, the more I am convinced that Lincoln was the greatest American political figure in our history, perhaps the only man in the country with the political skills and personal integrity capable of cutting the Gordian Knot of slavery and saving the nation. I don't claim he was perfect or an angel or a master of judging military matters. But I believe he was fully deserving of our praise and of the respect most historians give him.

I think Lincoln was elected President at the most difficult moment in our nation's history, when compromise was already impossible. Besides war I believe the only alternatives were acceptance of secession (the destruction of the nation and interminable and inevitable future wars) or national capitulation to slavery. Your advice (of "kissing ass" and "lying and cajoling" -- never a very manly course) would have made him a one term president remembered only as the coward who allowed slavery to triumph and all hope for the "American Dream" to die. As it was, the new "Rebirth of Freedom" he hoped for was not to prove sustainable for the freedmen, but the Union was saved and slavery was formally ended -- making our country both the next great world power, and giving us at least a long postponed opportunity to try to reclaim the dream of "Liberty for All."
The fact that Lincoln fans think that he was faced with an "impossible" situation is an indication that they admit that the Union fell apart under his watch and that he did nothing to stop it. The situation was hardly impossible but the sad reality is that Lincoln apparently thought that preserving the Union was a frivolous endeavor . High sounding rhetoric seemed to be Lincoln's claim to fame and he was as racist as any politician at the time but when push came to shove Old Abe wasn't up to the task of confronting issues that split up the Union. To make matters worse Lincoln obviously did not understand the implication of armed conflict between the federal government and rebellious states, assuming that the South would quit in a month or two. Lincoln was not only wrong but he was criminally wrong when it came to the issues at root of the pending bloody conflict.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
700
Reaction score
526
Points
873
On both sides there were fools who thought their side would win quickly. Others who understood full well what was at stake, and feared it was a tragedy long in the making, one already quite unavoidable. We obviously disagree entirely on where Lincoln stood, and on what sort of man he was ...
 

Biff_Poindexter

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
9,546
Reaction score
1,577
Points
290
Location
USA
We need men of that caliber again. Jefferson Davis was a hero and a great American.
The caliber of men who were in favor of the slave trade, and said things like this?

"I have said that I would prefer to leave the subject of the importation of African slaves to the States respectively; but, viewing it as utterly impracticable to obtain the repeal of the act of 1818, so as to reopen the African slave-trade, it is perhaps needless to speak of the case which would arise in such contingency. Yet, as my purpose if the freest interchange of opinions, I will say that in such event, the State being left free from any Congressional intervention on the subject, my policy would be to maintain the existing law of Mississippi, which was designed, and would no doubt be effective, to prevent the importation of Africans into the limits of our State. Let no one, however, suppose that this indicates any coincidence of opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the trade. No consequences which would justify such denunciation can flow from the transfer of a slave from a savage to a Christian master. It is not the interest of the African, but of Mississippi, which dictates my conclusion. Her place in history, her rank among the States, her power to maintain constitutional and natural rights, depend upon her people - the free, intelligent, high-minded sons of the governing race."

Also, Jefferson Davis was a traitor, which kind of wrecks the whole "great American" theory.
Are you bi-polar or something? He wanted to keep the ban on importing Africans that our hallowed Founding Fathers decreed. You just quoted it.

An no he wasn’t a traitor. Which is why he lived out his days a free man...respected and honored. Which is is why the United Stares government issued stamps and coins to honor him. Which is why his stature stands in the hall of the US Capital today.
Not one Confederate was ever tried as a traitor.
Fuk that coward ass drag queen and anyone who tries to tell me he wasn't a traitor...including yo bitch ass...
exhibitions_presidentinpetticoats3.jpg
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,928
Reaction score
2,441
Points
290
Location
Texas
Show me some basic courtesy, and a little intellectual discipline, by responding to the speech I introduced — and then maybe I will take you more seriously.
lol I could care less what you take seriously; you're dishonest and didn't bother to even get basic facts straight before launching a propaganda piece full of lies.
 

bdtex

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
65
Reaction score
18
Points
21
We need men of that caliber again. Jefferson Davis was a hero and a great American.
The caliber of men who were in favor of the slave trade, and said things like this?

"I have said that I would prefer to leave the subject of the importation of African slaves to the States respectively; but, viewing it as utterly impracticable to obtain the repeal of the act of 1818, so as to reopen the African slave-trade, it is perhaps needless to speak of the case which would arise in such contingency. Yet, as my purpose if the freest interchange of opinions, I will say that in such event, the State being left free from any Congressional intervention on the subject, my policy would be to maintain the existing law of Mississippi, which was designed, and would no doubt be effective, to prevent the importation of Africans into the limits of our State. Let no one, however, suppose that this indicates any coincidence of opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the trade. No consequences which would justify such denunciation can flow from the transfer of a slave from a savage to a Christian master. It is not the interest of the African, but of Mississippi, which dictates my conclusion. Her place in history, her rank among the States, her power to maintain constitutional and natural rights, depend upon her people - the free, intelligent, high-minded sons of the governing race."

Also, Jefferson Davis was a traitor, which kind of wrecks the whole "great American" theory.
Are you bi-polar or something? He wanted to keep the ban on importing Africans that our hallowed Founding Fathers decreed. You just quoted it.

An no he wasn’t a traitor. Which is why he lived out his days a free man...respected and honored. Which is is why the United Stares government issued stamps and coins to honor him. Which is why his stature stands in the hall of the US Capital today.
Not one Confederate was ever tried as a traitor.
Fuk that coward ass drag queen and anyone who tries to tell me he wasn't a traitor...including yo bitch ass...View attachment 318626
Union soldiers who were present at the capture debunked that. Newspapermen lied back then too.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top