The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Againsheila]

Because those states upheld (1) constitutional electoral process, (2) respect for federal property, and (3) no slavery in the territories. The seceding states decried the first and second and demanded the third, all in the name of their master white race democracy based on slavery.

There were black slave holders.....one of them owned as many as 60 slaves.

Yes, there were a few.
Back then, all you had to have was one drop of negro blood in you to be considered 'black.'

No, you had to be 1/32nd black or more.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Post the link to the entire address of the CSA President, please, KK. I would like to read it in its entirety.

No. Rehashing this subject with you is very low on my list of priorities. It would be a waste of my time and effort.

Here you go?

Davis--Inaugural Address

The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable; of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.

I was not referring to Davis' Inaugural Address, which I have posted many times in this thread and has been largely ignored.

 

[Dante]

I have a history book, but I will admit, your site is interesting and I'll spend some time reading there. I never said slavery wasn't A reason for the war, just not THE reason.

Slavery was THE reason for the war. Sure there were other reasons, but most of the nitwits who support the notion that slaveryw as a side issue ignore that those who went to war first went to war as property holders,,,slave holders.

I have a friend who is a historian from South Carolina. He's done researched and published things for the State of South Carolina. He's done reseach on Bishop Lynch, the Roman Catholic mouth peace for the rebels. His story is a complex one, but he defended slavery for the Confederacy while in Europe. Later he founded some of the first charities for emancipated slaves.

nuf said.

Again, how can it be "THE" reason for the war when 4 slaveholding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?

Where and why individual states stood when war was breaking out is almost irrelevant to the questions you pose.

You are taking things that happen and making correlations that lead you into false conclusions.

The reason the 'rebels' declared cessation was because of slavery...property rights. Hiding behind the principle of property righst would be worthy of somebody like mani. The facts are if there were no slaves there would've been no rebellion.

No slaves = No rebellion

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks again, Sheila.

I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.

Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm? Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was not referring to Davis' Inaugural Address, which I have posted many times in this thread and has been largely ignored.

Anything JCD wrote after the war about this matter should be considered as possible attempt at revisionism of the record by Davis.

 

[paperview]

Thanks again, Sheila.

I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.

Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm? Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.

Yup.

The Vice Presidents speech:

"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."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

-Alexander Stephens. Vice President of the Confederacy

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thanks again, Sheila.

I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.

Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm? Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.

Or maybe Stephens was being dishonest?

 

[paperview]

Thanks again, Sheila.

I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.

Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm? Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.

Or maybe Stephens was being dishonest?

Dude. Slavery was mentioned 114 times as the reason in the secession documents.

I think you're going to have to do better than that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks again, Sheila.

I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.

Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm? Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.

Or maybe Stephens was being dishonest?

Based on the secession ordinances and other leading persons' comments contemporaneously to that period, the reasonable-person standard would be to look very suspiciously of any post-1865 statements by JCD that excluded slavery as a reason for the Civil War.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thanks again, Sheila.

I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.

Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm? Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.

Or maybe Stephens was being dishonest?

Dude. Slavery was mentioned 114 times as the reason in the secession documents.

I think you're going to have to do better than that.

I have no intentions of doing better than that at this point. I've made my arguments in this thread, and to continue to do so with the same people over and over again seems a little silly to me at this point. At any rate, I appreciate your involvement in this discussion, I think it was a pretty good one personally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that this has been one of the much better threads on the board. The conversation generally has been respectful and observant. The evidences new to me have been very interesting.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Slavery was THE reason for the war

How can slave states fight to end slavery and still have slaves?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Proletarian, the slave states fought the war, not to end slavery, but because the issue of slavery caused the war. Very simple.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The reason the 'rebels' declared cessation was because of slavery...property rights.

Actually it was because of unconstitutional and aggressive policies at the Northern-controlled federal level.

The union fought the war for one reason only: $

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Proletarian, the slave states fought the war, not to end slavery, but because the issue of slavery caused the war. Very simple.

It was the actions by the Fed that led to the war.

Let's recap:

The Northern industrial interests had put in place a number of tariffs that were crippling the agricultural southern economy.

North and South had effectively been two very different entities for some time.

The last straw (the trigger) came with attempts to end slavery, which touched upon the numerous underlying issues, the destruction of the Southern economy and thew overstpeeing of Constitutional limits on power by the Fed being the two most greivous matters.

A number of States exercised their Constitutional right to secede from the union.

Under pressure from Northern businessmen who needed Southern cotton (yet who, being stupid Bourgeoisie, still were ready to destroy the economy that provided the cotton as they waged class warfare against the South) Lincoln refused to remove Union troops from lands claimed by the CSA, restocking Fort Sumter and placing the Union army in position to strike.

Possibly fearing a union attack, the CSA attacked Fort Sumter. Noone was killed during the conflict.Having forced the CSA's hand as intended, Lincoln declared war of the CSA.

Some time into the war, Lincoln realized that he needed the best propaganda around. The decision was made to make this not a war over the morality of self-determination, but of slavery. Lincoln declared the slaves in the rebel states free. Slaves in loyalist states could go fuck themselves, because Lincoln never cared about the ******* except as political pawns(kinda like modern-day Democrats).

The CSA won many battles due to good tactics, but lost the war due to poor strategy and the disadvantage posed by any agricultural nation fighting against an industrial nation (the railroads and the standardization thereof in the North but not in the South proved critical). The States were readmitted, allowed into congress, kicked out on Congress top pass the 14th Amendment, then recognized yet again.

Ever since, the American people's right to self-determination is longer recognized, the States lost must of their autonomy, the Fed has secured its power, the Constitution is no longer enforced, and the Bourgeois have continued to send American children to die to defend their financial interests in Cuba, Argentina, Viet Nam, Korea, and a number of other nations.

 

[Againsheila]

No. Rehashing this subject with you is very low on my list of priorities. It would be a waste of my time and effort.

Here you go?

Davis--Inaugural Address

The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable; of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.

I was not referring to Davis' Inaugural Address, which I have posted many times in this thread and has been largely ignored.

To what are you referring then?

 

[Intense]

There were years of abuse in relation to taxes and tariffs that benefited the industrial states and exploited the agricultural states that caused deep rooted animosity. Slavery was on it's way out, with or without the Civil war. Most countries in both continents, North and South America, ended slavery without war. True what happened here sped the process up. There were prewar anti-slavery movements in most states. There was invention, the cotton gin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That cotton gin made slave-based agricultural both profitable and expansionist. Every generation required new cotton and tobacco lands, moving ever south and west. By 1860, 90% of all investment capital, direct and indirect, was tied up in cotton. In no way was the South going to peacefully give up slavery.

Yes, every other nation in the Americas, with the single exception of Haiti, gave up slavery peacefully. Yep, great company we be keepin', homeboy.

 

[Againsheila]

That cotton gin made slave-based agricultural both profitable and expansionist. Every generation required new cotton and tobacco lands, moving ever south and west. By 1860, 90$ of all investment capital, direct and indirect, was tied up in cotton. In no way was the South going to peacefully give up slavery.

Yes, every other nation in the Americas, with the single exception of Haiti, gave up slavery peacefully. Yep, great company we be keepin', homeboy.

Many historians say that without the civil war, slavery would have ceased to exist within 40 years anyway.

I don't like the way you insult anyone with whom you disagree. I suspect you have a lot of pent up anger and it's seeping out into your everyday speech and affecting those around you, I just hope it isn't infecting those around you. Give it up, the war was more than 100 years ago and slavery has been gone a lot time. To keep your anger and pass it on generation after generation only poisons the future for us all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The anger and pent-up hostility seems to be yours, sheila, so I will chock it up to you projecting inner problems onto me. That's OK: I can take it. You and Intense are relying on scholarship twenty and more years in the past: slavery certainly was not on the way out. The anger here seems to come from the revisionists who wish to blame the CW on anything but slavery, when, in fact, slavery was the root cause for every other symptom of it.

Thanks for your concern.