All Things Confederate (CSA)

We've discussed this before. We both brought up quotes from the articles of separation from the states. Although the topic of slavery was a leitmotif in the papers, considering the climate, there were other reasons for why the South succeeded. I argue that the principle reason for them succeeding was the domestic terrorists coming down from the North, killing women and children because they did not like slavery, which was protected by the Constitution, bolstered by federal law, which the Northerners either did not enforce or infringed upon.

 

I support the 14th, 15th & 16th Amendments.

 

That was over a hundred and fifty years ago. They fought for what they thought was right at the time. The north also had slaves and did most of the slave trading. No large group was completely innocent. It was a tragic time in our history.

 

It was the primary reason mentioned. There was no concerted effort by the North to kill non-combatants. Please brush up on your history.

 

You are running away from the topic. We were talking about the Confederacy. Their primary motivation was slavery. They ****ing said so. Repeatedly. The North at the time barely had any slaves. And no one claimed they were innocent of all crimes. Please familiarize yourself with the topic expressed in the OC and return if you prepared to discuss it. If you are not prepared to discuss the topic, take it to another thread.

 

It was the primary reason mentioned because it was the reason over which women and children were being murdered by Northern domestic terrorists. It was a lethally divisive issue. Women and children were killed by Northern terrorists, who were hailed then and to this day as folk heroes. Those Northern domestic terrorists were not killing women and children because of taxes; they were killing them because they did not like slavery, and they were taking the law into their own hands.

 

No I am just trying to put into the context of the time.

 

You aren't even trying to be honest anymore. It was the primary reason mentioned BEFORE THE WAR STARTED. Please at least attempt to be honest. It was the primary reason the South provided for seceding. They wanted to form a new nation over this. They ****ing said so. Come to terms with reality.

 

You can't try to put something in the context of the time if you refuse to address the facts of what they had to say about themselves at the time. And you do.

 

The domestic terrorist John Brown, for one, was killing women and children before the Civil War--or, as you might like to say, BEFORE THE WAR STARTED. And he has been turned into a folk hero. I am being honest. I am making an argument that people like John Brown, Northern domestic terrorists, who killed women and children BEFORE THE WAR STARTED, was the primary reason why the South succeeded.

 

John Brown was not the cause of secession. None of the States mentioned John Brown when seceding. They mentioned wanting to preserve slavery. They mentioned wanting to preserve racial superiority. They mentioned the "inferiority" of the black race. Do you need me to quote them for you, since you are unwilling to consider actual history?

 

The right to sell your cotton in a competitive market
Study up.
A good reference was offered. Good as in, acclaimed by academics

I am not going to deprogram.
Too difficult.
I'm too impatient with age

 

Here's a paragraph from Texas:

"By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States."

They, in fact, mentioned domestic terrorism from the North.

 

As yes, I love it when people support the Combined syndicates of America! I too am a kaisereich fan.

 

They had the ability to sell their cotton. None of them mentioned a right to sell cotton in their declarations of secession. But they did mention slavery. Please do some homework.

 

Did you read the rest? No, you didn't. And the "terrorism" they mentioned was in Kansas. Did you miss the "in that territory" part? Harper's Ferry wasn't in Kansas. How do you not know that?

The "possession" and "property" they spoke of were slaves. How do you not know that?

 

At that time, slavery was not looked with the universal disfavor like it is today. The South wanted to retain slavery. The Union did not. However, the Union was far from having the universal distaste for slavery that it does today. The argument about whether the war was about secession or slavery is an ignorant argument. It was as much about one as the other. I am not convinced they might not have wanted to secede whether slavery was involved or not. The north and south were two different cultures with two different attitudes. The north wanted to tell what they considered poor ignorant people how they should live their lives. The south considered the north no more than a bunch of bullies and would have preferred that they just stay up north and keep their mouth shut.

The problem with this OP and most discussions like it is that we are trying to impose todays morays on events one hundred and fifty years ago. I am sure that a hundred and fifty years from now, they will look back on us like we were a bunch of savages and wonder how we could tolerated our attitudes of today. I suspect that discussions like this will be one of them.

 

What else did they mention.
Don't bother.
You will have to venture out beyond the mental borders of your mantra.

Abraham Lincoln believed in the inferiority of the Black race
as did many Presidents after Mr. Lincoln's War.
Teddy R. among them.


I must not attempt to deprogram
I must not attempt to deprogram
I must not . . .
Moi

 

And the right to sell human beings. That is the DNA of the Confederacy. I'm not the one in desperate need of deprogramming.

 

They mentioned an unfair market in the papers.

Georgia:

"
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
"

 

Actually it was their right which Lincoln gambled on war to stop.

 

I think most intelligent people will realize that racism today exists mostly in the eye and mind of the beholder, the person anxious to claim and believe that they are victims and their own behavior has nothing to do with what happens to them in life. The even dumber ones want to believe that something that occurred 300 years ago to someone they are not related to in other than the most distant manner is a personal barrier to their success in the world today as well as an offense to their happiness, and the world owes them recourse and restitution for that, whatever it was....... These are the real racists now. Some are close to becoming terrorists.

Racism today is far, far more of a political weapon than a realistic fact, and it's being used and abused at every opportunity. But real racism could return with a vengeance if those relying on it continue to use it as an excuse for dispicable behavior and lack of responsibility. You create the perception of your common denominator by those actions, and the nature of the commonality is only that it's common among those with the same behavior.

We should be hearing strong protest of that behavior from the responsible black people in America who are seen as traitors by those who ply racism as their primary trade skill. They are the people being harmed the most. They need to step forward and refuse to let the action of thugs become their label too.

 

Aside from slavery, what unfair market did they mention? And why did they call slavery their cornerstone?

 

John Brown was not the only domestic terrorist.

Georgia goes on about the climate of violence:

"
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.
"

 

I will not attempt to deprogram.
I will not attempt to deprogram
I will not attempt . . .

16 ?
It was not passed under duress.
It was passed as the founding fathers intended.