Five myths about why the South seceded

reply to post by Erica1631


The Official Histories of both sides in the conflict are great resources when it comes to how the war was fought, battle by battle, action by action, who fought, and what their motivations were.

Unfortunately what soldiers think they are fighting for or hope they are fighting for or will gain by fighting are usually just fictions that are promoted to them to give them cause to risk life and limb.

None of the histories deal with the actual details of the complex fiancial situation that existed, and at the end of the day no matter what aspects of rights or commerce or liberty you want to attach to it, all those things are about pathways to economic prosperity.

So the war really was at it's heart and soul about a very complex economic situation of a manipulated debt that wasn't serving either side particuarly well as an enterprise and has never served the average person well either.

The South felt it could only thrive as a business enterprise if given the discretion to handle it's financial affairs and commerce independent of Washington and be able to determine it's own rules for how they could accomplish that. Washington of course, likes to determine the rules so it can claim as big a percentage to fund and expand it's own enterprises as it wants too.

The loss of the Southern States meant a loss of a very significant portion of the Federal Government's revenue stream, and a very significant amount of collateral for future credit lines, as well as a continued obligation to see those southern state's loans, bonds and stock investments paid on too Europe since they had contractually gauranteed they would.

What the people were told might be in it for them or at stake for them was simply for their benefit to get them to fight, because the truth is the very limited number of people with everything to gain or loose in the process, where simply causing the fight for their own benefits not the peoples. The people wouldn't have fought for them had they known the truth, the people would have fought against the principles of both sides who had led it come to such an impasse and installed some honest governnors and representatives.

In truth, the only thing our system ever offers as an incentive to fight is the illusion you are doing it for yourr freedom, but in reality all we have ever been doing is ensuring their own freedom to dictate to us, profit off of us, and decide how we are going to live and what they will reward us with for protecting their state enterprises and the chance to fight and die for them to perpetuate it.

The Official Stories are full of brave romantic dashing charachters full of virtue and passion that's meant to make it all seem glorious and grand. In truth that's the only thing the average person ever wins through fighting these wars for our Masters, a grand fairy tale designed to make it seem like the most noble and wonderful thing to do, instead of the most idiotic thing it has always been.

Personally I would need a whole lot more than that to fight and kill or die at the hands of a stranger who has never done a thing to me, for a government that's only ever told me what I have to do and can't do and pay it for the privelege, but hey that's just me.

The Civil War is just one more lie in a series of lies we have been having to swallow for thousands of years, put to us by the Masters of armed, violent states, seeking expansion and control through violence, extrotion, and decree, so they can acquire and control all the resources we need to live, so they can tell us how to live, and what we have to do to have some.

It's never ever done a good thing for the average person and that's why 99% of the world's wealth is concentrated in less than 1% of the world's population.

How they got it all was in fact through the wars we will fight for them, and the notions of glory and rightousness they give us as the only reward in the stories they tell us about why it had to be done.

The books are appealing for their romantic and grand stories of life and death struggles and they sometimes carry the individual truths of the very real people who fought and died in them, but they never, ever, ever, have the truth in them as to the handful of people who start them and why.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on revisionist history here. We can use logic and common sense. Consider the following statements:

1. The Civil War was fought over slavery. The North wanted to abolish slavery, the South wanted to keep slavery going.

2. If the South had not left the Union, but kept the institution of slavery, the North would have invaded the southern states anyway. After all, the Union troops were fighting to end slavery.

3. If the South had first abolished slavery, then left the Union, the North would have no reason to fight the South. This is because the war was about slavery, and not a state's right to secede from the Union.

4. If a state wanted to secede from the Union today, the Federal government would not have a problem with it, as long as that state had no intentions of re-instituting slavery.

It seems to me that if you believe statement 1, then you would also have to believe statements 2, 3, and 4. Do you believe those statements are true?

A couple more questions:

If statement 1 is true, then why was slavery abolished in the Southern states (via the Emancipation Proclamation) before slavery was abolished in the North (13th Amendment)?

Why would a Confederate soldier risk his life to defend slavery if he didn't own slaves, and would likely never have the wealth to own a slave in his lifetime? Even if I believed in slavery, I wouldn't risk a cannonball in the chest so that someone else could own a slave.

If the north wanted to abolish slavery, then why did the North keep slavery well into the war? There were free blacks in the south, many of which had their own slaves. Many free blacks fought on the Confederate side. I think it's false history we are being indoctrinated to believe in.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoomWhy would a Confederate soldier risk his life to defend slavery if he didn't own slaves, and would likely never have the wealth to own a slave in his lifetime? Even if I believed in slavery, I wouldn't risk a cannonball in the chest so that someone else could own a slave.

The answer to this question is in short an explanation of how one could come to the conclusion that your first point is untrue:

Slavery, was not what motivated the average Confederate Soldier, who likely fought for ( if you read the first source or original source history from their letters, diaries and obituaries) other more mundane issues, I doubt you will find many Soldiers who mentioned slavery at all perhaps some of the Officers who were upper class but not the guy in the trench.

They likely mentioned in thier papers and effect patriotism for their home state, to protect their sovereignty and stop the unlawful Yankee invasion and protect their land/family (After the shooting started of course they were defending their homes and livelihoods.) .

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

The reasons for secession are not reasons for war - unless you are a tyrant State that desires to keep its tax slaves.

Again, "tax slavery" is a phrase that makes no sense on its own, and makes even less sense when we're talking about a country that actually practiced slavery. Knock it off, you sound ridiculous.

And again, it was not the north who fired the first shots of the war; Apparently South Carolina did feel that its own secession was good cause to start a war.

If you aren't arguing over the reasons for war, then why are you addressing this thread?

The point of this thread is to refute the lies in the OP, which I think I have done quite well.

Well, the title of the thread is Five myths about why the South seceded - it's about secession, not the civil war. And all five statements in the OP are, for the most part, true. I say "for the most part" because there are some niggling things.

1) The states did secede over state's rights - namely, they were butthurt that other states and territories had a right to determine whether they were slave or free.

and

3) Most white southerners indeed did not own slaves; however, they had no political clout at all, and most of them benefited from the institution of slavery to some degree (As did most white northerners)

You haven't refuted anything; instead you've been getting your butt kicked by those of us who are clobbering you with historical sources rather than apologetic mythology from the Wilson Era.

You seem to be concerned with reasons for secession, not reasons for war.

Yeah, I tend to stay on topic most of the time.

reply to post by tom502


Actually, after the Fugitive Slave Act, the number of free blacks in the south dwindled hugely; they were arrested as "fugitives" and returned to slavery. While there were blacks in the confederate army, most were not free; they were slaves. See, slave owners could evade service in the army by renting their slaves to serve in their stead. Towards the end of the war this system broke down, of course since the south needed every man it could conscript. For most of the war, blacks in the confederate army were relegated to non-combat duty though I doubt anyone complained too much if they picked up a gun in the thick of things and blew away a few bluecoats.

There was by no means any racial equality on the battlefield.

Oh by the way some of Marx and Engels best writings has been on the topic of the American civil war. The originality and level of insight into these questions found in their writings never ceases to fascinate me.

(Marx on English press coverage of the Civil War)

In essence the extenuating arguments read: The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally, even if justice is on the side of the North , does it not remain a vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by force! Would not separation of the South release the North from all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule it by a bloody and futile civil war?

www.marxists.org...

See. This thread has been going on since 150 years.

Did you know that it was actually the South that actually instigated the first changes to the Constitution over slavery?

They enacted a change in the Confederate Constitution that slaves couldn't be imported from foreign countries.

Abe Lincoln was actually a supporter of slavery until the North started to run out of troops and all he saw was african-americans in uniform.

Abe Lincoln is upheld as a bastion of good Presidential decisions, when in fact, if you investigate what he was REALLY like and what he REALLY did, he was much, much worse than GWB or Richard Nixon.

reply to post by babybunnies


Understanding Haiti's History which is very closely linked with our own is a key part of understanding the Slavery Dilema facing the United States in the early 1800's.

After watching the black Hatian Slaves rebel violently and killing their French Masters it sent a lot of shock waves through the Slave Owners and the nation itself, and a number of ideas were floated by Jefferson and others on how they could phase out slavery in a controlled way.

Originally they wanted to stop the importation of New Slaves and to actually send new born slaves of the existing stock down to Haiti where they would in theory grow up free but free without their parents who would be kept in bondage here until they died of old age or through their service.

This plan might have even been implimented but it required a stable black Haiti and Napoleon wanted to retake it.

In the meantime, we also feared that if Napoleon could retake Haiti he would use it as a launching pad to invade the Americas and were fairly certain he planned too.

A lot of high international intriques took place where no one's plans came out quite as expected but eventually led to the Lousiana Purchase when Napoleon couldn't gain the stable toe hold on the Island he needed, in part because of some major deceptions and broken agreements on our part.

Lincoln himself believed that all men were created equal but not neseccarily compatible in their lifestyles and customs and felt the blacks once free would alter the American equation and cause friction and founded the nation of Liberia to expatriate them too, and quite a few were before abolishinists in the North East denounced the forceful practice of essentially sending back to Africa in chains the same people stolen from Africa in chains.

Yet ir remained a voluntary option for freed slaves and Liberia still uses the U.S. Dollar as it's official currency, Liberia being Latin for Liberty by the way, the birth of a new nation, with the same type of odes to Rome our own was patterned off of.

The South definately wanted to, and was looking for a way to phase out slavery though to avoid a repeat of what happened in Haiti.

Much of Haiti's tragic history is very linked with our own still to this day as a result.

www.alternet.org...''

So to is Liberia's two nations who's destinies were largely shaped and controlled through the dilema of what to do in regards to the slavery issue.

Lincoln was asking a lot of the North when it came to the cost in blood it would have to pay to basically fight it's own country men, he made a lot of concessions to various groups mostly religious to gain their support, they included the allowance of the first time of In God We Trust on select coinage, allowing the Church to make it's first real inroads in the seperation of Church of State, and to not forcefully repriate the blacks once freed to Liberia.

So I think when it comes to truly gauging the moral motivations of some of these parties, the truth is some northerners were clearly willing to fight and kill and die in the south against the south, just to get In God We Trust minted on coins!

Lincoln clearly was prepared to sacrifice our Constitutional principles and indeed issued a warrant for the arrest of the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court when he wanted to overturn Lincoln's presidential decree of the writ of habeas corpus the most fundamental and central protections of the citizen from the state since the time of the magna carter.

The Union General tasked with the arrest managed to convince the Cheif Justice to not overturn Lincoln's decree, so Lincoln was clearly prepared to and did trample all over the seperation of powers clause in the constitution, eliminating both an independent congress, and judiciary's powers to limit it his own.

Lincoln was a rutheless dictator that in essence ended true constitutional style rule once and for all, installed a military dictarorship and the United States Codes to supplant the common laws of the day that now number 600,000 with over 300,000 of them having Criminal Penalties attached.

Our false histories have no choice but to praise him for this destruction of the promise the constitution once offered because if it didn't well people would know the truth of what he had done and the legacy of it, that is directly related to today's state of affairs.

reply to post by bekod

have you seen this site Civilwar.com, it tells you all about the civil war, and it is a lot different than what the WP is saying, it seems as if some one is trying to change history.

For sure.

I am a D**m Yankee and I had a Black and Klu klux Klan member (Yes the two were good buddies) explain the Civil War to me and also the history of the Klan. I also talked to a couple of very old brothers who were Civil War historians and the sons of a Civil War veteran.

That article on why the South seceded is horse apples!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Unfortunately what soldiers think they are fighting for or hope they are fighting for or will gain by fighting are usually just fictions..

In a sentence:
The only ones who ever win a war are the bankers because they loan money to both sides!

That in a nutshell is the real reason any war is fought, to line the bankers' pockets. All the rest of the reasons are pretty fictions for the masses. To put it bluntly Americans are Cannon Fodder for the Global Elite who play war games as a means of amassing huge fortunes.

The Global banking elite were alive and well during the American civil war.

Financing the U.S. Civil War

George F. Peabody, History of the Great American Fortunes, Gustavus Myers, Mod. Lib. 537, notes that J.P. Morgan's father, Junius S. Morgan, had become a partner of George Peabody in the banking business.

"When the Civil War came on, George Peabody and Company were appointed the financial representatives in England of the U.S. Government.... with this appointment their wealth suddenly began to pile up; where hitherto they had amassed the riches by stages not remarkably rapid, they now added many millions within a very few years."

According to writers of the day, the methods of George Peabody and Company were not only unreasonable but double treason, in that, while in the act of giving inside aid to the enemy, George Peabody & Company were the potentiaries of the U.S. Government and were being well paid to advance its interests. [From the] "Springfield Republic", 1866:

"For all who know anything on the subject know very well that Peabody and his partners gave us no faith and no help in our struggle for national existence. They participated to the fullest in the common English distrust of our cause and our success, and talked and acted for the South rather than for our nation. No individuals contributed so much to flooding our money markets and weakening financial confidence in our nationality than George Peabody & Company, and none made more money by the operation. All the money that Mr. Peabody is giving away so lavishly among our institutions of learning was gained by the speculations of his house in our misfortunes."

Also, New York Times, Oct. 31, 1866: "Reconstruction Carpetbaggers Money Fund". [Quoted in] "Lightning over the Treasury Building", John Elson, Meador Publishing Co., Boston 41, pg. 53,

"The Bank of England with its subsidiary banks in America (under the domination of J.P. Morgan) the Bank of France, and the Reichsbank of Germany, composed an interlocking and cooperative banking system, the main objective of which was the exploitation of the people."

www.modernhistoryproject.org...

This is another eye opener How and Why International Bankers Make Wars

The author here has built his entire academic career on these sorts of issues. He's obsessed with race, and he's a typical left wing college professor. Not that this nullifies what he is saying, but to claim his views are completely neutral and objective is a serious mistake. He is expressing his political point of view here.

What is a slave anyway, can any of you prove there were slaves here?
Clearly the North did not want the South to be successful, but the south succeeded anyways.
The violence that the North threatened when they forced people to retain ownership on other people,
the south had no choice because the north made them. I am crying because them people didn't want slaves,
they were forced by them libral elitists, who do you think was pushing to keep segrgaytions?

Thats right! FDR and Grey Davis!

Honestly I have never met a slave which begs the questions is that even true?
MSNBC and the lame stream media... We need freedoms - socialists and communisms holding rallies
with white hoods, peace protestors kill more people than guns every year!!

So you see what I mean???

This thread should be closed as a hoax!

Originally posted by schuyler
The author here has built his entire academic career on these sorts of issues. He's obsessed with race, and he's a typical left wing college professor. Not that this nullifies what he is saying, but to claim his views are completely neutral and objective is a serious mistake. He is expressing his political point of view here.

Exactly!

During the 60's the young liberal hippies, who later became left wing college professors, were spraying the anti segregationists with hoses, bashing in heads and sicking dogs on em. Thank goodness for southern conservatism and their authority figures who would often march with the anti segregationists and get their heads bashed in, just for joining in the protests!

The most obvious thing here is everyone here was present during the civil war and knows the sentiment and motivation intimately.

books can keep you warm and are good at providing light

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on revisionist history here. We can use logic and common sense. Consider the following statements:

1. The Civil War was fought over slavery. The North wanted to abolish slavery, the South wanted to keep slavery going.

Many Northerners moved for slavery to be abolished, and many Northerners benefitted from it. Lincoln was part of a political party that was formed in part out of abolitionists, but he was prepared to keep slavery in place for the sake of the Union. The civil war was fought over maintaining the Union, the Confederate states left to preserve the institution of slavery.

2. If the South had not left the Union, but kept the institution of slavery, the North would have invaded the southern states anyway.

No. Lincoln stated time and tme again even during the campaign that he supported maintaining slavery for the forseeable future. He was not prepared to see the Union break apart over the issue of slavery. Southern leaders and delegates did not believe that Lincoln held the intention to keep slavery as is, hence why they wrote the declarations over the preservence of slavery:

The Georgia delcaration of Independence:

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.

The Mississippi declaration of independence:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

South Carolina Declaration of independence:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.

Texas Declaration of independence:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits

sunsite.utk.edu...

History appears to be so inconvenient for confederate apologists on this forum. Even with the declarations from the Southern states made full clear, we still hear "talk" and "speculation" or references from "individual confederate citizens and soldiers" as if this some how discounts the motive of the confederate government and their influencial slaveholding lobbyists. That is not the case, the declarations are clear for all to see, history makes it clear that secession was at it's core about slavery for the Confederacy. The facts don't seem to bother much of the conservatives, libertarians and anarchists on this forum for some reason. They just insist to defend a nation that was anything but free, and why? Well I have my theories.

4. If a state wanted to secede from the Union today, the Federal government would not have a problem with it, as long as that state had no intentions of re-instituting slavery.

No, who said this? Why do you insist on making statements up? You are aware that is being dishonest, no?

It seems to me that if you believe statement 1, then you would also have to believe statements 2, 3, and 4. Do you believe those statements are true? If any state tried to suceed the Union again, there would be conflict.

There have been numerous attempts over the centuries of states trying to leave the Union, and time and time again they have been forcably pulled back. Are you of the idea that the Union exists fully by volunteering states? Don't be silly, seriously. We invaded Northern Mexico to expand territory, held was with our northern neighbour to assure our territories secured the midwest and we massacred some 20,000 native americans. The Union did not form peacefully. Anbody who assumes this is being naive.

why was slavery abolished in the Southern states (via the Emancipation Proclamation) before slavery was abolished in the North (13th Amendment)?

Both the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendments came about years following the declaration of independence by the Southern states. The Emancipation Proclamation was a quick fix to get more soldiers on the side of the Union army to counter the confederate army.

Why would a Confederate soldier risk his life to defend slavery if he didn't own slaves, and would likely never have the wealth to own a slave in his lifetime?

This is another fallacy repeated time and time again. The opinions of some of the soldiers and citizens at the time changes nothing of what the war was about. Many Southern soldiers held opinions for and against slavery, many held other reasons for joining the war. Their views on slavery does not whatsoever change the reasoning for the war starting in the first place.

Let us once again take the Iraq war for example. Bush waged the war at the time, congress passed on it, and we sent some 120,000 or so of our soldiers there. There were many soldiers that believed the war on Iraq war about the defense of our country, some believed that it was about the defense of the middle east. The war was evidently about none of those things, it was about resource and control. Many soldiers in Vietnam believed we were there for the defense of our country when the reality was based more on influencial and politics. The opinions of some soldiers over a war does not constitute the agenda behind the war and those of the government. The soldiers are not the ones declaring these wars at the end of the day.

Originally posted by schuyler
The author here has built his entire academic career on these sorts of issues. He's obsessed with race,

Do you have anything to add to the topic of secession or the civil war aside from trolling? I'd love to hear your view.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The fact that each of these States were announcing as part of their charter and compact that Slavery would be legal does not in fact mean it was simply about, primarily about, or even about slavery, but that this was a key component building block right of these states, to allow, own and maintain slave labor.

I am sure if you look at these declarations of basic and fundamental rights by these states that they all had other common things that were listed as important aspects of State life that were intended to be gauranteed, so you could just as easily say it was about those things too.

Yes the Southern States had slaves, yes they declared that openly, yes they wanted to make sure it was implicitly an integral part of the state, and gauranteed in perpituity.

Now lets look at another example modern day, windmill farms, some people think they are ugly, some people think they are great energy alternatives.

The people who think they are ugly would love to tear them down and put up a park or an office building, the people who errected then HOWEVER who have a huge investment in dollars and labor doing that, would like some gaurantees before they make that huge investment that no, no matter how ugly some people think they are, that they are never going to be allowed to demand that they be torn down. In fact they need this assurance before they will consider ever spending all the money to put them up and develop them.

You are focused on the EMOTIONAL and MORAL aspects of slavery, not the BUSINESS aspects of slavery as a legally protected thing.

Now lets take it a step further, who were by and large the wealthiest people in the South? For the most part the Plantation Owners who owned Slaves, so how would you enlist their support in risking a war, and joining in a new system, if it did not gaurantee their investment in their slave labor enterprises, you wouldn't.

So the fact that they made those gaurantees does not mean that the decision to break away was based on Slavery or those Gaurantees just that the certain principles of those states, the wealthiest land owners, would only join in a new system if that was gauranteed as it had been in the old one.

So like it or not there really are two contexts you can look at it at, the emotional/moral or the business contractual, no offense but your whole take on it is about the emotional and moral aspects of what you find (as most of us do) an offensive system that dehumanizes and disenfranchises living human beings, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being against slavery, I am still hoping they free all of us from this system of free range slavery myself, but the truth is, that what you are applying to soldiers as far as their own individual stances on why they fought the war and how they percieved it is no different than you having an opinion based on an emotional aspect of why you think the war should have been fought, and therfore must have been fought, simply because you can find evidence that Slavery was a key and integral legally gauranteed part of the Southern Economy.

So in essence all you are saying is your opinion on the matter trumps all others, but the truth is no, the Southern Land Owners would not have broken away and supported a break away if they didn't have legally protected gaurantees that it would not jeapordize their system of commerce, and therefore Slavery would have had to been officially decreed in all their pacts and constitutions and mutual agreements with one another.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Then it seems we are in agreement. The Civil War was fought because the southern states tried to secede from the Union. It can be argued that the reason they wanted to secede was slavery; it can be argued that the reason was tarrifs, economic policies, Congressional representation, etc. or a combination of factors. But what is clear is that the reason the Civil war was fought over a state's right to secede, regardless of the reason they may wish to leave the Union.

Bottom line is, once you are in the clutches of the United States, you will never be free to leave. Proponents of the North American Union in Canada and Mexico should pay close attention to that fact.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Then it seems we are in agreement. The Civil War was fought because the southern states tried to secede from the Union.

No, not really. We agree that Lincoln was more concerned about maintaining the Union, however despite the evidence mounting, you refuse to come to terms with the fact the confederate states seceeded on the basis of maintaining slavery.

It can be argued that the reason they wanted to secede was slavery; it can be argued that the reason was tarrifs, economic policies, Congressional representation, etc. or a combination of factors. But what is clear is that the reason the Civil war was fought over a state's right to secede,

No, wrong again. From the side of the Federal government, this was about maintaining the Union as one. From the side of confederate states, this was about maintaining the institution of slavery. The core motive for the confederate states seceeding was on slavery, and that is the debate going on here. The civil war at core was about slavery. "States rights" and "secession" are merely resulting events to the core issue.

Lincoln attempted to reassure the South that he had no intention of stripping them of their human resource any time soon, but neither the confederate government nor the slaveholding lobbyists believed him.

Bottom line is, once you are in the clutches of the United States, you will never be free to leave.

What if, lets say Texas became independent, and after afew years the southern part of Texas decided to break away and become independent of cultural differences. Do you think the Texan government will just allow the southern lands to break away without any issue? I don't think so. This idea of true freedom, where governments can form on their own whenever they want, it makes little sense to reality.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The fact that each of these States were announcing as part of their charter and compact that Slavery would be legal does not in fact mean it was simply about, primarily about, or even about slavery,

The fact they mentioned slavery in the declarations does not prove this was about slavery at all? Thats a stretch, ain't it? I must say I find it amusing, I really do. We have so called libertarians and conservatives sitting down here defending the states and government of the confederate states at the time while insisting they were being unfairly treated by the federal government. I mean forget about the slaves at the time, they had to pay taxes! Interesting.

I am sure if you look at these declarations of basic and fundamental rights by these states

Slave ownership was viewed as a fundalmental right at the time. Did you get that? As for their other rights, yep, I'd be curious to know what were those were again. It seems that despite the tarrifs being passed by congress in 1828, we saw no attempt of secession. Yep, they had one their own in DC. Plenty of southern backed democrats, with the weaker whigs taking the white house time to time. Nothing prepared them for a Republican win in 1860. That is what tipped them over. You might want to explain to us what Lincoln exactly did that made the southern states run away like that a month after he won.

Yes the Southern States had slaves, yes they declared that openly, yes they wanted to make sure it was implicitly an integral part of the state, and gauranteed in perpituity.

I mean all they wanted to do was keep their slaves! Thats all! You see nothing wrong with that. With your own various threads and posts on "freedom" and "fascism" about this government and nation throughout this forum, you can sit here and insist to me that slavery was a necessary and innocent part of society at that time. Amazing right? Meanwhile we have the anarchist jumping off the floor because I told him the government of the confederate states were fascist scum. I love it.

You are focused on the EMOTIONAL and MORAL aspects of slavery, not the BUSINESS aspects of slavery as a legally protected thing.

Are you serious? Are you reading what you are just saying here? So slavery was just apart of the law that time there for it was acceptable? I am going to save this quote.