reply to post by NavyDoc
The second and third sentences of Georgia declaration of secession are:
Georgia's declaration of secession
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.
I guess that because they're at the very beginning of the declaration, they aren't very important...
And, by the way, when the term "property" is used, it means slaves -- human beings owned as chattel by other humans.
All those other grievances lower down are just a whiny laundry list written by lawyers in order to prop-up their immoral demand that the rest of the
United States respect their rights to own slaves and to return runaway slaves. Not impressed. I really love the part where there are complaints
about the federal government paying for light houses and buoys, and protecting domestic shipbuilding interests against foreign ones. The nerve of
those feds!!! Guess it should have been laissez faire
-- and if England and other foreign countries undermined our shipping industry as well
as our navy, oh well.
And let's say that the Northern interest were getting sweet deals at the expense of the South. How did this happen, given the fact that the
slave-owning states got extra representation in the House of Representatives relative to the free states?
You secessionist sympathizers and slavery apologists would be a hoot, if it weren't for the fact that you're defending a disgusting practice and are
creepy in the extreme to boot. That and your mendacity and prevarication know no bounds.
And let's just parse the first three sentences of what you quoted:
"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 the South not at all."
So the North couldn't control both branches of the legislature, so what's the problem, Johnny Reb? And the second second seems to suggest that
divided government will fail or result in the overthrow of the government. Didn't know the US government failed in the 1800's. Knew there was a
dismal attempt at overthrowing it, but that is what failed BIG TIME. And the material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Fed, but
the South not all? Hmm, where have I heard that one before? Oh yeah, from the GOP and the Teabaggers this past election cycle. Go figure. Seems
the Southern politicians were cut from the same mendacious cloth back then as they are now. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
The material prosperity of the South was not at all dependent on the federal government? Uh, who, through military force, annexed Texas? Last time I
checked, it was the federal government. Uh, who bought the territory that became Louisiana, Arkansas and the Oklahoma territory? Think it was the
federal government again. And who drove the native Americans out of the southern states, in order to give the land to the white settlers? Think it
was the US Army (last time I checked). Also guess the lighthouses, buoys and US shipbuilding interests didn't help the South at all. Also guess the
US navy didn't protect the Gulf coast from predation by privateers or foreign navies. Also guess US military bases in the Southern states and
government contracts for agricultural goods from the South didn't help the South materially. Yep, Norfolk Naval Yard was an economic drain to
Virginia. And certainly Southern states got no other pork/earmarks through their congressmen.
Yes, those poor Southern plantation owners were, by the sweat of their slaves' brows, subsidizing all the welfare-sucking Northern interests -- for
instance, all those destitute whalers from New England and those penurious ranch owners in California as well as the businessmen in California who got
rich off the gold rush. Yes, indeed, it was Southern capital that financed just about every economic endeavor in the Northern states.
GIVE ME A BREAK! I don't buy anything that these scurrilous, scumbag secessionists claimed. Secessionists were de facto
traitors and why
should anyone trust a traitor?
edit on 7-12-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)