Why is she taking flak for saying the Civil War was fought over States Rights? It was.
Slavery was an also ran, not the reason.
Yep, they were having trouble getting northerners to join up for the purpose of forcing Southerners at gunpoint to stay in the Union (a very unpopular objective, since folks remembered that that's how our own nation was founded, i.e., by breaking away from another one, and The Declaration of Independence said that was a people's right). So they came up with the idea to propose to the public that it was to save the poor, mistreated, black slaves from wicked slave masters. Joining up increased immediately.
IT is the accepted lie. Been taught in schools for years. I will bet you if a national poll is taken, slavery as the reason would be almost unanimous.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Here in the North when the was a student slavery was the given reason for the Civil War.
I recall it being said that the Civil War was about Economics, not Slavery..which is half true.
The high falutin' southern democraps could not maintain their standard of living and still provide a competitively priced product without slaves to do the work. This means that the war was was about Southern Democraps being able to CHOOSE to live lavishly at the expense of others.... Much like politicians do today.
Last edited by OldmanoftheSea; 12/29/23.
-OMotS
"If memory serves fails me..." Quote: ( unnamed) "been prtty deep in the cooler todaay "
Television and radio are most effective when people question little and think even less.
Here in the North when the was a student slavery was the given reason for the Civil War.
I recall it being said that the Civil War was about Economics, not Slavery..which is half true.
The high falutin' southern democraps could not maintain their standard of living and still provide a competitively priced product without slaves to do the work. This means that the war was was about Southern Democraps being able to CHOOSE to live lavishly at the expense of others.... Much like politicians do today.
I always read it was about states' rights (to own slaves). In fact, slavery was such an important part of the southern economy, states joining the CSA were denied the right to end slavery in their state per the CSA constitution. The notion the CSA was interested in states' rights didn't survive for very long. It was definitely about economics and at the end of the day; a bunch of poor people died in an attempt to keep the wealthy wealthy. That does not absolve the North as they imposed many taxes aimed at the South and to prevent the expansion of slavery to the West; allowing the North to out-vote the South.
Last edited by drop_point; 12/29/23.
"Full time night woman? I never could find no tracks on a woman's heart. I packed me a squaw for ten year, Pilgrim. Cheyenne, she were, and the meanest bitch that ever balled for beads."
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Here in the North when the was a student slavery was the given reason for the Civil War.
I recall it being said that the Civil War was about Economics, not Slavery..which is half true.
The high falutin' southern democraps could not maintain their standard of living and still provide a competitively priced product without slaves to do the work. This means that the war was was about Southern Democraps being able to CHOOSE to live lavishly at the expense of others.... Much like politicians do today.
I always read it was about states' rights (to own slaves). In fact, slavery was such an important part of the southern economy, states joining the CSA were denied the right to end slavery in their state per the CSA constitution. The notion the CSA was interested in states' rights didn't survive for very long. It was definitely about economics and at the end of the day; a bunch of poor people died in an attempt to keep the wealthy wealthy. That does not absolve the North as they imposed many taxes aimed at the South and to prevent the expansion of slavery to the West; allowing the North to out-vote the South.
That's it in a nutshell. The Southern oligarchs saw the writing on the wall, and realized that they would soon be outvoted, and their "peculiar institution" would go the way of the dodo. Secession was their only way to avoid this.
Was the Kansas-Missouri border war not about slavery either?
I grew up as neo-Confederate as anyone, but the truth is the truth.
Now, the southern states DID have the right to secede (as we all still do today), and Constitutional arguments can easily be made in their defense... but it was still ALL about slavery.
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Oh, I don’t know. More than a third of them would probably say something like they were forced to secede when Lincoln called on them to send troops to illegally make war on other states.
If after our next Civil War the commies are successful, I wonder if it will become accepted truth that they fought the war to preserve the democracy against those who would destroy it so that they could keep promoting their racist, white supremacist, and hateful ways against the forces of democracy and good?
In “No Country for Old Men” Anton Shigur asks one of his victims, “If the road you traveled brought you to this place (about to die a bloody death), of what use was the road?”
I think about that line every single time I consider where we are in this country today. If this is where our history brought us, what good was it? Pretty much everything you were ever taught was a lie.
In “No Country for Old Men” Anton Shigur asks one of his victims, “If the road you traveled brought you to this place (about to die a bloody death), of what use was the road?”
I think about that line every single time I consider where we are in this country today. If this is where our history brought us, what good was it? Pretty much everything you were ever taught was a lie.
I've often asked what is so great about our Constitution when it has allowed us to decay into what we have now. It is a brilliant piece of paper nobody will defend.
"Full time night woman? I never could find no tracks on a woman's heart. I packed me a squaw for ten year, Pilgrim. Cheyenne, she were, and the meanest bitch that ever balled for beads."
A big part of Lincoln's motivation was to deport the slaves back to Africa.
Lincoln stated that slavery wasn't the issue. He fought the war to preserve the Union.
Lincoln attacked the South because he was told to by his handlers if he wanted to be reelected. Lincoln was personally responsible for the death of 700,000 Americans. He's the worst President in our history soon to be replaced by the radical Muslim Communist Barack Hussein Obama.
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Oh, I don’t know. More than a third of them would probably say something like they were forced to secede when Lincoln called on them to send troops to illegally make war on other states.
Understanding who fought for what and why is a fine point, but I always end up returning to the bludgeoning notion,
No slavery- no civil war.
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Oh, I don’t know. More than a third of them would probably say something like they were forced to secede when Lincoln called on them to send troops to illegally make war on other states.
Understanding who fought for what and why is a fine point, but I always end up returning to the bludgeoning notion,
No slavery- no civil war.
There is no slavery today and we seem to be headed for another. And a lot of the ideas seem to be broken down along the same general geographic lines. If slavery was the only cause, why wasn’t the country fixed when slavery was ended?
Why is she taking flak for saying the Civil War was fought over States Rights? It was.
Slavery was an also ran, not the reason.
She did not say it was fought over states rights and failed to mention that the cause was slavery. It was not merely an "also ran". It was the cause. She displayed incredible ignorance and her answer was poorly phrased. She's a moron and put on full display why she should not be president.
The South was and is the breadbasket of the nation with all of the warm water ports! Lincoln sent troops into the bosom of the South because of economic reasons NOT to save the Negro; conversely if he'd had HIS WAY initially his idea was to send them packing back to Africa!! Import fees for goods coming into the few northern ports were running as high as 40% whereas the idea broached by the South was to have lower tariff fees to embellish trade!
Why is she taking flak for saying the Civil War was fought over States Rights? It was.
Slavery was an also ran, not the reason.
Sounded like that was her follow-up reason. IMHO and from the history books I've read, the Civil War was begun over secession. Now, we can talk about the reasons for secession.
It absolutely grinds my teeth when people say the reason for the Civil War was slavery. It was not.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Saying the civil war was not about slavery is like saying the super bowl is not about football. There would have been no move to secede were it not for slavery.
When the Southern Aristocracy resolved to split the United States rather than give up the economic advantages that slavery gave them, that was the first 'shot' fired in the war. States Rights was the bumper sticker that was used to rally white non slave owning southerners to the flag, and thus bleed for the aristocracies wealth and lifestyle. Follow the money and the power in every war...therein lies the cause. Conversely, Lincoln had no constitutional right to force stop secession. Plenty of blame to go around, so now we have an entire angry segment of our society, 12% of the population, that have become generational wards of the taxpayer.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
What a lot of the dumb schits on here don’t realize is how much they’ve fallen for recent communist propaganda.
The idea that the war was not only about, or even principally about slavery was not some Lost Cause bullschit, it was accepted truth. As late as the late 1980s and early 1990s I had college professors teach that there were lots of issues and that slavery was a catalyst instead of the main cause. When, was the last time you heard someone mention “sectionalism” ?
They can’t and don’t teach that now? Why? Are we smarter than we were then? Do we have access to more primary sources? No, because of a systematic campaign to make the war about AND ONLY about slavery.
Why is this? For two reasons. First, the commies could never succeed in the US following their class model that worked elsewhere, they changed tactics and substituted race instead. Therefore, it was white people who needed to look bad, making the Civil War just about slavery was a good way to do that. Secondly, the white people they worried about most and needed to make look worst were the rural types and especially rural southerners. They needed to completely destroy the idea that people had once stood up to the federal government for any reason ither than their own greed and racism. Destroy the idea of states rights. Completely tarnish with racism the idea that anyone would resist the power of the government. And why is that? Because they control the government now and they have bad plans for us. And anyone who resists is just following in the footsteps of their racist ancestors.
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Didn't they?
Yes they did. The disagreement over slavery was the reason for their secession in their own words.
What a lot of the dumb schits on here don’t realize is how much they’ve fallen for recent communist propaganda.
The idea that the war was not only about, or even principally about slavery was not some Lost Cause bullschit, it was accepted truth. As late as the late 1980s and early 1990s I had college professors teach that there were lots of issues and that slavery was a catalyst instead of the main cause. When, was the last time you heard someone mention “sectionalism” ?
They can’t and don’t teach that now? Why? Are we smarter than we were then? Do we have access to more primary sources? No, because of a systematic campaign to make the war about AND ONLY about slavery.
Why is this? For two reasons. First, the commies could never succeed in the US following their class model that worked elsewhere, they changed tactics and substituted race instead. Therefore, it was white people who needed to look bad, making the Civil War just about slavery was a good way to do that. Secondly, the white people they worried about most and needed to make look worst were the rural types and especially rural southerners. They needed to completely destroy the idea that people had once stood up to the federal government for any reason ither than their own greed and racism. Destroy the idea of states rights. Completely tarnish with racism the idea that anyone would resist the power of the government. And why is that? Because they control the government now and they have bad plans for us. And anyone who resists is just following in the footsteps of their racist ancestors.
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Didn't they?
Yes they did. The disagreement over slavery was the reason for their secession in their own words.
Regardless why the south succeeded the southern states voted for it as was there right. Can anyone honestly say they don’t believe the south had the right to succeed ? If so then you absolutely don’t believe the Declaration of Independence.
Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
There is a whole class of people who control the media who are not honest and tramples on individual rights and freedoms for power and greed.
Excessive taxation. No representation.
Excessive and different export tariffs on their goods in relation to what northern states were paying to help pay the country out of debt. Plus, the union was expanding to the west and needed the coal and other natural resources that were more abundant in the south. Pennsylvania had coal and oil, but the majority of coal at the time were in the confederate states (Ky, Va, WV) along the Appalachians. Like it or not, but without coal and other natural resources, their plan to go from sea to shining sea wouldn't have happened the way it did. No coal, no steel production. Wood wouldn't get hot enough normally. Coal powered those steam engines. As power plants started to come online after the war, coal was better and cheaper at heating up water to make steam to turn those turbines.
Plus the federal government was in great debt due to purchasing a lot of the continent from other countries who by international law had laid claims to it by way of "discovering" it. Which opens up a whole other can of worms that if that were true it should all revert back to whichever native American tribe had called that land their home for thousands of years prior to those european ships putting out anchor here. And Christopher Columbus has been proven countless times to have not been the one to discover America. That's just more "history book" lies that you've been fed your whole lives.
And of course, slavery sucked. Not that it had never existed in the northern states too. While it had been abolished well prior to the 1860's, it had been rampant at the time of the founding of the country and even before really. There were more slaves entered the country through NY City than through Charleston SC. But, history teachers don't like to touch on that at all. It's all the souths fault for telling fedgov to get fu<'d
And when there is another civil war and the commies win it, they’ll make the history say they fought against the forces of racism and white supremacy who were trying to destroy democracy. And they’ll cherry pick sources saying as much and they’ll ignore and twist every other issue to fit that narrative. And the idiots on the Campfire equivalent will lap it up and run around congratulating themselves on how the “good guys” won another one.
And when there is another civil war and the commies win it, they’ll make the history say they fought against the forces of racism and white supremacy who were trying to destroy democracy. And they’ll cherry pick sources saying as much and they’ll ignore and twist every other issue to fit that narrative. And the idiots on the Campfire equivalent will lap it up and run around congratulating themselves on how the “good guys” won another one.
Precisely. History is written by the victors, every single time.
Understanding who fought for what and why is a fine point, but I always end up returning to the bludgeoning notion,
No slavery- no civil war.
There is no slavery today and we seem to be headed for another. And a lot of the ideas seem to be broken down along the same general geographic lines. If slavery was the only cause, why wasn’t the country fixed when slavery was ended?
You can not fix nigra.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
Why is she taking flak for saying the Civil War was fought over States Rights? It was.
Slavery was an also ran, not the reason.
"Also ran"....what? And whether one believes it was the primary reason or not, to not mention it as a huge contributing factor at a 2023 town hall reeked of stupidity.
Does anyone truly believe that the men of the North joined in droves to free the slaves? They wouldn’t do it today and they sure as hell didn’t do it then.
I can’t stand the Neocon either however she isn’t wrong. True then as today and forever...Follow the Money.
Ukraine got the cheapest (to them) defense budget in history by simply having Romney, Kerry, Pelosi and Bidet family members on the payrolls. Follow the money always bares the truth. Climate research, Wuhan Flu...pick anything and find out where it was funded.
True in the Civil War to today. Truth be told probably forever
Last edited by 007FJ; 12/29/23.
Originally Posted By: slumlord
people that text all day get on my nerves
just knowing that people are out there with that ability,....just makes me wanna punch myself in the balls
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Didn't they?
Yes they did. The disagreement over slavery was the reason for their secession in their own words.
Really? Show me that for all eleven states.
Some of the last states to secede didn’t bother to right declaration for their secession, since they only would have been repeating what the other states had already said. They laid out very clearly that slavery was the issue. Most of the other excuses for secession were made up after the fact.
And when there is another civil war and the commies win it, they’ll make the history say they fought against the forces of racism and white supremacy who were trying to destroy democracy. And they’ll cherry pick sources saying as much and they’ll ignore and twist every other issue to fit that narrative. And the idiots on the Campfire equivalent will lap it up and run around congratulating themselves on how the “good guys” won another one.
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Didn't they?
Yes they did. The disagreement over slavery was the reason for their secession in their own words.
Really? Show me that for all eleven states.
Some of the last states didn’t bother to right declaration for their secession, since they only would have been repeating what the other states had said. They laid out very clearly that slavery was the issue. Most of the other excuses for secession were made up after the fact.
That’s some stellar research and documentation you’ve got going there.
Why is she taking flak for saying the Civil War was fought over States Rights? It was.
Slavery was an also ran, not the reason.
Abraham Lincoln The Racist Marxist didn't bring up slavery until the GAR was on the ropes and he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a last ditch maneuver to turn the tide against the CSA remaining a free nation.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."-- Thomas Jefferson
IT is the accepted lie. Been taught in schools for years. I will bet you if a national poll is taken, slavery as the reason would be almost unanimous.
You're absolutely right, jorge. Still pushing that slavery bs.
It's historical fact. Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. They are dominated by the question of whether or not to allow slavery in the territories. The Republican Party was specifically founded to combat the "twin relics of barbarism"---Abrahamic Polygamy and Chattel Slavery because they were radically at odds with the intent of the Founders and specifically, extending slavery into the new territories was specifically contrary to the intent of the Founders. Bear in mind: it was Democrats who sought to confound the intent of the Founders in 1860 as they continue to do today. The Republican Party Platform of 1860 is set out below (for the benefit of the historically illiterate, of which there are plenty on this forum.)
\\
\\
\\
Republican Party Platform of 1860 May 17, 1860 Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States in Convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations:
1. That the history of the nation during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States must and shall be preserved.
3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may. And we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions, in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as especially evinced in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton Constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas; in construing the personal relations between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons; in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of Congress and of the Federal Courts of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power intrusted to it by a confiding people.
6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non-Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
11. That Kansas should, of right, be immediately admitted as a state under the Constitution recently formed and adopted by her people, and accepted by the House of Representatives.
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free-homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the House.
14. That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.
15. That appropriations by Congress for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
16. That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the federal government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established.
17. Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the co-operation of all citizens, however differing on other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.
APP Note: The Official Proceedings of the 1860 Republican National Convention indicates that the platform was announced and read on the second day of the convention (May 17, 1860).
Because the debates expose the truth. Come on man!
I’m sure the debate supercharged the farm boy from PA to go join up and fight the good fight. Same same for the NYC cobblers son.
We watch debates live and don’t believe 80% of what is said. You believe the printed excerpts of said debates motivated the Ohio Valley young men to rally for Lincoln?
Originally Posted By: slumlord
people that text all day get on my nerves
just knowing that people are out there with that ability,....just makes me wanna punch myself in the balls
You wasted a lot of time and cut and paste. Proving nothing. The northern states wanted the economic input from the southern states. When they were refused that, They came up with all of your cut and paste. And AFTER THAT, the effort against slavery became virtuous... and convenient.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Slavery was the root cause of secession for the South, and secession was the cause of the war for the North. That's where the issue lies. For the South, it WAS 100% about keeping slavery alive. For the North, it was 100% about keeping the tax base that was the South. It wasn't until Northen sentiment for the war started to sour that the "moral" issue of slavery became their rally point.
" ... The high falutin' southern democraps could not maintain their standard of living and still provide a competitively priced product without slaves to do the work. This means that the war was was about Southern Democraps being able to CHOOSE to live lavishly at the expense of others.... Much like politicians do today.
There were very, very few Confederate soldiers who were fighting to "live lavishly." Most of those Confederate boys were so poor a dime looked like a wagon wheel, to them. No doubt the various plantation owners enjoyed living well, but most "Johnny Rebs" were fighting for States Rights and independence from "Yankee elites." Slavery was the trigger used to compel the "Suthrens" to go to war. But economics and trade -- as usual throughout History -- caused the war.
L.W.
"Always go straight forward, and if you meet the devil, cut him in two and go between the pieces." (William Sturgis, clipper ship captain, 1830s.)
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
You wasted a lot of time and cut and paste. Proving nothing. The northern states wanted the economic input from the southern states. When they were refused that, They came up with all of your cut and paste. And AFTER THAT, the effort against slavery became virtuous... and convenient.
Your assertion is completely false revisionism. The political debate in the lead-up to the civil war was entirely about whether or not the nation would permit the extension of slavery into the territories. It was the dominant theme in the debate between the two candidates, in the newspapers and even in the Supreme Court. The formation of the Republican Party to oppose the attempt to extend slavery is a historical fact you cannot just brush aside because it doesn't suit your ahistorical political biases. We derive the intent of the electorate from the issues they were debating in the public square and the question of whether slavery was to be extended into the territories was, far and away, the dominant issue. Five states seceded before Lincoln ever took office. Why? Because he had dared to declare slavery immoral and a violation of the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution and promised to oppose its adoption in the new territories, while also vowing to prevent it's forceful elimination in the states, which many abolitionist radicals wanted. Good to know you are in sympatico with the Democrat Party of then and today. In fact, if you want more evidence as to why the south seceded, read the pronouncements of Alexander Stevens and Jefferson Davis. It was all about slavery.
Secession had a “basic cause” that was evidenced by multiple “infractions.” Southerner William Yancey was certainly correct in analyzing the cause of secession to be more fundamental than just “slavery” or “tariffs;” both of which were in his word’s mere “symbols” of a more foundational cause, namely, Northern infidelity to the Constitution:
“My friends, there is one issue before you, and to all sensible men but one issue, and but two sides to that issue. The slavery question is but one of the symbols of that issue; the commercial question is but one of the symbols of that issue; the Union question is but one of those symbols; the only issue before this country in the canvass is the integrity and safety of the Constitution.”
Protectionist tariffs motivated secession as one of many “symbols” of Northern infidelity to the spirit and letter of the Constitution; just as slavery issues were yet more among many continual “occasions” of that same malady. It was this continuing infidelity that justified the unilateral secession of a Southern State just as James Madison had affirmed:
“And in the event of a failure of every Constitutional resort, and an accumulation of usurpations and abuses, rendering passive obedience and non-resistance a greater evil, than resistance and revolution, there can remain but one resort, the last of all: an appeal from the cancelled obligations of the Constitutional compact, to original rights and the law of self-preservation…. and it cannot be doubted that a single member of the Union, in the extremity supposed, but in that only, would have a right, as an extra and ultra-constitutional right, to make the appeal.” (James Madison to Edward Everett, 28 August 1830)
Southern secession was indeed a just cause when protectionist tariffs evidenced Northern contempt for the Constitution – the document Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, called“the rotten bottom rail of a Virginia abstraction.” (Memories of the Men Who Saved the Union, Col. Don Piatt, 1887)
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."-- Thomas Jefferson
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Didn't they?
Yes they did. The disagreement over slavery was the reason for their secession in their own words.
Really? Show me that for all eleven states.
Some of the last states didn’t bother to right declaration for their secession, since they only would have been repeating what the other states had said. They laid out very clearly that slavery was the issue. Most of the other excuses for secession were made up after the fact.
That’s some stellar research and documentation you’ve got going there.
“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact“
Alexander Stephens Vice President of the Confederacy March 21, 1861
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact“
Alexander Stephens Vice President of the Confederacy March 21, 1861
There you have it, from no less an authority than the new Vice President of the Confederacy. Not tariffs, not taxes, not trade, but slavery---more precisely, the question of extending slavery into the territories.
Any hope of resolving the slavery issue and averting the Civil War ended with John Brown’s raid. It was at that point that since Brown’s purpose had been to cause a slave rebellion that would have seen countless innocent killed, Southerners realized it was no longer a somewhat abstract political question, but one where the other side wanted them dead. And it may have been different if Brown had been some lone nut, but he wasn’t. His harebrained scheme was funded by some of the wealthiest men in the country. They were so complicit that four of them fled the country to avoid a prosecution that never came. Northern newspapers called him a hero and lamented the failure of his scheme. Southerners saw this hateful rhetoric. They saw the act. They saw the government’s refusal to take any action against those who had funded and encouraged Brown. And they rightly concluded that you couldn’t share a country with people who wanted you dead and refused to enforce any laws on the books they felt like ignoring.
As such, attitudes hardened. Positions radicalized. And people began to prepare for the inevitable.
Seems that way today. Sanctuary cities ignore federal law. BLM rioters get no punishment or very lenient sentences while January 6th protesters rot in federal prison over misdemeanors. Joe Biden is openly bribed while crimes are invented against Trump. Billionaires openly fund the destruction of our country and white people are hunted with impunity in some of our cities while the rhetoric from every approved source blames them for everything wrong in the world today. All the while one side chants “democracy” like some sort of deranged mantra while doing everything it can to subvert wnd destroy it.
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
After the Civil War, Davis remained a wholehearted supporter of those symbols of the Southern cause that Union military might had discredited – states’ rights and secession. He maintained, “Every evil which has befallen our institutions is directly traceable to the perversion of the compact of union and the usurpation by the Federal Government of undelegated powers…My faith in that right as an inherent attribute of State sovereignty, was adopted early in life, was confirmed by study and observation of later years, and has passed, unchanged and unshaken, through the severe ordeal to which it has been subjected.”
As for himself, he asserted, “I shall die, as I have lived, firm in the State rights faith.” He told an appreciative audience of Southerners in 1882: “Our cause was so just, so sacred, that had I known all that has come to pass, had I known all that was to be inflicted upon me, all that my country was to suffer, all that our posterity was to endure, I would do it all over again.”
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
Why are you refusing to "put-up"? You said the Republican party "repudiated the actual powers granted in the Constitution". I asked for evidence and you demurred. I'm asking again: what Federal Constitutional power did the Republicans or their platform repudiate? Also, you claimed they favored flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries, when in fact the 1860 Platform (quote above) specifically denounces and opposes that activity.
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.
Any hope of resolving the slavery issue and averting the Civil War ended with John Brown’s raid. It was at that point that since Brown’s purpose had been to cause a slave rebellion that would have seen countless innocent killed, Southerners realized it was no longer a somewhat abstract political question, but one where the other side wanted them dead. And it may have been different if Brown had been some lone nut, but he wasn’t. His harebrained scheme was funded by some of the wealthiest men in the country. They were so complicit that four of them fled the country to avoid a prosecution that never came. Northern newspapers called him a hero and lamented the failure of his scheme. Southerners saw this hateful rhetoric. They saw the act. They saw the government’s refusal to take any action against those who had funded and encouraged Brown. And they rightly concluded that you couldn’t share a country with people who wanted you dead and refused to enforce any laws on the books they felt like ignoring.
As such, attitudes hardened. Positions radicalized. And people began to prepare for the inevitable.
Seems that way today. Sanctuary cities ignore federal law. BLM rioters get no punishment or very lenient sentences while January 6th protesters rot in federal prison over misdemeanors. Joe Biden is openly bribed while crimes are invented against Trump. Billionaires openly fund the destruction of our country and white people are hunted with impunity in some of our cities while the rhetoric from every approved source blames them for everything wrong in the world today. All the while one side chants “democracy” like some sort of deranged mantra while doing everything it can to subvert wnd destroy it.
The Civil War, or the War Between the States if you like, resulted from the suspicion that the North meant to use the power of the Union to destroy the sovereignty of the Southern states. Whether or not that suspicion was justified, the war itself produced that very result. The South was subjugated and occupied like a conquered country. Its institutions were profoundly remade by the federal government; the United States of America was taking on the character of an extensive, and highly centralized, empire. Similar processes were under way in Europe, as small states were consolidated into large ones, setting the stage for the tyrannies and gigantic wars of the twentieth century.
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
Why are you refusing to "put-up"? You said the Republican party "repudiated the actual powers granted in the Constitution". I asked for evidence and you demurred. I'm asking again: what Federal Constitutional power did the Republicans or their platform repudiate? Also, you claimed they favored flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries, when in fact the 1860 Platform (quote above) specifically denounces and opposes that activity.
They repudiated the powers of Congress, state legislatures, and the courts. The power of Congress and the courts are granted in the Constitution.
I guess you’ve never heard of Beecher’s Bibles. Henry Ward Beecher sent Sharps Rifles to abolitionists in Kansas disguised as crates of Bibles. Beecher was a prominent Republican was even sent to Europe by Lincoln during the war to champion the Union cause.
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
You wasted a lot of time and cut and paste. Proving nothing. The northern states wanted the economic input from the southern states. When they were refused that, They came up with all of your cut and paste. And AFTER THAT, the effort against slavery became virtuous... and convenient.
Your assertion is completely false revisionism. The political debate in the lead-up to the civil war was entirely about whether or not the nation would permit the extension of slavery into the territories. It was the dominant theme in the debate between the two candidates, in the newspapers and even in the Supreme Court. The formation of the Republican Party to oppose the attempt to extend slavery is a historical fact you cannot just brush aside because it doesn't suit your ahistorical political biases. We derive the intent of the electorate from the issues they were debating in the public square and the question of whether slavery was to be extended into the territories was, far and away, the dominant issue. Five states seceded before Lincoln ever took office. Why? Because he had dared to declare slavery immoral and a violation of the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution and promised to oppose its adoption in the new territories, while also vowing to prevent it's forceful elimination in the states, which many abolitionist radicals wanted. Good to know you are in sympatico with the Democrat Party of then and today. In fact, if you want more evidence as to why the south seceded, read the pronouncements of Alexander Stevens and Jefferson Davis. It was all about slavery.
You're fullashit. As usual.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
He was fullashit.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Here in the North when the was a student slavery was the given reason for the Civil War.
I recall it being said that the Civil War was about Economics, not Slavery..which is half true.
The high falutin' southern democraps could not maintain their standard of living and still provide a competitively priced product without slaves to do the work. This means that the war was was about Southern Democraps being able to CHOOSE to live lavishly at the expense of others.... Much like politicians do today.
I always read it was about states' rights (to own slaves). In fact, slavery was such an important part of the southern economy, states joining the CSA were denied the right to end slavery in their state per the CSA constitution. The notion the CSA was interested in states' rights didn't survive for very long. It was definitely about economics and at the end of the day; a bunch of poor people died in an attempt to keep the wealthy wealthy. That does not absolve the North as they imposed many taxes aimed at the South and to prevent the expansion of slavery to the West; allowing the North to out-vote the South.
It doesn't make any difference TODAY !! Slavery has been abolished pretty much since the un-Civil War. It's over !! No one today can walk up to anyone and ask them if they were a slave because they are all DEAD. So is this issue. If you are or were a slave it was not because it was legal or in America.
It's a dead issue and has been for 170 years. PUT IT TO REST !!..
Now, let's talk about issues affecting America today. There is no reason the word slavery and black Americans should ever come up in the same sentence again unless you are an American history teacher. Now and forever. It's over and there is no reason to dig that grave up again.
Any politician who brings it up again is just pandering to the black voters. LBJ paid black Americans off in 1965. The war on poverty was just a vote buying scam that both democRATs and leftist republicans forced upon the good taxpaying Americans who continue to pay that bill but get nothing in return.
kwg
For liberals and anarchists, power and control is opium, selling envy is the fastest and easiest way to get it. TRR. American conservative. Never trust a white liberal. Malcom X Current NRA member.
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
Lincoln didn't argue against slavery. His entire focus was "to preserve the Union".
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
Why are you refusing to "put-up"? You said the Republican party "repudiated the actual powers granted in the Constitution". I asked for evidence and you demurred. I'm asking again: what Federal Constitutional power did the Republicans or their platform repudiate? Also, you claimed they favored flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries, when in fact the 1860 Platform (quote above) specifically denounces and opposes that activity.
Probably because he feels you're worthy of ignore.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.
So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with California today? Right? I mean if your ex-wife can get your kid to California, she can get him a sex change under the full protection of California law no matter what custody orders you have in your own state or what laws it has on the books about the issue. And you will be arrested and prosecuted if you go to California and try to forcefully bring your son back.
That’s the kind of “states rights” you’re championing. That’s what you agree is right.
Secession had a “basic cause” that was evidenced by multiple “infractions.” Southerner William Yancey was certainly correct in analyzing the cause of secession to be more fundamental than just “slavery” or “tariffs;” both of which were in his word’s mere “symbols” of a more foundational cause, namely, Northern infidelity to the Constitution:
“My friends, there is one issue before you, and to all sensible men but one issue, and but two sides to that issue. The slavery question is but one of the symbols of that issue; the commercial question is but one of the symbols of that issue; the Union question is but one of those symbols; the only issue before this country in the canvass is the integrity and safety of the Constitution.”
Protectionist tariffs motivated secession as one of many “symbols” of Northern infidelity to the spirit and letter of the Constitution; just as slavery issues were yet more among many continual “occasions” of that same malady. It was this continuing infidelity that justified the unilateral secession of a Southern State just as James Madison had affirmed:
“And in the event of a failure of every Constitutional resort, and an accumulation of usurpations and abuses, rendering passive obedience and non-resistance a greater evil, than resistance and revolution, there can remain but one resort, the last of all: an appeal from the cancelled obligations of the Constitutional compact, to original rights and the law of self-preservation…. and it cannot be doubted that a single member of the Union, in the extremity supposed, but in that only, would have a right, as an extra and ultra-constitutional right, to make the appeal.” (James Madison to Edward Everett, 28 August 1830)
Southern secession was indeed a just cause when protectionist tariffs evidenced Northern contempt for the Constitution – the document Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, called“the rotten bottom rail of a Virginia abstraction.” (Memories of the Men Who Saved the Union, Col. Don Piatt, 1887)
gonehuntin, you've nailed it again. Northern tariffs on Southern goods pushed the Southern states to find customers elsewhere, and this infuriated the Northern states.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.
So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with California today? Right? I mean if your ex-wife can get your kid to California, she can get him a sex change under the full protection of California law no matter what custody orders you have in your own state or what laws it has on the books about the issue. And you will be arrested and prosecuted if you go to California and try to forcefully bring your son back.
That’s the kind of “states rights” you’re championing. That’s what you agree is right.
JoeBob, This kid can't find his junk in his own underwear. Let alone have any argument one way or the other on the Civil War. He has zero command of history. And anything else that may involve picking up a book, for that matter.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.
So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with California today? Right? I mean if your ex-wife can get your kid to California, she can get him a sex change under the full protection of California law no matter what custody orders you have in your own state or what laws it has on the books about the issue. And you will be arrested and prosecuted if you go to California and try to forcefully bring your son back.
That’s the kind of “states rights” you’re championing. That’s what you agree is right.
More like if I come from a state were cannabis is legal, I should be able to ignore state laws where it is illegal and take my pot into those states without those states being able to enforce their own state laws against it. In fact those cannabis legal states need to actively support my rights to my cannabis. Switch out cannabis for enslaved people and that the Southerns version of “states rights” at the time.
Any hope of resolving the slavery issue and averting the Civil War ended with John Brown’s raid. It was at that point that since Brown’s purpose had been to cause a slave rebellion that would have seen countless innocent killed, Southerners realized it was no longer a somewhat abstract political question, but one where the other side wanted them dead. And it may have been different if Brown had been some lone nut, but he wasn’t. His harebrained scheme was funded by some of the wealthiest men in the country. They were so complicit that four of them fled the country to avoid a prosecution that never came. Northern newspapers called him a hero and lamented the failure of his scheme. Southerners saw this hateful rhetoric. They saw the act. They saw the government’s refusal to take any action against those who had funded and encouraged Brown. And they rightly concluded that you couldn’t share a country with people who wanted you dead and refused to enforce any laws on the books they felt like ignoring.
As such, attitudes hardened. Positions radicalized. And people began to prepare for the inevitable.
Seems that way today. Sanctuary cities ignore federal law. BLM rioters get no punishment or very lenient sentences while January 6th protesters rot in federal prison over misdemeanors. Joe Biden is openly bribed while crimes are invented against Trump. Billionaires openly fund the destruction of our country and white people are hunted with impunity in some of our cities while the rhetoric from every approved source blames them for everything wrong in the world today. All the while one side chants “democracy” like some sort of deranged mantra while doing everything it can to subvert wnd destroy it.
+1
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.
So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with California today? Right? I mean if your ex-wife can get your kid to California, she can get him a sex change under the full protection of California law no matter what custody orders you have in your own state or what laws it has on the books about the issue. And you will be arrested and prosecuted if you go to California and try to forcefully bring your son back.
That’s the kind of “states rights” you’re championing. That’s what you agree is right.
More like if I come from a state were cannabis is legal, I should be able to ignore state laws where it is illegal and take my pot into those states without those states being able to enforce their own state laws against it. In fact those free states need to actively support my rights to my slaves. Switch out cannabis for enslaved people and that the Southerns version of “states rights” at the time.
What happens when one of these whackadoodle states (looking at you Oregon) outlaws animal husbandry and PETA starts stealing cows and turning them loose in Oregon? Are their owners expected to say, “Well, that’s the breaks, they made it to Oregon, they’re free now.”)
But just to be clear, you are completely fine with California allowing children to be kidnapped from other states and mutilated because that is now their state law, right?
And when there is another civil war and the commies win it, they’ll make the history say they fought against the forces of racism and white supremacy who were trying to destroy democracy. And they’ll cherry pick sources saying as much and they’ll ignore and twist every other issue to fit that narrative. And the idiots on the Campfire equivalent will lap it up and run around congratulating themselves on how the “good guys” won another one.
Remember. Its the Victor who gets to "right/write" history.
America is (supposed to be) a Republic, NOT a democracy. Learn the difference, help end the lie. Fear a government that fears your guns.
Slavery was the root cause of secession for the South, and secession was the cause of the war for the North. That's where the issue lies. For the South, it WAS 100% about keeping slavery alive. For the North, it was 100% about keeping the tax base that was the South. It wasn't until Northen sentiment for the war started to sour that the "moral" issue of slavery became their rally point.
Sorry. There was more to it than that. Slavery is what the North hung their pious, virtuous and evocative hat on to veil their real anger.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Here in the North when the was a student slavery was the given reason for the Civil War.
I recall it being said that the Civil War was about Economics, not Slavery..which is half true.
The high falutin' southern democraps could not maintain their standard of living and still provide a competitively priced product without slaves to do the work. This means that the war was was about Southern Democraps being able to CHOOSE to live lavishly at the expense of others.... Much like politicians do today.
I always read it was about states' rights (to own slaves). In fact, slavery was such an important part of the southern economy, states joining the CSA were denied the right to end slavery in their state per the CSA constitution. The notion the CSA was interested in states' rights didn't survive for very long. It was definitely about economics and at the end of the day; a bunch of poor people died in an attempt to keep the wealthy wealthy. That does not absolve the North as they imposed many taxes aimed at the South and to prevent the expansion of slavery to the West; allowing the North to out-vote the South.
It doesn't make any difference TODAY !! Slavery has been abolished pretty much since the un-Civil War. It's over !! No one today can walk up to anyone and ask them if they were a slave because they are all DEAD. So is this issue. If you are or were a slave it was not because it was legal or in America.
It's a dead issue and has been for 170 years. PUT IT TO REST !!..
Now, let's talk about issues affecting America today. There is no reason the word slavery and black Americans should ever come up in the same sentence again unless you are an American history teacher. Now and forever. It's over and there is no reason to dig that grave up again.
Any politician who brings it up again is just pandering to the black voters. LBJ paid black Americans off in 1965. The war on poverty was just a vote buying scam that both democRATs and leftist republicans forced upon the good taxpaying Americans who continue to pay that bill but get nothing in return.
kwg
I'm sorry you're so upset by this discussion. Maybe you should log out for a bit.
"Full time night woman? I never could find no tracks on a woman's heart. I packed me a squaw for ten year, Pilgrim. Cheyenne, she were, and the meanest bitch that ever balled for beads."
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.
So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with California today? Right? I mean if your ex-wife can get your kid to California, she can get him a sex change under the full protection of California law no matter what custody orders you have in your own state or what laws it has on the books about the issue. And you will be arrested and prosecuted if you go to California and try to forcefully bring your son back.
That’s the kind of “states rights” you’re championing. That’s what you agree is right.
More like if I come from a state were cannabis is legal, I should be able to ignore state laws where it is illegal and take my pot into those states without those states being able to enforce their own state laws against it. In fact those free states need to actively support my rights to my slaves. Switch out cannabis for enslaved people and that the Southerns version of “states rights” at the time.
What happens when one of these whackadoodle states (looking at you Oregon) outlaws animal husbandry and PETA starts stealing cows and turning them loose in Oregon? Are their owners expected to say, “Well, that’s the breaks, they made it to Oregon, they’re free now.”)
But just to be clear, you are completely fine with California allowing children to be kidnapped from other states and mutilated because that is now their state law, right?
So you’re comparing people of a different race than you to cattle and calling the states that had banned slavery whackadoodle states?
So, the Republican platform of 1860 said that it was in favor of all that was right and good. Called anyone who opposed their platform bad people interested in disunion of the country. Accused others of doing EXACTLY what they were doing themselves (flooding Kansas with armed paramilitaries). Claimed reverence for the Constitution while specifically repudiating the actual powers granted in that constitution and promising to ignore any state legislatures, Congress, or the courts who said differently. Advocated for increased taxation and centralization of government power for the common good. Promised freebies and affirmed and encouraged unlimited immigration.
I mean, who wouldn’t be in favor of that, right? lol
Let's take your nonsense one issue at a time: What Constitutional provisions did the Republican Platform repudiate? Let's start with that.
They repudiated he power of the courts and Congress. Of course, they also championed states rights and decried the armed invasion of states for any reasons. So, obviously, rhey were full of schit snd their morals were highly changeable just like commies today.
The South didn’t give a fly [bleep] about states rights when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dread Scott case. Basically forcing Northern States to recognize the rights of slave owners to their slaves even when they were in a state where slavery was supposed to be illegal.
So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with California today? Right? I mean if your ex-wife can get your kid to California, she can get him a sex change under the full protection of California law no matter what custody orders you have in your own state or what laws it has on the books about the issue. And you will be arrested and prosecuted if you go to California and try to forcefully bring your son back.
That’s the kind of “states rights” you’re championing. That’s what you agree is right.
More like if I come from a state were cannabis is legal, I should be able to ignore state laws where it is illegal and take my pot into those states without those states being able to enforce their own state laws against it. In fact those free states need to actively support my rights to my slaves. Switch out cannabis for enslaved people and that the Southerns version of “states rights” at the time.
What happens when one of these whackadoodle states (looking at you Oregon) outlaws animal husbandry and PETA starts stealing cows and turning them loose in Oregon? Are their owners expected to say, “Well, that’s the breaks, they made it to Oregon, they’re free now.”)
But just to be clear, you are completely fine with California allowing children to be kidnapped from other states and mutilated because that is now their state law, right?
So you’re comparing people of a different race than you to cattle and calling the states that had banned slavery whackadoodle states?
They were, in fact, at the time, property. And, no, I’m calling certain states today whackadoodle states.
See, I know it’s hard for an overly emotional person of limited intellect such as yourself to understand, but the point is that if one state is allowed to invalidate the property rights of another for any reason, there is no end to it. And no union of states can survive in that condition.
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
Lincoln didn't argue against slavery. His entire focus was "to preserve the Union".
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I take it you’ve never read or listened to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Yes, during most of his Presidency Lincoln’s overwhelming concern was the preservation of the Union because it was falling apart. But, to say Lincoln didn’t argue against slavery is a statement profoundly ignorant of US history.
Doesn't hunt. check doesn't fish. check wants to ban firearms. check doesn't kn ow basic history. check
Originally Posted by RHOD
Originally Posted by Bristoe
Originally Posted by nyrifleman
Originally Posted by Bristoe
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
Lincoln didn't argue against slavery. His entire focus was "to preserve the Union".
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I take it you’ve never read or listened to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Yes, during most of his Presidency Lincoln’s overwhelming concern was the preservation of the Union because it was falling apart. But, to say Lincoln didn’t argue against slavery is a statement profoundly ignorant of US history.
Doesn't hunt. check doesn't fish. check wants to ban firearms. check doesn't kn ow basic history. check
Originally Posted by RHOD
Originally Posted by Bristoe
Originally Posted by nyrifleman
Originally Posted by Bristoe
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
Lincoln didn't argue against slavery. His entire focus was "to preserve the Union".
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I take it you’ve never read or listened to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Yes, during most of his Presidency Lincoln’s overwhelming concern was the preservation of the Union because it was falling apart. But, to say Lincoln didn’t argue against slavery is a statement profoundly ignorant of US history.
Don’t forget that he supports kids getting their peckers cut off.
Doesn't hunt. check doesn't fish. check wants to ban firearms. check doesn't kn ow basic history. check
Originally Posted by RHOD
Originally Posted by Bristoe
Originally Posted by nyrifleman
Originally Posted by Bristoe
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
Lincoln didn't argue against slavery. His entire focus was "to preserve the Union".
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I take it you’ve never read or listened to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Yes, during most of his Presidency Lincoln’s overwhelming concern was the preservation of the Union because it was falling apart. But, to say Lincoln didn’t argue against slavery is a statement profoundly ignorant of US history.
Don’t forget that he supports kids getting their peckers cut off.
Lincoln supported kids getting their peckers cut off?
Hmm... I wonder if the seceding states ever did like, oh, I don't know, like an official declaration for the causes of their secession. I wonder what they would say....
Didn't they?
Yes they did. The disagreement over slavery was the reason for their secession in their own words.
Listen to what JoeBob is saying, you ignorant commie fugk. I'm not even going to bless you with another well-thought-out, class response. You don't deserve it..
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Understanding who fought for what and why is a fine point, but I always end up returning to the bludgeoning notion,
No slavery- no civil war.
When asked why they were fighting, Confederate troops almost invariably said because the Union invaded The South.
I agree with you on that point TRH, but am saying it doesn't change anything.
I never believed Southerners felt any patriotic zeal to specifically let a small minority keep slaves. Nor do I believe the majority of Northerners were going to enlist in order to end slavery in some state not their own- although there were certainly abolitionists willing to do so.
The entire power balance issue stemmed from slavery to such point that it was determining which territories became states or not. Not some other states right. Slavery. Not the sole reason for the war, nor even perhaps the reason most fought in it, but the sparking reason for the power struggles that led to it.
Not sure how anyone could say otherwise.
Last edited by kenjs1; 01/01/24.
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
Lincoln didn't argue against slavery. His entire focus was "to preserve the Union".
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I take it you’ve never read or listened to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Yes, during most of his Presidency Lincoln’s overwhelming concern was the preservation of the Union because it was falling apart. But, to say Lincoln didn’t argue against slavery is a statement profoundly ignorant of US history.
^^^This is true. Good post. And in fact, Lincoln repeatedly said if he could preserve the Union by keeping slavery, he would do so. Lincoln was adamant (consistent with the Republican Party platform) that slavery where it was then lawful was not to be interfered with. The issue was that the South wanted to extend slavery into places it had never been (the new territories) and into locations where the Founders explicitly forbade it. But once the South attacked the North, all bets were off. Recall that 5 states had seceded before Lincoln ever took office. Why? Did Lincoln intend to interfere with slavery in the south? Quite the opposite; he and the Republicans intended to leave it alone. Of course, their belief was that as the nation grew and as it added new, strictly free territories, slavery would eventually wither and die on the vine. That possibility was intolerable to the South and what was also intolerable to them is that Lincoln expressed moral disapproval of slavery. That was intolerable to southerners who desired to transmute slavery from a necessary evil to a positive good and as we've seen from no less an authority that the vice president of the new Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, slavery was indeed the reason the South seceded, seized federal property and preemptively attacked Fort Sumter. Slavery was the cause of the civil war. "But for" the issue of slavery, the South would not have attacked the North and would not have seceded.
All those deaths of soldiers that hardly wanted war. All the parents , sisters and brothers had to endure the death of family members. For what? Many are living on gov. assistance and living in 3rd world ghettoes . They have been like this for so long , they dont even know they are still slaves. A few are smart enough to know though... " The blacks have been voting democrat for 100 yrs. and they're still poor." Charles Barkley the basketball player said that .
Last edited by ihookem; 01/01/24.
But the fruits of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,faithfulness, Gentleness and self control. Against such things there is no law. Galations 5: 22&23
All those deaths of soldiers that hardly wanted war. All the parents , sisters and brothers had to endure the death of family members. For what? Many are living on gov. assistance and living in 3rd world ghettoes . They have been like this for so long , they dont even know they are still slaves. A few are smart enough to know though... " The blacks have been voting democrat for 100 yrs. and they're still poor." Charles Barkley the basketball player said that .
Yes. The Democrats traded enslavement on "the Plantation" for a new form of slavery---enslavement to welfare and to the federal government. Recall that blacks overwhelmingly voted Republican until the New Deal and recall also that LBJ was very explicit that his "New Society" programs would successfully buy off the black vote and it has done just that, with disastrous consequences. Did you know that the divorce rate among blacks was lower during Jim Crow than it is now? Thanks Democrats.
the rebels werent fighting for slavery. they were fighting cause they got invaded. here are the real slave owners and the self chosen that owned the ships that brought them here
That is pure historical revisionism. The Vice President of the South, Alexander Stephens, was very explicit: slavery was the "but for" cause of the civil war.
That is pure historical revisionism. The Vice President of the South, Alexander Stephens, was very explicit: slavery was the "but for" cause of the civil war.
Read more. Talk less.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
the rebels werent fighting for slavery. they were fighting cause they got invaded. here are the real slave owners and the self chosen that owned the ships that brought them here
You are completely ignorant of historical fact. Five states seceded before Lincoln ever took office. The South seized all federal property in the south and attacked Fort Sumter. The South refused to be bound by the results of a free and fair election, resorting to bullets when they didn't get the result they desired at the ballot box. The entire issue was the defeat at the polls of the Southern desire to extend slavery (and thus despotism) into the new territories in explicit contravention of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
That is pure historical revisionism. The Vice President of the South, Alexander Stephens, was very explicit: slavery was the "but for" cause of the civil war.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by mrmeener
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Regardless of the cause, the South still had the right and the abomination we have today is a direct result of Lincoln’s crimes.
No, the South did not have the right and it was the South who is the criminal, not Lincoln. It was only Lincoln who was faithful to the Constitution.
by arresting 100's of newsman shutting down any paper that was against the war? arresting members of congress and judges?
Yes, and I will explain why later.
judah benjamin a jew was the sec of war and the sec of state for the rebels he was also called "the brains of the confederacy". he was trying to protect his fellow tribal members who owned 78% of the slaves while 99.7% of the dirt poor rebels owned slaves. do you think all those guys in picketts suicidal charge owned slaves or were fighting because they were invaded
Do some actually think Southerners would have still shelled Ft Sumter to start the war if slavery had ended before 1800?
If so, what States Rights issue would have eventually led to it since it wouldn't have been slavery?
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
Regardless of the cause, the South still had the right and the abomination we have today is a direct result of Lincoln’s crimes.
No, the South did not have the right and it was the South who is the criminal, not Lincoln. It was only Lincoln who was faithful to the Constitution.
by arresting 100's of newsman shutting down any paper that was against the war? arresting members of congress and judges?
Yes, and I will explain why later.
Don’t bother you statist phuque. No one gives a schit about your retarded opinions.
Take your Harry Jaffa bullschit and stick it up your ass.
First of all, it's not Harry Jaffa. But more importantly, what are you afraid of. Your fear and insecurity in your position are palpable. The truth will set you free!
Regardless of the cause, the South still had the right and the abomination we have today is a direct result of Lincoln’s crimes.
No, the South did not have the right and it was the South who is the criminal, not Lincoln. It was only Lincoln who was faithful to the Constitution.
If the Southern States didn't have the right to secede, then the Colonies didn't either.
The colonies didn't secede. They revolted. The distinction is important because even the South acknowledged their's was not a revolution because they knew they didn't have grounds for a revolution. Its called the "glorious revolution" and not the "glorious secession" for a reason Hawkeye!
The south had the right to secede, not to own slaves. The south wanted to secede in order to preserve slavery which was not viewed as a reasonable justification and it doesn’t take any stretch of the imagination to get there either.
If the south held the right to own slaves then the north held the right to kill southerners….what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. 😉
I wish they’d never been brought here in the first place and I wish there hadn’t been such a demand for slaves….that’s the reason for the trouble we have today. Slavery was a dying remnant but it was important enough for many to die for.
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
I don't claim to be a historian, but I was taught the the south mainly seceded for states rights, basically free trade. They wanted to sell tobacco and cotton to Europe at a higher profit and the north demanded the south sell to them at a cheaper rate. Slavery was also an issue.
Regardless of the cause, the South still had the right and the abomination we have today is a direct result of Lincoln’s crimes.
No, the South did not have the right and it was the South who is the criminal, not Lincoln. It was only Lincoln who was faithful to the Constitution.
by arresting 100's of newsman shutting down any paper that was against the war? arresting members of congress and judges?
Yes, and I will explain why later.
Don’t bother you statist phuque. No one gives a schit about your retarded opinions.
Take your Harry Jaffa bullschit and stick it up your ass.
The irony of defending the "right" of states to own other human beings as if they animals of another species calling "statist" someone who opposes that practice escapes you doesn't it?
You might be interested to know that Harry Jaffa carried on a long debate with Mel Bradford, the leading Southern apologist and proponent of your "States Rights" view. When Bradford ran for the Chairmanship of the National Endowment for the Humanities Jaffa wrote a powerful letter supporting him in opposition to the Left who tried to demonize Bradford. I have copied Jaffa's encomium to Bradford at the time of the latter's passing (1993) below. It's an interesting read. Bradford eventually became a Republican.
Mel Bradford, RIP IN ABRAHAM'S BOSOM A lifelong dispute about Abraham Lincoln has been remanded to a higher court. HARRY V. JAFFA
No one outside the immediate circle of his family and close friends will miss Mel Bradford more than I. His opinions on Lincoln, the Civil War, the Declaration of Independence, equality, and slavery were so diametrically opposite to mine that they were virtually mirror images of each other. We were, more than any of our contemporaries, I think, so convinced that the conflict that centered on the figure of Abraham Lincoln was the central conflict in American, perhaps even in world, history that we came to constitute a fellowship of our own.
In his loyalty to the Old South-to the South of which he knew from what he regarded as the only ultimately reliable authority, namely "our fathers"-Mel was perfectly intransigent. He believed in tradition in the absolute sense in which the fundamental ordering of society, and above all its convictions on the ultimately important things-such as God and the universe-were transmitted by the family. Of course, this meant not any families, but the old families, such as constituted the senatorial class in ancient republican Rome, the ones who ruled by divine right because their family gods were the gods of the city. Once in a long private conversation, I pointed out to him that the only regime that was purely patriarchal more so even than that of the Roman republic was that of ancient Israel. This regime alone, in the form of Orthodox Judaism, had survived into the modern world. "You ought to be a Jew, Mel," I said.
"Maybe you're right, Harry, maybe you're right," he replied, in his long squeaky Texas drawl.
Of course, Mel couldn't become a Jew, because it was not his inherited religion. That, however, illustrated the difficulty with "pure" traditionalism in a Judaeo-Christian framework. When Jesus asked: "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" (Matthew 12:48) he transformed the family of pure tradition into one constituted, not by blood, but by faith. Curiously, this is exactly what Abraham Lincoln did within the American experience.
"We have besides these men descended by blood from our ancestors . . . perhaps half our people who are not descended [from them] ... German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none...but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that declaration, and so they are."
Just as Jesus bridged the gap between the God of Israel and Mel Bradford's ancestors, who were not descended from the Fathers who stood at the foot of Mt. Sinai, so Lincoln bridged the gap between the Revolutionary Fathers and my ancestors. When Lincoln began the Gettysburg Address by invoking "our fathers who brought forth this nation" he confirmed our community as a sacramental union of "one nation, under God." OUR SEPARATE FATHERS
Mel Bradford could never accept this view of Lincoln, or of the Declaration as the source of our authentic tradition. Yet in a curious way we shared a faith in "our fathers"-both Biblical and American the source of authority and tradition. Because of that shared faith, we agreed very much in our post-bellum convictions. We shared a hatred of Communism abroad and socialism at home. We both loathed "race-based remedies." We felt much the same way about the liberal statism that would replace the family and its extension in neighborhood communities, neighborhood schools, neighborhood churches and synagogues, and voluntary charitable organizations. In fact, we shared a conviction concerning states' rights, even though Mel, following John C. Calhoun, could not see the connection that I (and Abraham Lincoln) saw between states' and natural rights.
Above all, we shared a hatred for that acid of modernity, moral relativism, which lay at the heart of the welfare state, and which was dissolving the very basis of our civilization. In 1977 I presented a paper on Measure for Measure at a Shakespeare conference at the University of Dallas. It was entitled "Chastity as a Political Principle," and in it I set out what I believed to be Shakespeare's finding of moral laxity in private life as the basis for the disintegration of public morality. Shakespeare's play is a drama of the restoration of the family of republican Rome-as is symbolized in part by the silent presence of old Romans at the end. Mel was most enthusiastic at this presentation; both from a literary and a philosophic perspective, he felt it represented complete agreement as to what we understood conservatism to be.
JOINING LINCOLN'S PARTY
It was accordingly not surprising that Mel called on me when he decided in 1981 to become a candidate for the chairmanship for the National Endowment of the Humanities. I wrote in his behalf to the Reagan White House, making plain our differences, but also giving it as my opinion that Mel was as loyal a member of the Reagan coalition as could be found. Certainly it could not have been easy for him to join the party of Lincoln. But he saw that party, under Ronald Reagan, as holding out the only rational hope for the future. And I for one thought he deserved the most cordial welcome.
Since I have myself undergone a good deal of criticism-even from some of my friends for having supported Mel as I did, I would like to say here that in doing so, I believed I was doing no more than I believed Abraham Lincoln would have done. Lincoln was a master of the art of patronage. No one, better than he, would have recognized the importance of moving the old Northeastern liberal wing of the Roosevelt Democratic Party coalition, along with the old Southwestern conservative wing of that same coalition, into the Reagan Republican coalition. In FDR's case, it was patronage pure and simple that glued these opposites together. In Reagan's case, there was a common cause to be made against the welfare state and its intellectuals. I thought Mel's appointment would have served that cause. Unfortunately, the old hatred between Northeast and Southwest was too great, and Mel's candidacy foundered. Among the ironies was the part played in the campaign against him by the circulation of his anti-Lincoln views. It just happens that those who circulated these views were, for the most part, less friendly (if possible) to Lincoln than Mel was. To them, the natural law of the Declaration was anathema. Since I was shut out of the loop for my pro-Lincoln views as effectively as Mel for his anti-Lincoln views, I never had the opportunity to explain why I thought he would have had Lincoln's support!
As I return to my book on Lincoln and the Civil War, I shall always remember that no one encouraged me to write it more than Mel. I will not now have the opportunity to hear his comments when-God willing-it is finished. But our conversation will not have come to an end. I am confident that somehow, somewhere, he and l and Abraham Lincoln will, in the best of tempers, go on arguing into eternity.
![[Linked Image from media1.tenor.com]](https://media1.tenor.com/m/wAxO6UcuPlkAAAAC/christoph-waltz.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
![[Linked Image from 66.media.tumblr.com]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/009828ecc9296a84156b567bac6495c6/tumblr_pw9s0v32P21s9a9yjo1_500.gif)
