On this day, 150 years ago, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at the Appomattox, Virginia Courthouse. This event essentially ended the Civil War, the bloodiest conflict in American history, which claimed the lives of over 600,000 soldiers.

Though the surrender at Appomattox did not officially end the fighting, the collapse of the Army of Northern Virginia signaled that victory for the Confederate cause would be impossible. Led by General Lee for most of its existence, the Army of Northern Virginia had bottled up the Union Army of the Potomac for four years, winning a series of stunning battles that have become legendary: Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and numerous others.

However, after the incredible 1863 Union victory in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Lee’s army had mostly been on the defensive, slowly succumbing to the better-armed and supplied Union forces. Once Ulysses Grant was given command in March of 1864, the primary Union army of the eastern theater had a general that could take it to ultimate victory.

In the waning days of 1865, Confederate arms were nearly spent. The once proud and dynamic Army of Northern Virginia had been reduced from about 100,000 men in 1862 to fewer than half of their initial ranks. Confederate soldiers were starving and under-supplied, missing many of their best commanders after losing them in battle, and without hope for reinforcements.

Lee’s Army was badly beaten at the Battle of the Five Forks in early April, which forced him to abandon his fortification at Petersburg, Virginia and leave a path open to the Confederate capitol city of Richmond.

In the last, desperate retreat through Virginia, the Confederate Army was in disarray and on the verge of collapse. After witnessing his army being badly thrashed at Sailor’s Creek, Lee cried out, “My God! Has the army been dissolved?”

In the final confrontation between the Army of the Potomac and Army of Northern Virginia near Appomattox Courthouse, it was clear that the Rebel army was indeed on the verge of being dissolved. Historian Bruce Catton wrote in The Army of the Potomac: Stillness at Appomattox about this last fight:

The blue lines grew longer and longer, and rank upon rank came into view, as if there was no end to them. A Federal officer remembered afterward that when he looked across the Rebel lines it almost seemed as if there were more battle flags than soldiers.So small were the Southern regiments that the flags were all clustered together, and he got the strange feeling that the ground where the Army of Northern Virginia had been brought to bay had somehow blossomed out with a great row of poppies and roses.

After receiving word of how badly his forces had been beaten by the Union army, Lee wrote a message to General James Longstreet, “There is nothing left for me to do but to go and see General Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths.”

After receiving news that Lee had surrendered, President Abraham Lincoln prepared and delivered what would be his final speech on April 11. He exclaimed from the White House balcony, “We meet this evening, not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace whose joyous expression can not be restrained. In the midst of this, however, He from whom all blessings flow, must not be forgotten.”

Lincoln then called for a “national thanksgiving,” but said that the ultimate credit for victory belonged to the Union soldiers above anyone else. He said, “Their honors must not be parceled out with others. I myself was near the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honor, for plan or execution, is mine. To Gen. Grant, his skillful officers, and brave men, all belongs.”

The final parade and surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia took place on April 12. General Joshua Chamberlain, hero of the Battle of Gettysburg, would receive the formal surrender on behalf of General Grant. Chamberlain recorded what he saw in his memoir; an account that historian Emory M. Thomas called the “best” description of the Confederate Army’s final act:

Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond…

Instruction had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from left to right, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldiers salutation, from the “order arms” to the old “carry”—the marching salute. General [General John B.] at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly, making with himself and his horse one uplifted figure, with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual,—honor answering honor. On our part not a sound of trumpet, nor a roll of drum; not a cheer nor word, nor whisper of vainglorying, nor motion of man standing again at the order, but an awed stillness rather, a breathholding, as if it were the passing of the dead!

Though some Confederate leaders wanted to continue the war through guerrilla style fighting, Lee completely rejected this tactic. The war was over, the fighting hopeless, and the long road to recovery and rebuilding the country had to begin.

Damn pucking Yankees....

We are much better off.

Yes, Barack Obama is a good reason to get down on your knees and thank Abraham Lincoln for preserving the Union so that we could be ruled by this wonderful man.

about two months after the sad event, my great Grandfather and his little ragged group of the 46th Georgia Infantry said to hell with it, refused to sign parole or surrender. They just walked home to Fayetteville Georgia, and went back to farming.

Good Lord, what an idiot. Is Lincoln also responsible for Ronald Reagan becoming president? The fact that one event follows another in time does not mean A caused B. I notice that roosters crow every morning when the sun comes up. The rooster crowing does not cause the son to rise Joe Bob.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who ostensibly believe in liberty can villify the man who stopped the greatest affront to liberty in our time (chattel slavery) from becoming entrenched as a positive moral good.

The last time in history a Yankee and a Southerner shook hands. Many people claim this is photoshopped...

He enslaved an entire nation to free some. Yes, what a great man he was.

Let me ask you a question or two. A marriage is meant to be perpetual is it not? The vows literally say "To death do us part" do they not? So, if we take that literally, and the wife is bound to the husband no matter what and there is nothing she can do to leave, and if she tries, he can forcibly bring her back to the marriage bed, is she a wife or a slave?

Actually, that "last time in history" is a bit of hyperbole, if you skip to 2:25.

Agreed, this nation is much better off today then ever. One only needs to see what a glimmer of hope and prosperity that is California.

Whatever happened to the table that the treaty was signed on?

Didn't Custer get it?

Yes, the Yankees stole the damned furniture from the homeowner too.

Oh....my....[bleep].....God. Are you kidding me? Are you really that mentally challenged? The Founders believe the Union they had created in the Declaration of Independence would exist in perpetuity. However, axiomatic to everything they did was their recognition of the very right of revolution that gave rise to the new nation they were instrumental in forming and which they perfected in adopting the Constitution of 1787. They never repudiated the words of the Declaration of Independence and the right of revolution (the right to revolt against tyranny) recognized therein, which is a natural right, by the way. But the south did not revolt against tyranny, they rebelled in order to perpetuate and extend tyranny---the tyranny of chattel slavery which they asked the rest of the nation to accept as a positive moral good! Even the South was careful not to call their actions revolutionary. They spoke instead of "deratification"--of deratifying the Constitution. Their mistake however was in thinking that the Union was formed by the Constitution and therewith by the States. As Lincoln pointed out, this was "an ingenious sophism". Both propositions were and are false. The Union was perfected by the adoption of the Constitution of 1787 and it was perfected by the People (We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union...."

The Declaration of Independence makes clear that the people of the 13 united colonies were declaring their independence from Great Britain, not from one another. The express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen colonies in the Articles of Confederation and two years later that the Union shall be perpetual is most conclusive.
In the words of Lincoln "Having never been States (they were colonies), either in substance or in name outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "States Rights" (in this case, the right of states to deny to human beings the right to put in their own mouths the fruit of their own labor and to substitute bullets for the ballot box simply because they did not like the outcome of a free election!) asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself.

There is no denying that the balance of power between the states and the federal government is way, way out of balance but criticizing that lack of balance on the basis of the argument that states ought to be free to enslave other human beings as if they were dog or oxen or horses is not the way to make a winning "states rights" argument!

Jordan

It is tyranny to hold someone against their wishes, regardless of the reason they wish to leave. Period.

Just fifty years or so after the Civil War, the United States fought another war and brokered the entire peace based on the right of "self determination" yet when that principle was acted upon in the United States, it was bloodily rejected.

And I have never said that states ought to be free to enslave other human beings, you have an extreme disconnect there. I've merely said that the federal government does not have the right to enslave them in order to keep them from it. You don't get to rape, pillage, and destroy just because you think the other guy is a bad guy. Well, I guess they did and got away with it. That is why things are so fricked up today. The federal government can do as it pleases and if the states try to leave, they'll be brought back kicking and screaming after having been practically destroyed.

Then the son will get his ass kicked.

My Great Great Grandfather was wounded at Chickamauga and fought at the Battle of Franklin a few days later where he was captured and paroled. Rode his horse down south of Vicksburg, jumped him in the Mississippi River and swam across. Rode to Alto, La. where he started his family and farmed cotton and cattle and from his loins my family came about! In the family today he is known as 'Pappy Pete'! May God rest his soul!!

PeterSMulhern by Sharps45 2 7/8, on Flickr

"But the south did not revolt against tyranny, they rebelled in order to perpetuate and extend tyranny---the tyranny of chattel slavery which they asked the rest of the nation to accept as a positive moral good!"

TOTAL BULLSCHITT!!

A sad day in American History, and even a sadder day for the South. My family fought at Gettysburg and Shiloh for the South. Fugg Lincoln!!!

Lincoln ought to be dug up and shot again.

Chamberlain, however, appears to be a morally upright and worthwhile character.

Too bad he was on the wrong side.

General Sheridan purchased the table and gave it to Libbie Custer. Where it is now, I surely don't know.

They bought it from the owner.

Not according to Mr. Mclean.

Chamberlain's words in 1901. I was always impressed with the way he honored General Gordon. And General Gordon's action (as well as the actions of his steed) alway brings a tear to my eye. Only the honors that can be paid between two old enemies. Those between fighting men.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/the-last-salute-of-the-army.html

There are two words that define that war - Union and Confederacy.

Look those two up and give it a thunk. That war is still playing out, the "elite moneyed folk" overbearing the people who grow food and build the infrastructures, race be damned. Hence the "elites" who are running D.C.

I wish they would quit invading the South,

I know that a lot of Yankees retire to Florida, but where else in the south do they go?

What a bunch of sore losers.

Only about half way back between Yankee land and Florida. In other words, right where I live.

We did not lose, only restocking. You are from CA so you don't count. :-0

What is there of interest for Yankee retirees in NC?

Better weather, scenery, family up north and Florida, used to be better housing for the dollar, other family members moved here.

I guess, to each his own. After spending time at Fort Bragg, I figured that I'd seen all of NC that I ever wanted to see, although the Asheville area is rather nice.

LOL. Yep, Fort Bragg is the pit of NC. I live 20 minutes north of Asheville which is on top of too many lists.

Regardless what happened in 1865, we do have a Negro problem today.. Nationwide.

Those living in the South can proudly stand and proclaim, "We never brought the Negro here, we just purchased them from Yankee traders."

g

In the decades leading up to the War of Secession cotton production became to increasingly dominate the economy of the South, enormous acreages being turned over to its production.

Unfortunately, the perceived necessity for slaves to do the actual labor of producing this crop had the effect of further entrenching the institution of "African slavery" (to use a Southern term) as an indispensable component of Southern society, to the extent that slaves actually outnumbered the free population in South Carolina and Mississippi, and rivaled it in others.

As I said in that other thread, the South's dependence upon cotton exports was comparable to the Saudis' dependence upon oil exports today. ALL of the de-facto Southern Aristocracy, and ALL of its leaders owed their fortunes to slave-produced cotton.

The idea of secession was nothing new in '61, it had been bandied about for decades, and national politics had been for at least that long all about accommodating the disparate goals of North and South with respect to the expansion of that slavery.

In their own words, a primary concern of the Southern States at the time of secession was that population growth and demographic shifts would reach a point wherein the Northern States might legally impose abolition upon the South.

No accident then that the Confederate Constitution when it was written specifically enshrined and protected the institution of chattel slavery in perpetuity.

Birdwatcher

It took some real bravery to face each other in battle the way they did back then. Those boys on both sides were studs.

My God! 600,000 dead!

I'm trying to recall the book years ago where I read an account of an elderly Confederate Veteran many years after the war at a reunion at Fredericksburg. His quote went along the lines of "Many people today are still fighting that war, those of us who were actually in it are just glad its over."

http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

excerpt:

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.

Which ones?



Not the British Isles, not France, not Belgium, not Spain, nor Portugal, Norway, Sweden or Finland. Not Italy or Swtizerland either.

Germany?

This one.

Were any of the eleven States the seceded between 12/1860 and 06/1861 ever consolidated?

Were the borders of any of the eleven States that seceded to form the CSA changed in any way during their reincorporation into the United States?

Germany and Italy, of course were the most notable. And of course, you could say Britain as well as that Great Britain was literally England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The same with Spain as that it was an amalgamation of many duchies and kingdoms. And even France contained what had been Burgandy and other states. And of course, that doesn't even count the consolidation of the Austro-Hungarian empire with its swallowing of the Balkans and the dismemberment of Poland in concert with Russia.

The US followed the centuries old process of consolidation of small states into a single centralized state.

Ya, I forgot about the whole Papal States thing, but neither the consolidated Germany nor Italy were hardly the dictatorial monoliths the article implied, and I'm not recalling any real desire among the citizens of these nations to go back to their previous fragmented state after the deed was done.

Heck, long prior to that, EVERY state in Europe ultimately was ultimately assembled from fragmented fuedal holdings, so what?

Those who voluntarily did the fighting on the Union side, and who collectively reelected Lincoln for a second term (he was sure he would lose) were fighting to "preserve the Union". Why does that have to be part of some greater conspiracy?

Birdwatcher

Venice threatens to this day. Scotland came pretty close not long ago. Spain is and always has been wracked with separatist movements. The Balkans have been under strife for centuries. And so on and so forth.

No conspiracy, but fighting to enslave a nation to keep it from enslaving others is the worst cause in history. It destroyed the old republic by fundamentally changing it and the balance of power between the federal government and the states, making them mere provinces instead of sovereign states.

Thanks for that link, sir. It was a very enjoyable read and I am further convinced that Chamberlain was top quality people.

BTW, you were right about the account of Gordon and his horse.

Not a damn thing. NC is freaking barren wasteland with nothing but mesicans and rugheads. No running water or electricity. Keep going till you hit Florida.

But at what point do you stop? Had Scotland become independent, you would have then seen the centuries old divisions between Scots start to raise its head..Lowlanders v Highlanders...The Islanders v the mainland, not to mention the whole Clan thing...

Sometimes folks have to get past events from 150 years ago and concentrate on making things better in the present..

At what point does it even need to stop? Computers and the internet make decentralization possible today that could not have been dreamed of in centuries past. And wars have gone from small inter-tribal affairs, or the conflicts of small states, to the nightmares of the 20th Century where somewhere north of at least 150 million people were directly slaughtered by states and/or in gigantic wars between all powerful nation states.

Tell me again, the benefits of this infatuation with gigantic centralized states?

From the Northern side easily the most oft-stated reason for war, including from the President, was to preserve the Union. Your average Northerner was not willing to die for what most of 'em would have called a bunch of Africans to put it mildly.

Among the Southern leadership the implication was that the South was about to be collectively outvoted and thus effectively disenfranchised by the North. The most pressing concern, besides the appalling prospect of an enormous former slave population running amok, was the threat to the cotton industry upon which the whole existence of the South as they knew it then depended.

It was this Southern economic elite that wrote those odious provisions enshrining slavery in the Confederate Constitution and who enumerated those slavery-based statements of Causes of Secession.

For the rank and file Southerner, a main motive seems to have been a natural loyalty to the place of one's birth and/or residence (Robert E. Lee for example fit this profile), as well as a resentment and contempt of the Yankee. An almost universal confidence of an easy victory at the start played into it too.

But even for the common Southerner, the prospect of a forced Emancipation of te hordes of slaves in their midst would have been catastrophic.

As to the economic ruin of the South in the decades after the war, I dunno how much of that can be ascribed to a fall in the price of cotton on the world market.

Going into it, the Confederacy had been planning to use their near-monopoly as a cotton producer to coerce world opinion and win recognition of the Confederate States, especially from England, their primary trade partner.

In anticipation of a conflict however, England had stockpiled millions of bales of Southern cotton in advance, such that IIRC as major supply shortage on the world market was not felt until 1863. Ironically, far from motivating the UK to recognise the South, the shortage and resulting rise in prices brought about huge increases in cotton production in India and IIRC Brazil, such that a post-war South, win or lose, would no longer enjoy their prior monopoly on production.

Also, if the War of Secession over here was only indirectly about slavery, in England it most certainly WAS about slavery. Americans commonly overlook the innate morality of the British nation at that time.

Ninety years later, Lancashire textile workers would give a warm reception to Mahatma Gandhi when he visited Britain, even though Ghandi's own proposed boycott of sales of Indian cotton to the UK threatened their own livelihood.

Likewise, by 1861, slavery in the Empire had already been abolished a quarter century earlier through the efforts of the widely celebrated Christian hero William Wilberforce.

More importantly, Queen Victoria herself was an ardent abolitionist, and even if she had few actual powers as monarchat that time her influence on British policies was enormous. Because of slavery, the South's hopes for recognition from England was a long shot from the start, and Lincoln's well-timed Emancipation Proclamation hammered the nails in that particular coffin.

Given the worldwide fall in cotton prices in response to increased worldwide production anyway, it is interesting to ponder what the South's post-war fortunes would have been even if they had won.

Birdwatcher

No worse than it was. The Depression went unnoticed in the South as that things had been that bad for decades for most people.

However, I suspect that it would have been much better. Where I live, hundreds of thousands of acres of virgin timber was sold to carpetbaggers for as little as 7 cents an acre in some cases.

In any case, timber, agriculture, and the discovery of massive oil deposits in Texas and Oklahoma would have seen the South's fortunes rise as they have today...but probably much sooner.

Pray tell what you think "...preserve the Union" means if it doesn't mean drafting large armies, invading heretofore sovereign states, bringing devastation on their populations, and forcing them to remain as vassals to a centralized national government?

I know "Saving the Union" sounds a lot better, but it is what it is.

Actually, I think you will find the situation in the UK was far from "black and white" (no pun intended)..

Many of the textile tycoons in the North West had a lot of sympathy for the South and so did their associated workers.

Despite the UK's Government's official stance, many industries in the North West supported the South. For instance, in a town not far from me there are the remains of an iron foundry that exported cannon and cannon balls to the South..

A further example would be that some of the ships of the Confederate Navy were built or exported from Birkenhead, then one of the major ship building ports in the North West..

That said, I am not sure if any of this support was in anyway based on "principle" but rather more on "capitalism" as the North West had major trading link to the South at that time..

Turns out that it was a valid concern and we as a nation are still suffering the effects. I am not saying that they should have remained slaves, but that they were ill equipped to be freed, all at once. Much like the the failed experiment with the Indian Reservations.



They would have fared much better than what they did under re-construction. The South is just now getting out of the Democrat voting bloc that resulted from that fiasco. miles

Well Pete, if'n they had been giving away all that stuff, you might have a point.

The much-missed SteveNO used to proudly sport a Confederate Club tie, that having been a Brit organization at the time. Of course most all of them were merchants profiting from the war.

Birdwatcher

LMAO, I know how you feel.

Having been raised in New Hampshire, the 9th colony to become a state in the United States of America, I don't ever recall anyone except my Grandmother either talking about or caring about the American Civil War, except on Memorial Day, when the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) made an effort to put bronze flag holders with small American flags on the graves of Civil War veterans, both Union and Confederate. My Grandmother's interest was due to family ties, as she was the unofficial genealogist of her side of the family. Several of her ancestors fought in the Civil War and one, Salmon P. Chase, was a member of President Lincoln's Cabinet. I point this out because although the population of the United State during 1861 thru 1865 was roughly split 70% in the USA and 30% in the CSA, there seems to be very little interest among the descendants of the 70% when compared to the ill feelings still held by descendants of the 30%.

If a reasonably educated group of people can hold a grudge after 150 years, you can see why there will never be peace in most of the less educated world.

I"m still mad at the Africans, that sold Africans to us, and that we were dumb enough to think it a bargain to buy them.

Something that happened so long ago and we are still paying today, likely much more so than we've ever paid.

I'd have chopped my own cotton.

But what I don't get is that those today that think we are so much better off today having to constantly pay "repartations" every day... In so many varying ways.

Maybe when the oil was discovered, Texas and Oklahoma would have succeeded from the CSA to keep from sharing.

Maybe so. I'd be fine if they did it right now. We really don't need the rest of you.

Consider Texas for a moment. What the frick is the federal government doing for it right now? I'm sure some Yankee will get on here and make some crack about becoming part of Mexico. Well, what the frick do you think is happening right now? And instead of trying to help us stem the tide, the Feds take Texas, Arizona, and any other border state to court if they try to do DAMN THING to stem the tide and keep from being overrun from the south.

Frick you and your damned Yankee government. There are thousands of people who are damned afraid to even go outside their homes at night for being killed by an illegal or drug mule. There are people who can't check their cows without being armed to the teeth. There are people who see their fences cut, their lands despoiled, and their livestock scattered by what can only be described as hoards of illegals. And your damned Yankee government not only does nothing to stop it, but encourages it and brings its full weight down on those who try to protect themselves.

Which is why I keep saying that a weak confederacy consisting of strong states with a history of Secession would have been doomed from the start.
Texas may well have been the first to pull out.

Or the central government, realizing this fact of life, would have been far more judicious and given much less reason for any state to secede.

Consider the Confederacy to be more like the EU than the United States.

You seem to think that just because a person was born in a State that wasn't one of the eleven that formed the CSA, he/she supports the Federal Government across the board. There are many Yankees who would like to see the Federal Government enforce Federal Laws currently on the book to the letter of the law. Illegal immigration has destroyed access to the construction trades where I live and don't even get me started on "states rights" legalization/decriminalization of marijuana in AK, CO, OR, and WA. Heck, Vermont is considering following suit, as a means by which to generate revenue and Vermont already has the highest per capita rate of drug abuse/addiction in the entire U.S.!

You seem to think that I care what you support "across the board". The fact is, your kind fought my kind so that this central government could have the power it does today. But for that, what you think or feel would have no effect on me whatsoever.

Both sides resorted to conscription, and areas of dissent in the South were brutally suppressed on a scale exceeding anything in the North. But it comes down to this; desertion was not nearly the problem among the Union troops that it became for the South. Most of the Union rank and file supported their own cause.

The Confederacy wasn't around long enough, and certainly not at all in peacetime, for its own issues of Central Government vs. States Rights to be sorted out, but certainly the separatist impulses of the member States seriously impaired the overall Confederate war effort.

Birdwatcher

So, how does any of that respond to the point I made?

And as to suppressing dissent, I'm unaware of a sitting Confederate Congressman being deported because of opposition to the war as was a Union one. Further, I would imagine that the people of New York City would disagree that Lincoln suppression of dissent wasn't brutal.

yeah, but they could have got the british out, and let them settle it themselves.

Yep.

They are still made that we made them give up chattel slavery.

Oh?

We who lived there at the time found it to be most vividly noticeable —
in several very significant and unforgettable respects.

Well, then you were obviously rich to begin with, because my one armed great granddaddy kept right on hauling logs and share cropping like always.

This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the country today. Everyone is divided - thanks in part to politicians and ethnic groups who think holding on to their screwed up heritage is more important than becoming an American.

The country is increasingly becoming "balkanized" - and we know how well that plays out.

Stupidity should be our enemy.

JM

Hot nardly.

Dad was a circuit-riding country Methodist pastor.
It was common for him to get paid — if at all —
in such things as okra, collard greens, and turnip greens.

One morning, he spent his entire "fortune" ($1.00)
to put gas in the car to canvass the members for
badly needed money for one very needy church.
At the end of the day, he'd raised exactly $1.00
from all those "po' fo'ks."

For several years, he couldn't afford a car —
walked everywhere — miles and miles, to preach
at several very out-lying country churches.

One very special year, we rejoiced at the news that
the Conference had raised his annual salary to
the regal sum of $750.00 — which he never got all of.

I would have to argue that point. I for one will never give up my heritage, but that does not make me any less of an American. Only more so, because it gives me roots.

And my heritage is not screwed up. It is what makes us who we are. To deny that is utter folly.

Got to be the stupidest thing I have read here in a long time.

Because it was already so bad, dummy. The South was in a Depression from about 1863 to 1963.

Keep digging .

Most were faring OK up until the thirties. Including blacks that still had the family unit intact and their own schools. Literacy was much higher and out of wedlock birth rates were comparable to whites.

You must have lived in the rich part, because, no, they weren't doing particularly well.

The South that I grew-up in during the 1930s and 1940s
suffered from the devastating effects of the "Reconstruction"
years until the textile mills from the north came south
in the early and mid-1940s.

No my dad and other family were not rich, just self sufficient. If you were willing to work, you lived OK. If not then you suffered. No .gov handouts.

Everybody was self sufficient. There was no other choice. And almost all were poor as church mice.

I guess that's why Henry Ford went tango uniform.

I would say that much of rural Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana are still depressed, just look at the high rates of poverty and teen births and low rates of high school graduation. In an increasingly technologically driven economy those who can't keep up don't slide back, they fall off a cliff.

Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana have their economic numbers skewed by the Delta. Otherwise, their doing fine.

I'm proud of what my ancestors helped to accomplish, the suppression of rebellion and the restoration of the Union. I also think that Lincoln was our greatest President, 'cause he did whatever was necessary to accomplish the mission and he never lost sight of what that mission was.

I am a fan of a strong central government and the theoretical economy of scale that it brings to the table. It isn't always efficient, but it usually works and, IMO, would work better if there were short term limits such that the business of government was the welfare of the people, rather than a focus on being reelected.

Lincoln was a tyrant and your ancestors helped destroy the republic and set us up for the police state we are about to have today.

Police State? Where?

Seriously?

Refighting the Civil War always come down to:
Did the North win the war? Did the South lose the war?

The South lost the war because they could not capitalize on their early victories. They had about a year, maybe two, to win enough battles, including some victories in the North, to bring enough pressure to bear to prevail. They needed what we now call a blitzkrieg strategy.
Same thing happened to Japan in the Pacific about 80 years later.

Lincoln won the war because he was tougher. He never caved to the enormous pressures he endured when the South had their early success. Many wanted him to do just that.

Lincoln won the war because he was smarter. He know how to count. Count to 21-22 million Yankees vs. about 7 million Rebs and 3.5 million slaves.

The South lost the war in the West. Lincoln brought better generals and more resources. Failure after failure in the West took its tole.
Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan figured out how to destroy the basic infrastructure of the South and moved East.

Some Southern Governor began to withhold resources from the Confederacy for their own states. They were after all...fighting for “State Rights.”
So Lincoln rallied the North behind a single cause. Preserve the Union. And later he added; Free the Slaves.

Like I said; Lincoln was smarter. And tough enough to win his war.

Not really. That analysis proves nor solves nothing. One could as easily say, "Stalin was tough enough and smart enough to win his war. Hitler wasn't."

Not even close. Whatever one's feelings about Lincoln, it cannot be denied that he was a brilliant manager of people, putting his own ego in abeyance while patiently tolerating the pettiness of a McClellan or the outright hostility of a Stanton.

Not that such forbearance should ever be confused with weakness, Lincoln did not hesitate to remove those he felt to be incompetent or otherwise insufficient from command.

A pity for the South that Jeff Davis possessed few of those talents, his misplaced loyalty to the incompetent Bragg in particular being a prime miscalculation.

Birdwatcher

birdy, i am still laughing about you putting the word english, and the word morality, in the same paragraph.

What is the solution, now, 150 years later?

Anybody willing to wager that even if the South had won this Country today would still be one big fuggin mess.

And for the record, the North won because they controlled the Navy and most of the factories needed to supply a war. The South won many of the early battles as equipment was readily available, and it's damn near impossible to beat someone on their own turf. As the Souths supplies ran down the North gained the upper hand. Had the South had equal access to equipment it's doubtful the North would have defeated them on their own ground.

Likely would have ended as a stalemate.

Alright, use "British" if that gores your particular histocal oxen less but.....

...the Germanic folks in general (including the Angles and Saxons) were the progenitors of our present Western representative governments, a splendid impulse towards inalienable rights since well before William set things back in 1066. Ain't fer nothing that the Atheling up in Iceland is the oldest extant such body. Meanwhile the collective Celts at that time were slaughtering and eye-gouging their rivals ad nauseum right up through Medieval times.

B$tch at the English if ya want, but recall the British Empire fell under the weight of its own morality, its subject peoples voting themselves free.

If we won the Rev. War, it was largely because so many Brits at home supported our cause, likewise by the Nineteenth Century, England was a nation where a William Wilberforce could become a national icon.

And they were WAAAYY ahead of us on the slavery issue.

Hey, FWIW all my grandparents were Irish Catholics, Native Irish on both sides.

Birdwatcher

hmmmm,...

So all it took for America to split from England was a vote?

Yes, it required a vote of the English Parliament.

A timely essay on the matter. (very good read)

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/04/thomas-dilorenzo/the-don-fanucci-of-american-politics/

JoeBob, It appears that, had the south won the war, you envision a CSA today where everyone has a great job, everyone is happy, and all is well.

Keep in mind that Texas gave us L.B. Johnson, Arkansas gave us the Clintons, Georgia gave us Carter and Tennessee gave us Gore. We dastardly Yankees, none of us having played a role in the Civil War, did not bring those politicians to prominence. You did. You are to blame for what those scum have inflicted on the rest of us.

It would appear that, given your propensity to elect the above, the status of the CSA today would be about what you see around you now. And it would have been your fault, because of the people you elect. Ironic, isn't it?

I don't imagine perfection. I imagine a more limited government where said schitbirds can do less damage. I know that is an incomprehensible idea for Yankees suckled on the teat of empire and Lincoln worship. But most of all, I imagine a place where I give not a frick about what someone from Michigan might think about the matter because he nothing but an inconsequential foreigner.

You are overlooking re-construction and its long term effects on people of the South, and their determination to not vote Republican, no matter what Democrat was running. Even now all local elections are all Democrat, no Republican running. miles

Reagan supported expanding the Federal Government like Lincoln did.

Heck, go to a dinner and get indoctrinated more than you already are:

http://mngop.com/event/lincoln-reagan-dinner-2015/

http://www.eventbrite.com/e/west-kentucky-lincoln-reagan-dinner-tickets-15461175793

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...-lincoln-reagan-dinner-in-denton-county/

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...unty-gop-lincoln-reagan-dinner-in-texas/

http://politicalpartytime.org/party/38799/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/daines-zinke-to-speak-at-republican-lincoln-reagan/

http://www.hayscountygop.com/lincolnreagan/

JoeBob, I think what you fail to comprehend is that, given the people you elect, what would have happened can likely be seen by simply looking around you. In simpler language, what you imagine probably wouldn't have happened, due to the people you voted for. Inconsequential foreigners from Michigan didn't give us Johnson, Clinton, Carter and Gore. You did. If you think those people, elected by you, would have been satisfied with a "more limited government", then you are fooling yourself. Ironic isn't it?

Miles, do you really think that is still the result of reconstruction? How many voters, under 40 or so, anywhere in the country, are even aware of reconstruction?

Michigan supported Johnson, Clinton(twice), and Gore. Ford(aka Leslie Lynch King Jr.)beat Carter in Michigan by less than 200K votes while claiming MI as his home state.

Geez, you Yankees are dumb. Schitbirds happen everywhere. The WHOLE POINT of the original government was to limit the damage said schitbirds could do. Lincoln took the opportunity of secession to destroy the framework of that original government to set up a system where the schitbirds could triumph and rule. Such things were necessary in order to plunder the public coffers for the benefit of the railroads and the like after the Civil War. Lincoln was a railroad lawyer after all.

Sherp, I understand that. My point is that those politicians were brought to national prominence by the people in the south, not the north.

Your argument makes as much as sense as arguing that if there were no professional football, then it would have undoubtedly developed because men like Jerry Rice, Sammy Baugh, and Troy Aikman were born in the South.

Yep, JoeBob, I'm dumb, but you voted for those southern schitbirds, not me. If you hadn't voted them into a position to run nationally, they couldn't have gotten there. You voted for people who would have done, to the CSA, just what you are pissed at Lincoln for doing; destroying the framework of the original intention of state's rights.
Geez, some of you southern fellows are dumb. Have you figured out the irony of your votes yet?

Apparently those candidates were attractive to Michigan voters such as yourself.

nm

I'd be a drinkin wid ya rather than agin ya, JoeBob..

From the link....



Oh I get it....

...all of them 600,000 Union soldiers were lying when they said they were fighting "to preserve the Union", likewise the stated reasons for secession as voiced by the Southerners themselves were, as the author plainly states, meaningless. Heck the war woulda happened anyway even without secession.

Flat amazing how Lincoln could pull this off this all by hisself.....

Yes, it was wrong for the southern states to say they had had enough and wanted out. It is always wrong for the subordinate to cry foul and try to get out.

sic semper ad subditos

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/utah-killed-family-raped-wife-police-article-1.1858425

Need I quote Goering as to how Lincoln could have pulled that off? As Herr Goering noted, it is always but a simple matter.

By the way, you've never answered the question as to why my state, after already having decided not to secede did so. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't about slavery.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2...-nuremberg-april-18-1946-gustave-gilbert

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, (Goering replies) but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I actually didn't mean votes of the British Parliament, but that is a good point.

What hampered the war effort against the American Revolution in England was internal division with respect to the justice of the war, and widespread sympathy for the Colonial cause. King George III hisself, who by his uncompromising stance had prob'ly done more than any other to provoke open rebellion in the first place, is said to have applauded out loud when he heard George Washington had voluntarily relinquished the Presidency.....

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/man-who-would-not-be-king

Give the last word to Washington’s great adversary, King George III. The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”

“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”

By the 1780's the British Government had about 120,000 men under arms, just 8,000 of those (a large number by American Rev. War Standards) were bottled up at Yorktown and surrendered under Cornwallis, about 6,000 had been previously captured after their defeat at Saratoga under Burgoyne. Paltry numbers compared to the usual scale of 18th Century European Warfare.

What really happened was that the embarrassment at Yorktown allowed the Whigs to take a majority in Parliament, said majority voting against continuing to prosecute the war.

But as to the votes of the subject colonies themselves....

The British Empire was just getting warmed up in 1783, the big expansion wouldn't begin for another thirty years and by the end of the 19th Century nearly a quarter of the World's population lived under its rule.

All fell apart in the 20th Century, especially after WWII. By then, the innate injustice of one country being allowed to forcibly subjugate another was just too apparent, and yes, one by one subject nations were allowed to vote themselves independent although IIRC most chose to remain in the British Commonwealth.

Ironic thing is is was the Brits themselves who spread that expected level of decency around the world.

Birdwatcher

Well of course, why would a sitting king want a self made king as a competitor?

The fact that you take the position you do on the Civil War and then make that statement without a hint of irony, is quite telling.

Geeze! Lincoln pulled a Goering an made all them Union soldiers think it was all about Secession whereas the Southern States really weren't going to secede!!!

Brilliant, diabolical but brilliant. Now I unnerstand why folks hate Lincoln so much...

http://www.amazon.com/Soldat-Reflections-German-Soldier-1936-1949/dp/0440215269

Germans thought they were freeing the oppressed. Easy to do when the information is controlled, as should be the case.

I support Lincoln just like you do.

It was all about slavery! The "right" that the eleven states wanted to protect was the "right" to own and keep slaves.

Quoting from Lincoln's first inaugural address:

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."".

There is no doubt that Lincoln was much smarter, politically speaking, than the entire political leadership of the CSA. Maybe he suckered the CSA into firing the first shot of the Civil War, therefore taking and holding the high moral ground.

Now, you're just being ridiculous. You know the point. Lincoln wanted to save the Union alright, because the he couldn't lose the revenue from Southern ports. Customs and duties were the SOLE source of federal income in those days. Likewise, the Southern Constitution outlawed them, so Lincoln knew what would happen to northern ports if the south went free.

Yes, of course, Lincoln wanted to save the Union. He needed the money.

Um, since we're playing word games, when exactly was India or Kenya considered part of the UK such that they needed to secede???

Nowhere here have I said the North was "right" and the South was "wrong", I have merely been attempting to cut through the usual hogwash here and merely cite the causes for which they fought as elucidated in the words of the actual participants themselves.

But of course they were all deceived by that diabolical Lincoln...

Birdwatcher

My original home state DEMONSTRABLY did not secede over slavery.

So he got the Southern States to secede and made them think THEY were doing it.

Got it.

Lincoln was a great man.

http://www.abilitymagazine.com/abe_story.html

Once again, tell us why the last four states to leave left the Union.

I cannot begin to count the times that I have heard people here say. My Daddy was a Democrat, and my Grand Daddy was a Democrat, and my Great Grand Daddy was a Democrat, so by God I will vote Democrat as long as I am alive. This was because the Lincoln and the Re-construction was Republican. This runs deeper than you can imagine, if you are not from here. miles

Need to take a quick glance at your "hog-wash cutter" credentials Sir.



Continuation of the matter, along with original placement of the Negro, pre-Yankee ship ride, geographically speaking, would be a better answer than any I have heard...

I ain't my credentials you need to look at, just those authors who were there on the scene at the time.

You may want to check the back ground of those authors.. as well as their politics.

It ain't my job to enable your passive aggression I guess <shrug>

This is why I ignored your previous similar statements. Post 'em yerself you lazy twerp.

Meanwhile lets take a look at the new Constitution ALL the Confederate States ratified and swore to uphold, as seen through the eyes of the Confederate VEEP hisself, Alexander Stephens, right after they wrote it.

Yep, his infernal "Cornerstone Speech", a plague upon Lost Causers everywhere....

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

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.

But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day.

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong etc... etc.... etc.... (what follows is several paragraphs defending the moral virtues of chattel slavery)

Not coincidentally, slavery was considered essential to cotton production......

Birdwatcher

Well Stevens MAY have been a Lincoln/Bolshevik plant I guess...

...but google on "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States", same story.

Whoops, almost left out the best part...

Stephens again....

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Like I said, slavery just happened to be regarded as essential in the production of what was far and away the South's major cash crop....

The Brits didn't give up their empire. They just couldn't maintain it so it collapsed into what it is today,...one of America's bitches.

Let's see a bigger picture... Damn the snippets.. Entire speech coming up shortly if you chose to cherry pick.

"As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that “in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves."

But it won't be for long. If the maniacs who control foreign policy in America continue to force the issue in Ukraine, Great Britain (and most of western Europe)will have to align with Russia if they want to continue being warm in the winter.

Um... I since folks don't like to read a lot I chose the relevant parts. All that stuff you posted above I put as "etc, etc, etc"...

See..... YOU might agree that "the proper condition of the African is slavery", and some others blighting these boards PROBABLY do, which is what all that is arguing, but most folks nowadays prob'ly don't.

..and like I said, over the previous half-century the South had collectively hitched it's wagon to cotton, and cotton needed slavery.......


I think the saying that applies here is "Follow the Money".

Birdwatcher

Miles, I'm not from your neck of the woods, but I have heard that same sentiment regarding Dad, Grandad and Great Grandad voting democrat....here in Michigan. It is not confined to the south. Again, is it really still because of reconstruction, or is it simple political stupidity? That is, is the 30 year old guy/gal voting for democrats because of the civil war, or simply because that is what the family has always done? How many 30 year old voters in your state, or mine, know that Lincoln was a Republican? I would bet not many. Heck, most of them probably couldn't name Davis or Lincoln as being involved. Regards, Al

And you would be correct about that, but I say again Re-construction was the cause of it all. But, Arkansas now has a Republican Governor, Lt. Governor, and both Houses are majority Republican. Never has happened before. miles

Good that Huckabee paved the way.

http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44521/

Many reasons for secession given before the Negro issue was first addressed..

But for those that indeed like to read, and read the entire speech, here it is, minus the snippets and cherry picking but including the "etc, etc, etc" that you chose to over look.

“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861

When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. I very much regret that everyone who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or anything very entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear them.

I was remarking that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.

This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Another feature to which I will allude is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government. It is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle.

Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, enforcing, or defending his views of policy; his only resort was through the medium of an organ. In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to. This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system. In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ.

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that “in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

But to pass on: Some have propounded the inquiry whether it is practicable for us to go on with the confederacy without further accessions? Have we the means and ability to maintain nationality among the powers of the earth? On this point I would barely say, that as anxiously as we all have been, and are, for the border States, with institutions similar to ours, to join us, still we are abundantly able to maintain our position, even if they should ultimately make up their minds not to cast their destiny with us.
That they ultimately will join us be compelled to do it is my confident belief; but we can get on very well without them, even if they should not.

We have all the essential elements of a high national career. The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we embrace five hundred and sixty-four thousand square miles and upward. This is upward of two hundred thousand square miles more than was included within the limits of the original thirteen States. It is an area of country more than double the territory of France or the Austrian empire. France, in round numbers, has but two hundred and twelve thousand square miles. Austria, in round numbers, has two hundred and forty-eight thousand square miles. Ours is greater than both combined. It is greater than all France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, including England, Ireland, and Scotland, together. In population we have upward of five millions, according to the census of 1860; this includes white and black. The entire population, including white and black, of the original thirteen States, was less than four millions in 1790, and still less in 76, when the independence of our fathers was achieved. If they, with a less population, dared maintain their independence against the greatest power on earth, shall we have any apprehension of maintaining ours now?

In point of material wealth and resources, we are greatly in advance of them. The taxable property of the Confederate States cannot be less than twenty-two hundred millions of dollars! This, I think I venture but little in saying, may be considered as five times more than the colonies possessed at the time they achieved their independence. Georgia, alone, possessed last year, according to the report of our comptroller-general, six hundred and seventy-two millions of taxable property. The debts of the seven confederate States sum up in the aggregate less than eighteen millions, while the existing debts of the other of the late United States sum up in the aggregate the enormous amount of one hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars. This is without taking into account the heavy city debts, corporation debts, and railroad debts, which press, and will continue to press, as a heavy incubus upon the resources of those States. These debts, added to others, make a sum total not much under five hundred millions of dollars. With such an area of territory as we have-with such an amount of population-with a climate and soil unsurpassed by any on the face of the earth-with such resources already at our command-with productions which control the commerce of the world-who can entertain any apprehensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or not?

It is true, I believe I state but the common sentiment, when I declare my earnest desire that the border States should join us. The differences of opinion that existed among us anterior to secession, related more to the policy in securing that result by co-operation than from any difference upon the ultimate security we all looked to in common.

These differences of opinion were more in reference to policy than principle, and as Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in 1801, after the heated contest preceding his election, that there might be differences of opinion without differences on principle, and that all, to some extent, had been Federalists and all Republicans; so it may now be said of us, that whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in having a co-operation with our border sister slave States, if the worst came to the worst, that as we were all co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not.

In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me, that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this, an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. Their works speak for them; the provisional government speaks for them; the constitution of the permanent government will be a lasting monument of their worth, merit, and statesmanship.

But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the result of this revolution?

Will every thing, commenced so well, continue as it has begun? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Providence, may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry, patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail if we become divided if schisms arise if dissentions spring up if factions are engendered if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable.

We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue, that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is essential to good government Organized upon principles of perfect justice and right-seeking amity and friendship with all other powers-I see no obstacle in the way of our upward and onward progress. Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.

The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new assimilation. Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them.

But at first we must necessarily meet with the inconveniences and difficulties and embarrassments incident to all changes of government. These will be felt in our postal affairs and changes in the channel of trade. These inconveniences, it is to be hoped, will be but temporary, and must be borne with patience and forbearance.

As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln’s inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry.

The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.” Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave

That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?

Worth pointing out here that I too gave the link to the whole speech so folks could read it, not expecting them to assume that it really went "dot dot dot space" as I quoted

OK, what does "cornerstone" mean in the metaphorical sense of the word as used in this speech, and what other factors are elevated to that level?


Worth noting again that the cornerstone of the Southern economy was cotton, and everybody knew you needed slaves to produce cotton.

No wonder ol' Stephens went through such verbal contortions. Can you imagine what it must have been actually like to derive your wealth from the labor of chattel slaves? The sweat of other men imprisoned for life? Almost all of the Confederate leadership lived that lifestyle.

And a cautionary tale in that; how easily our moral judgements are swayed by our wallets.

Birdwatcher

No sch!t...!

They devised a line of thought, lies and propaganda, that defended their own freedom while denying freedom to others...to an entire race of men.

Promoting liberty by enforcing slavery is hypocritical to the Nth degree.

The "Cornerstone" referred is is the very foundation of the original United States Constitution. That is explained thoroughly by the speaker.

Cotton was not nor had it been a Cornerstone of what what the speech was referring to.

At the time of the Cornerstone Speech, Alexander Stephens pointed out a flaw in the Constitution that had earlier been pointed out by Thomas Jefferson.. that was the slavery issue. The founders, signers of the original Constitution had chose to ignore the slavery issue hoping it would in time go away. Most all were slave owners.

As a side note, the owner of the greatest number of slaves in South Carolina was a Negro.

As the Constitution was written, it guaranteed freedoms laid out by the Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights applied to Untied States Citizens, still does. Do you see where this is going now?

Slaves captured and brought here by Dutch, Yankee Slave traders and sold to Southerners or anyone who wanted them, were never Citizens of The United States of America and were not guaranteed Constitutional Rights that Americans enjoyed at the time.

I guess the Constitution meant about as much then as it does now, what with the Negro in the White House, and the Negros in the Congress, and Justice Department.. tearing Lincoln's Union to pieces as days go by.

Don't see where my moral judgement or my wallet has anything to do with anything at this point in time.. other that the fact that my wallet grows thinner by the day as I support more and more Negro feeding, Negro rent, Negro healthcare, Negro education, and Negro phone bills.

Do you think at some point things will change for the better or do you think what with time the USofA will look like the Congo?

Our wallets grow thinner by the day because of ALL of those on welfare...and there are also many millions of caucasians milking the system for everything they can.

Outstanding. Hats off to Birdwatcher and Antlers for having the moral clarity to see this issue for what it truly is. I'll post some stuff later this evening (if'n I get time) that shows just how uncompromising the South was on their requirement that the entire country accept their position that slavery was a positive moral good and how completely contrary and subversive was their new doctrine to that of the Founders.

Both sides were contending for what they believed to be the correct interpretation of the Constitution, since the Constitution of 1787 clearly made concessions to slavery. What the South would not accept however was that the compromises with slavery made in the original Constitution were prudential compromises made with the Constitution's genuine principles. By prudential, it is meant that those concessions were made in the service of a greater good---the formation of a Union of sufficient strength to place slavery in the course of ultimate extinction. The genuine principle was "liberty for all" not merely liberty for some and slavery for others.

It is astonishing beyond meausre that people who ostensibly favor limited government (and hence freedom) venerate a poliical movement and philosophy that was intended to enslave others as if they were cattle and that actually served as the philsophic progenitor of Nazi and Stalinist sponsored genocide. Let me repeat that, (in case anyone misses my point): Chattel slavery and Nazi and Stalinist sponsored genocide stand on exactly the same philosophic ground in their complete and utter denial of any moral authority to "the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Jordan

Lincoln was the Obama of his age.

Lincoln did everything for the Negro citizenship that Obama is trying to do with the illegal alien citizenship.

Up until that time the Negro had no standing in this country... as bad it it may disappoint some here, the sellers (North) and buyers (South) of slaves were not in the wrong, neither lawfully nor Biblically.

No. The exact opposite. Obama has certainly tried to claim Lincoln's mantle, but his claim could not be more fraudulent. Lincoln believed in an objective standard of right and wrong grounded in the laws of nature and of Nature's God. Obama is a thorough-going moral relativist. He does not believe in God and he most assuredly does not believe in the existence of a non-relative standard of moral behavior independent of human will. If he did, he certainly would not be championing sodomite marriage. 'Course, Obama is a known homosexual.

Wow, the ignorance is strong with this one. The issue of immigration has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues presented with the positive good school argument for chattel slavery. There is no doubt that Obama wants an open border because he wants to destroy this country, but the issue of open borders was not at all present in the Civil War. The issue then was whose understanding of the Constitution and its genuine principles was the correct one. Obama might agree with the outcome of the war, but in their denial of the moral authority of the premises of the Founders, Obama and Calhoun stand on exactly the same ground.

To "enslave" a horse or an ox or a dog is according to nature. To treat another human being as if he were an ox or a horse or a dog is contra naturam; it is against nature. In the famous words of Thomas Jefferson "the mass of mankind were not born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them." BTW, I think properly understood, chattel slavery is condemned by the Word of God every bit as much as by the "the laws of nature".

No doubt you were dropped on your head as an infant or mule kicked as a child.. possibly both. The signs are clear.

I accept your silly, 3rd grade ad hominem argument for what it clearly is: a concession.

Not a concession, an observation. Thanks!

The point that you cannot grasp is at the time there was no law against slavery. It was perfectly legal. It was also covered many times in the Bible, both New Testament and Old and never was it prohibited but it concerned how one treated his or her slaves, not whether one owned slaves or not.

Lincoln, instead of preserving the union, in the long run, as evidenced by the status quo, destroyed the union.

The point that you cannot grasp is that while the original Constitution made concessions to slavery as a necessary evil; neither the Constitution or the Founders regarded slavery as a positive moral good. Indeed, the express principles of the Constitution were in conflict on the issue of slavery. Therefore, in interpreting the Constitution it became necessary to interpret and understand it in light of the intent and understanding of the Framers---in light of the Constitution's genuine principles, as opposed to its prudential compromises with those principles. The governing principle (the principle which birthed the Revolution) was "liberty" for all as in "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal". Not some men, mind you, not merely those with land or property or title, or the lightest skin, but all men.

The Northwest Ordinance declared declared that slavery would not exist in the lands governed by that Ordinance. The Missouri Compromise was entirely consistent with the Northwest Ordinance and, had it survived, would have accomplished over time exactly what the Founders intended, the extinction of slavery. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska act and the emergence of the positive good school of pro-slavery thought were entirely unanticipated by the Founders. But the argument for slavery as a positive good is, at bottom an argument that "might makes right". This nation however was founded in express opposition to such principles. Jefferson taught that consent as such can never justify anything intrinsically immoral. The movement to entrench slavery as a positive moral good then, was, in actuality, a movement to transmute the Founding from one grounded in liberty and the natural and equal "right of every man to place in his own mouth the fruit of his own labor" to one of enslavement, the very opposite of liberty. At bottom it also meant the negation of any idea of "self-evident truths" and hence, of everything the Founders stood for. In fact, John Calhoun called the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence "self-evident lies". To Calhoun, it was not self-evident that a black man and a white men were each men (notwithstanding the several hundred thousand mulatto children in the ante-bellum South that testified to their equal humanity). Calhoun's denial (and that of the intelligentsia of the South generally) of the humanity of Negroes presaged Hitler's denial of the humanity of Jews and Stalin's denial of the humanity of anyone "counter-revolutionary". (Incidentally, the homosexual rights movement, which also denies any moral authority to the "laws of nature and of nature's God" is merely the most current and popular iteration of the self-same legal and logical positivism that underlay the argument for chattel slavery as a positive moral good. Calhoun would have loved the sodomy rights movement!)


As far as the Bible and slavery, I could be less interested in debating that issue because this nation is not a theocracy. That said however, the New Testament teaches us to "do unto others as we would have them do to us". The Golden Rule, properly understood, is sufficient Biblical condemnation of slavery for me. In any event, however, I am relatively certain that nowhere does the Bible extol slavery as a positive moral good.


Jordan

Stalin never denied anyone's humanity. The communists merely thought that what they wanted to accomplish was a greater good, and therefore, if they had to kill millions, it was worth it. In that respect, they were exactly like Abraham Lincoln. He broke the law, abrogated the law, was a tyrant and despot simply because he thought his end was worth it. He was the forerunner of and the archetype for the 20th century despot.

Oh, someone as erudite at history as you claim to be should know it. But, of course, you do. You just choose to ignore it.

However, I must note that in the interest of historical accuracy, before you go to any more Texas history enactments, you should probably lose about fifty or maybe even sixty pounds. Frontiersmen were almost universally lean.

Stalin absolutely denied the humanity of anyone who was counter-revolutionary as shown by his slaughtering them as if they were hogs and cattle. Hitler and Nazism were very clear that anything "dysgenic" could be exterminated with no more thought than if they were plague-bearing bacilli.

The Founders intended the Union to be perpetual. Lincoln saved the Union and the Constitution because he saved them from a rebellion which sought to re-cast the Founding from one grounded in liberty to one grounded in slavery and to re-cast the Constitution as an enactment of positive law justifying enslavement, while proclaiming "liberty". In vindicating the principle of self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence, in re-grounding government in the equal right of every man to place into his own mouth the fruit of his own labor, in refuting the Southern argument that there was no difference between men and hogs and hence in refuting the justification of the South for treating other men as if they were hogs (and horses and oxen) Lincoln vindicated the the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this nation was founded free and independent.

Much of what Alexander Stephens speech addresses in concern to slavery is based on politics vs nature..

"I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

Do educate yourself and read the entire speech. Afterwards your next dissertation should be much more connected with reality.

Lastly, check the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God Almighty himself. Mentions but does not cast slavery in a bad light.

I have no use for kudzu either..

Where did I ever claim to be erudite in history? I read a lot, generally remember what I've read is all.

And dude, I have no idea where you are from, to be honest I haven't cared enough to try and find out.



Ya a puzzle that. I don't eat much, I'm on my feet all day long, constantly active, ride twenty miles round trip to work, even rode that bicycle 2,000 miles to New York last summer, didn't seem to make much difference. Prob'ly I should worry about it more than you do.

Some guys back then were stout, maybe I woulda been one I dunno.

Birdwatcher

The Founders never saw fit to make penalties to be imposed on themselves when they broke the suggestions they scribbled in the Constitution either. Just a ploy to get their subjects to co-operate.

laffin'

Classic example of 'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.'

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

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

Oh.

I thought he said that the Cornerstone of the NEW Confederate Constitution rested on the "great truth" that the natural condition of Black folks was to be owned as slaves by White people i.e. the Confederate Constitution ergo the whole system of Confederate government rested upon the rock of eternal enslavement of Black folks.

And of course making the perpetuation of slavery the very foundation of their whole Constitution had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that chattel slavery was perceived to be a necessary prerequisite to cotton cultivation on a large scale, so physically unpleasant was the cultivation of that crop.

In fact they felt so strongly about how Black folks needed to be enslaved JUST ON PRINCIPLE that they devoted enormous energies for DECADES attempting to politically guarantee its perpetuation against an anticipated abolition by a growing Northern majority.

OK.

Birdwatcher

It was all over but the bleeding out at that point anyhow, but Birdwatcher's "2,000 miles to New York last summer" was an enjoyable sledgehammer coup de grâce nonetheless.

Interesting how we all support the end of private slavery along with an exponential increase in governmental oversight of daily life here in the USA AND also support returning Africa to a 19th Century standard where the same basic blacks we want free here were getting their hands cut off when production didn't meet expected levels.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...9751705/1/South_African_students_applaud

JOG my old friend! Always a great day when you stop in

Taken out of context again.. Here read from where your snippet was taken.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.


What was added to the Confederate Constitution is what had been conveniently omitted from the original document. We addressed that, you know the part where Jefferson objected? The part that placed the original Constitution on a sandy foundation..

We must understand plain English differently.....

The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.

This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day.

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

The only "sandy foundation" Stephens refers to was the premise that all races were equal. Clearly this concept was an anathema to people who had made slavery the rock upon which their whole form of government stood (Stephen's words not mine).

Birdwatcher

If the Constitution had addressed the slavery issue originally there would have been no need to back peddle and cast aspersions upon the South, regardless.

Perhaps Stephens felt that all races were not equal.. Guess he was not as intelligent as we are today

Getting tired. Feel like a dog having had spent the evening chasing his tail... having not caught it yet

Good back-n-forth.

Geo

Such a nice Christian, justifying his chattel slavery with the Bible.

If there is something in the Bible that is prohibitive of slavery, By all means, post it up.

Never owned a slave... Don't think I'd want one.

Some people understand,...some don't.

Right on time Bristoe

with dumb [bleep] like you its a wonder it ever got out of it. Good thing the gov't took pity on ignorant pieces of chit such as yourself Idiots like you divide our country and make it weaker. You're the reason the gene pool needs chlorine.

Seems that you know little about the South. I can remember how poor my family and everyone that I knew were. We raised most of what we ate and raised a small cotton crop, and some hogs for cash money. Lots of our neighbors sold their small parcels of land and went North to work in the factory's, but there was little to do here to make money. That was in the 1950's and early 1960's. miles

You are correct, the Bible gives explicit rules for owning slaves such as buying them from other lands, and I've said many times that immoral Southern Christians such as yourself used these passages to justify their ownership of other humans, and beating them, so long as they didn't die for a couple of days.

It's just nice to see a pro-slavery southerner such as yourself, one "from the land of cotton", none the less, about the Bible being an immoral book used by immoral men to justify their immoral acts.

Never had much of an opinion on slavery, never would have wanted one but I will not cast aspersions upon my ancestors.

It would have been fine with me had not the first Negro set foot on these shores and bet your sweet ass if I could turn back the clock, I would have done it long ago.

As far as my Christianity is involved or interpreted by the ilk of pukes and hangers-on such as yourself, you'll grow old and gray before you change me... but bless your heart, I'll be praying for you.

I think one could spend a lifetime studying the White/Black/Indian dynamics of Southern History. I believe Antebellum Southern society would seem to most all of us completely surreal. Seems like on balance, neither Whites nor Blacks of that last generation wanted to talk much about slavery after it was done, at least not by the Twentieth Century when researchers were tracking down this by then elderly generation.

OF COURSE there was the horrific fact of more'n a million people facing life-long confinement and forced labor, and OF COURSE incidents of what today would be called rape or forced sexual servitude were widespread (try and find a Black American today who AIN'T part Euro, and the beauty of some quadroon and octoroon prostitutes was legendary )....

...but because it involved humans, it was more complicated than black and white. We all know about Jefferson and his de-facto Black other wife and kids, I'm trying to recall too the Texas ranching family from what was then the very unsettled Denton County TX area where one of the brothers was, in fact, Black.

Further west and a generation later famed cattleman John Chisum, (who had grown up in a slaveholding family) never married, except he supported a former slave woman and his two daughters by her comfortably in Dallas, and when he contracted smallpox he was nursed to health by a devoted Black ranch hand who, if he weren't his son, was at least a blood relative through his former slave "wife".

Those familiar with "Lonesome Dove" may recall the wooden tombstone carved by Captain McCall for Deets, paraphrased directly from the granite one Charles Goodnight had carved for his indispensable Trail Boss, Boze Ikard, a former slave so formidable on the one hand and trustworthy on the other, that he was generally trusted to keep safe the payroll, among his other duties.

N****r Britt Johnson too, actual slave when he did it, famous for riding alone into Comancheria to ransom his own and his White neighbors' children after the Elm Creek Raid.

As far as apparent moral contradictions among White folks of that era, one needs to look no further than Noah Smithwick....

http://www.lsjunction.com/olbooks/smithwic/otd.htm

..worth the time to read if ya got the patience....

Smithwick was already in Texas before the Alamo (he prob'ly would have died there but was in Bastrop suffering from malaria at the time) and was one of the early Texas Rangers.

On the PC side of the coin Smithwick lived with Comanches for a while and sometimes partnered with Cherokees to pursue Comanche horse thieves. The Lipan Apaches that rode with Jack Hays also hung out at Smithwick's gun shop and smithy at Webber's Prairie south of Bastrop.

Webber's Prairie was named after Smithwick's business partner Webber, a White guy from Connecticut who, when he got a slave woman pregnant, bought her freedom and married her so his kid wouldn't be a slave. Smithwick rails bitterly about Weber and his family eventually being forced to leave when the country filled up with, as Smithwick called 'em, "the better sort" who had moved in only after the country was safe.

When Secession came, Smithwick, being a Union man like his hero Andrew Jackson had been, left the state for California.

Yet Smithwick, PC as he was by modern standards, also owned at least two slaves, when he left Texas in 1861, he sold them to help finance the trip.

A chapter in his book is devoted to him and his neighbors attempting to capture two runaway slaves, to the point that shots were exchanged, the slaves succeeding in escaping pursuit. Smithwick explains apologetically that chasing down runaways and returning them to bondage was just what people did in that time and place. Here's his quote, written decades after the fact, on that whole episode....

They were never recaptured, though one or two other parties attempted it. I hope they reached Mexico in safety. That big fellow deserved to; he certainly was as brave a man as I ever met. Singlehanded - his companion being unarmed - he had whipped six white men, all armed, and as many fierce dogs.

That was unquestionably the worst fight I ever got into. I think now, looking back over a life of ninety years, that that was about the meanest thing I ever did. Though having been all my life accustomed to such things I did not then take that view of it. The capture of fugitive slaves was a necessity of the institution.

..and of the opinions of his own two slaves...

It was curious to note the different views taken of that affair by the negroes - a man and a woman - in my possession. The woman, who was a mulatto, openly avowed her sympathy for the fugitives, while the man, a full-blooded negro, took the other side.


..and here he is speaking of the aging slave of an elderly neighbor, who was the sole support of his owner, a White widow woman, because the widow's own sons were deadbeats...

It would have been a distressing affair had old Joe Allen been killed [by Indians on a raid], as he was the sole support of a poor widow with a large family, among them several grown-up sons.

The injustice of the situation forced itself upon my recognition at the time, and I often wondered how it fared with Joe and his wife Mandy when they were free. Two more honest, faithful people could not have been found in all the country. Joe was so entirely trustworthy that his mistress permitted him to hire himself to suit himself, himself collecting his wages, which were faithfully delivered to the mistress, while his own wife went barefooted and in rags, her hire and that of one of her children by a former husband supporting another white family.

I had both Joe and Mandy in my employ, and never had the least cause to find fault with either one. At another time the widow's family had a narrow escape from losing their means of livelihood. Joe was wending his way to his work early in the morning, after having Sundayed with his wife, when he was bitten on the leg by a rattlesnake. He had a chunk of tobacco in his pocket, which he chewed up, hastily binding it on the wound with his handkerchief, and went on his way, not losing a day's work.

Like I said, there was a lot of shades of gray in that black and white, and I ain't referring to breeding.

Birdwatcher

Half right. The Brits didn't "give up" their Empire. Sure, both wars severely affected them in many ways, but it was US AND Soviet pressure that forced England and the other European powers to give up their empires, at least decades ahead of schedule. The cause, at least in our case, was a noble one and a lesson we've never learned; trying to turn nations and people, incapable of comprehending western values, much less our political systems, into our likeness and most with catastrophic consequences, with Iraq being the most recent.