I am back folks

I have been away for at least a month dealing with either the most bigoted, or most ignorant people on earth. I took Confederate History Month, the extended version, to Craigslist and boy did the sparks fly. I found myself spending to much time there so I need to back out and focus on other projects— Like Al Mackey.

He seems to have been a good boy for a while, but I noticed he slipped back in his old grove lately. One blog post of his I want to address is this one —

Alabama Secretary Of State Says Confederates Fought For A ‘Special’ Way Of Life
at https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/alabama-secretary-of-state-says-confederates-fought-for-a-special-way-of-life/

lets take a quick look–

“That way of life, of course, was based on enslavement of what they regarded as an inferior race.”
Of course Mackey will not recognize any racism in n the North he is too biased for that, but that is why we have the Northern Black codes, and the United States Colored Troops. Just to name a couple.

And, of course, Alabama prior to the Civil War was built on the backs of enslaved people, which was how the slave owners “took care of themselves.”
Hummm I wonder where the slave traders got their money and perhaps those textile mills up North would never buy cotton picked by slaves!!!!

The confederacy, as we know, existed to protect and perpetuate the institution of slavery based on white supremacy. That’s why “In Alabama and across the country, people have been demonstrating
Ok Mackey I’ll call your bluff. Prove to us, using documents of the period,that the Confederacy existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Go ahead drag out the Confederate Constitutionn and I will drag out the US Constitution. Show us please where any leader from either said we are fighting to either keep the slave or free them.

‘I feel scared when I see it,’ said Winter Brooks, an African-American student at American University. ‘It’s a symbol of hate, of pro-slavery, anti-blackness, anti-minorities. It’s frightening.’ “
Gosh Mackey what do you expect them to say. It’s what their mamas taught them . I’ll bet most of these negroes couldn’t pass a 5th grade history test on the War for Southern Independence. I know you can’t.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “I am back folks

  1. “Prove to us, using documents of the period,that the Confederacy existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Go ahead drag out the Confederate Constitutionn and I will drag out the US Constitution.”

    I’m assuming you are referring to the part where the CSA constitution protects slavery in a way that can’t be amended:

    “No bill of attiander, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” – Section 9, CSA Constitution

    “Resolved: That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of ANY other State, either in escape thereto or transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States or any of the Territories thereof.” – Jefferson Davis

    You would “drag out” the US constitution?

    “Show us please where any leader from either said we are fighting to either keep the slave or free them [or the Confederacy existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery].”

    Isn’t this a bit…strawman-ish? how about seceding (and as general Lee admitted, therefore would be willingly breaking US law/revolting/rebelling) to preserve slavery would you deny that?

    “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to Slavery”

    Since you asked for statements from leaders:

    “I endorse, without reserve, that much-abused sentiment of Gov. McDuffie, that ‘Slavery is the corner-stone of our Republican edifice’; while I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded, but nowhere accredited, dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that ‘all men are born equal’” – Gov. Hammond, of South Carolina.

    “But it is impossible for another reason: the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood.” – James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina

    “African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.”
    -Jefferson Davis

    And since we are on the topic of Alabama:

    “If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate—all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country. Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?” – S. F. Hale, Commissioner from the State of Alabama to Kentucky governor B. McGoffin . Frankfort, December 27, 1860.

    “The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.” – Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861

    How about what John Stuart Mill thought in the 1860s? Lets try a third party opinion:

    “what are the Southern chiefs fighting about? Their apologists in England say that it is about tariffs, and similar trumpery.” (southerners themselves) “say nothing of the kind. They tell the world … that the object of the fight was slavery. … Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of … the South separated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of separation.” -John Stuart Mill

    “The triumph of the Confederacy would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of friends all over the civilized world. The American Civil War is destined to be a turning point for good or evil, of the course of human affairs.” – English philosopher John Stuart Mill, 1863

    “Secession may be laudable, and so may any other kind of insurrection; but it may also be an enormous crime. It is the one or the other, according to the object and the provocation. And if there ever was an object which, by its bare announcement, stamped rebels against a particular community as enemies of mankind, it is the one professed by the South. Their right to separate is the right which Cartouche or Turpin would have had to secede from their respective countries, because the laws of those countries would not suffer them to rob and murder on the highway.” – John Stuart Mill, 1863

    Or how about british parliament:
    “Well, I confess to you what I confessed to my friends when I returned, that I felt disappointed, when I was at Washington in the spring of 1859, and that there was so little interest felt on the Free-trade question. There was no party formed, no public agitation; there was no discussion whatever upon the subject of Free Trade and protection. The political field was wholly occupied by one question, and that question was SLAVERY.”
    -Richard Cobden, British Minister of Parliament

    Its a mystery as to why many of the brits either supported (like the aristocratic elites), or didn’t support (working class) the CSA just based on the grounds of slavery…I wonder why…hmmm….

    • Hi Jason,

      Very good use of the Confederate Constitution. Did you notice how close the wording is to the US Constitution? Did you see that slavery was still legal in the United States at the time. No law had been passed outlawing slavery. I should also mention that the United States passed the “Ghost Amendment’ giving the slave-owners rights to slavery forever. I should also mention that Lincoln’s first Emancipation Proclamation offended the Southern States the chance to come back to the Union and keep their slaves. Now if the CSA existed just to maintain slavery don’t you think the Confederates would have taken the opportunity?

      The war was not about slavery.

      “Show us please where any leader from either said we are fighting to either keep the slave or free them [or the Confederacy existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery].

      Isn’t this a bit…strawman-ish? how about seceding (and as general Lee admitted, therefore would be willingly breaking US law/revolting/rebelling) to preserve slavery would you deny that? ”

      Since you did not provide a quote or a document, I assume you, like Mackey, cannot produce one? Now what UIS law did the statesbreak by leaving the Union. Please just post the law since I am not interested in opinions. As a matter of fact it could be said that since slavery was legal in the United States the Union was fighting to save slavery. Won’t you agree?

      Nice quotes from individuals but they do not speak for the entire Confederacy. Still with all your quotes you fail to provide one in which the Confederacy declares war for the purpose of maintaining slavery. Now if you truly believe the war was about slavery, who was trying to take away slavery. Surely Not Lincoln. Shall I post some examples of this or do you already know?

      Now here are a couple Lincoln quotes for you —

      Mr. Lincoln’s Reply in the Alton Joint Debate.

      If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another man comes upon t e same ground with his slave, upon the assum tion that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal rig t all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many Democrats are there about here [“A thousand”] who have left slave States and come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of slavery? [Another voice: “A thousand and one.”] I reckon there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now advocating had prevailed when this country was in a territorial condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it? Where would you have found your free State or Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to go to?

      Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil, and better their condition in life_ I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their condition in life.

      ********************

      “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.” ~ Lincoln, on whether blacks – slave or free – should be allowed in the new territories in the west, October 16

      And

      I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

      See racism existed on both sides.

      Now what did Davis say about fighting for slavery–

      “No, I cannot. I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this war is on my hands,—I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us gov

      1864.] 0ur Visit to Richmond. 379

      ern ourselves; and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight his battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self – government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence,–and that, or extermination, we will have.

      The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 14, 1864
      372 Our Visit to Richmond. September,

      Now you see there is proof positive the Confederacy was not fighting for slavery. President Davis says so!!!!

      Your quotes abot secession may be try, I don’t know and I don’t really care. Sl;avery was a cause of secession and so were Indian raids, however these incidents themselves did not cause war. The act of secession itself was not a cause of the war, neither Buchanan or Lincoln ever said we are going to Charleston because secession is illegal under such and such. So for what reason did the fleets go to Charleston and what was the purpose? It wasn’t to free slaves but to COLLECT REVENUE!!!

      Hummm is rigyt it is a mystery why both classes of brits came together and built some of the best sailing ships the world has ever seen right there on good old England for the CSA—hummmmmmmmm

    • It seems that Mr. Perez has decided he does not want to engage in an exchange of quotes. I checked out this quote he posted by Jefferson Davis.–

      “Resolved: That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of ANY other State, either in escape thereto or transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States or any of the Territories thereof.” – Jefferson Davis

      I had a friend, who is excellent at interpreting these old documents, give me impression of this quote and he says this —This would restrict states from imposing certain regulations on a specific living property in the U.S. Constitution. This amendment would give the right to Human property within any state, either free or slave, to the owner either during transportation, temporary visitation or by escape to any state to the recognized rightful owner of another state. Such human property will not be taken away or deprived from or restricted from use by the owner of said property by Federal or by U.S. Territorial law.

      This was later basically placed into the body of the Confederate Constitution

      This phrase…

      “shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized;”

      In general relates to this 1841 debate…

      The Governments have no power to discriminate, and fix upon one description or species of property greater tax than that fixed by law upon every other description or species of property of equal value, subjected to taxation.

      Every individual may lawfully acquire and possess any species or description of property if he does not thereby destroy or deprive some other person of his property. or some enjoyment thereof, in which he is protected by law.

      But property, when acquired and possessed, must be so kept and disposed of as not to injure any paramount legal right of another, or affect injuriously the public morals, or public good, so far as they are protected by law.

      Below is an explanation of the tax meaning…

      “Legislatures cannot, by first prohibiting the use of any article or the exercise of any calling, and then allowing it upon payment of a certain sum into the Treasury, create a privilege. If this could be done, there would no longer be any meaning or effect in the provision that no one species of property should be taxed higher than another species of property of equal value. If this could be done, the Legislature could tax every bureau a hundred dollars, or every table, or chair, or sofa, or book-case, to the same amount‘, merely by prohibiting the use or possession of each article except upon payment of such sum, and so making it a privilege to have, use, or possess it. They might pass sumptuary laws, and tax shoes, boots, hats, coats, cloaks, and every article of dress, comfort, luxury or necessity, by pursuing the same course, and making it a privilege to have, wear, or possess it.

      There are certain rights which belong to us as freemen; we do not derive all our rights from Legislative grant; we have some which belong to us by nature, and as citizens of a free country; such are the rights of holding any species of property we choose, of wearing whatever garments we choose, and of possessing and holding any article of comfort or luxury which we please. As all then belong to us originally, they cannot be converted into privileges by any process of Legislative alchemy. No such magical transmutation can be effected. If it could, nothing would be easier than by the enactment of sumptuary laws and acts creating privileges to transform us at one sweep from free citizens of a republic to the mere serfs of the soil.

      The right to keep and use a billiard table is one of these common rights. It is an article of furniture which every citizen had the right to own and possess before we framed the Constitution, and the Legislature cannot confer upon us the privilege of keeping what we already have the right to keep and use. Privileges are not so created; if they are, every thing can be transmuted into a privilege, and by undergoing this process, an article of property worth a hundred dollars may to-day be taxed one dollar and to-morrow a thousand, while another article of the same, may still remain subject to the original tax of one dollar.”

      There you have it folks, explained and historical background given. A man should not lose his property period.
      You can read the whole text of the Compromise at — http://www.civilwarcauses.org/comp.htm#Jefferson Davis of Mississippi

      Perhaps one should read what Mr. Seward of new York proposed?

      • “Very good use of the Confederate Constitution. Did you notice how close the wording is to the US Constitution? Did you see that slavery was still legal in the United States at the time. No law had been passed outlawing slavery”

        Yes I did notice how close it was. Except the US constitution doesn’t specifically protect slavery in an un-amendable way. Something like that was designed to be left to the states. Something must have triggered such a specific slavery wording…

        Well of course it was legal in states that hadnt abolished it on their own already. In any state that abolished it, it was illegal. And congress had no power to end it where it existed without an amendment (such as the 13th) See the point?

        Every ACTUAL Northern state had acted to end slavery before the war. Some as early as during the revolution, some entered the Union as a free state and therefore never had slaveryto begin with, the last, New Jersey in 1846 enacted the final version of its gradual plan and by 1860 slavery is dead there. Indeed, as early as 1820 there will only be about 3000 slaves left in the North, well before it was industrialized, and that number is falling. (Macmillan Encyclopedia, “Slavery In The Civil War Era”). But meanwhile the Southern states not only refused to try to give it up, they grew it and embraced it even more so that even at the time of the Revolution: “The Southern Colonies of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, by contrast, were not merely societies with slaves but “slave societies” organized economically, socially, and politically around the principle and practice of human bondage. In 1760, 88 percent of the 325,806 slaves in the British mainland colonies lived in the South.” Elizabeth R. Varon “Disunion, the coming of the American Civil War” p17

        “Unlike many slaveholders in the age of Thomas Jefferson, Confederate Soldiers from slave holding families expressed no feelings of embarrassment or inconsistency in fighting for their own liberty while holding other people in slavery. Indeed, white supremacy and the right to of property in slaves were at the core of the ideology for which confederate soldiers fought.” – James McPherson, “For Cause and Comrade” p106

        Most of the quotes that you refer regarding Lincoln are mainly him pointing out that the limitations of his office do not allow him to interfere with something like slavery. And of course no law had been passed outlawing slavery. That requires a majority that wouldn’t have existed with the slave holding states being part of the Union. The problem with Lincoln was his hostility towards slavery and he could appoint free labor officials and ban it in the territories and keep it from expanding. In other words, the republican party from the beginning had planned to abolish slavery peacefully over time in such a manner since they knew it couldn’t be abolished outright.

        “Now if the CSA existed just to maintain slavery don’t you think the Confederates would have taken the opportunity?”

        No. As explained above, they knew that even if slavery was left alone in the states where it already existed it would “not be secure” to quote John S Mosby. On the contrary, if the CSA existed just to preserve slavery then they made the correct decision in not accepting any proposition like that, knowing it would be put on a path to its extinction.

        I do think the CSA existed just to preserve slavery. Their leadership even admitted it:

        “The prevailing ideas entertained by him [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. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races…. This was an error…. 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.”

        – Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA.

        “Show us please where any leader from either said we are fighting to either keep the slave or free them [or the Confederacy existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery].

        Isn’t this a bit…strawman-ish? how about seceding (and as general Lee admitted, therefore would be willingly breaking US law/revolting/rebelling) to preserve slavery would you deny that? ”

        “Since you did not provide a quote or a document”

        Well since you did not deny the fact that they seceded to preserve slavery…and therefore did not get around my pointing out that there is fallacy in your argumentation…my point is that when they seceded illegally they effectively overthrew the current reigning government. They did it on behalf of slavery as you yourself mentioned, and that is the same reason for the war.

        You did not address the issue I presented in your argument. Again, if you admit that the southern states sought independence because of slavery (which can easily be found in plenty of quotes and documents I’m sure you already know all about secession convention statements and secession statements and declarations of causes), then obviously fighting for that independence would still have its core issue founded in slavery.

        http://www.civilwarcauses.org/richmond.htm
        And no one alive back then, not anyone was surprised to see these 5 ultimatums and their very obvious focus on slavery.

        The South went to war on account of Slavery. South Carolina went to war – as she said in her Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding. . . . I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery – a soldier fights for his country – right or wrong – he is not responsible for the political merits of the cause he fights in. The South was my country.
        -John Mosby Confederate Colonel

        “Can there be a doubt in any intelligent mind, that the object which the Black Republican party has in view is the ultimate extinction of slavery in the United States? To doubt it, is to cast the imputation of hypocracy and imbecility upon the majority of the people of every Northern State, who have stood by this party through all its trials and struggles, to its ultimate triumph in the election Lincoln.

        In these declarations Mr. Lincoln has covered the entire abolition platform – hatred of slavery, disregard of judicial decisions, negro equality, and, as a matter of course, the ultimate extinction of slavery. None of these doctrines, however, are left to inference, so far as Mr. Lincoln is concerned, as we see he has avowed them in the plainest and clearest language. They are not exceeded by the boldness of Seward, the malignity of Giddings, or the infamy of Garrison. It was the knowledge of these facts which induced his nomination by the Republican party; and by the free circulation which has been given to them in the canvass, it would seem that Mr. Lincoln is indebted to their popularity for his election.

        There is one dogma of this party which has been so solemnly enunciated, both by their national conventions and Mr. Lincoln that it is worth of serious consideration. I allude to the doctrine of negro equality. The stereotyped expression of the Declaration of Independence that “All men are born equal,” has been perverted from its plain and truthful meaning, and made the basis of a political dogma which strikes at the very foundations of the institution of slavery. Mr. Lincoln and his party assert that this doctrine of equality applies to the negro, and necessarily there can exist no such thing as property in our equals. Upon this point both Mr. Lincoln and his party have spoken with a distinctiveness that admits of no question or equivocation. If they are right, the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States is in direct violation of the fundamental principles of our Government; and to say that they would not use all the powers in their hands to eradicate the evil and restore the Government to its “ancient faith,” would be to write themselves down self-convicted traitors both to principle and duty.

        In the election which just transpired, the Black Republicans did not hesitate to announce, defend and justify the doctrines and principles which I have attributed to them. During the progress of the canvass I obtained copies of the documents which they were circulating at the North, with a view of ascertaining the grounds upon which they were appealing to the people for their support and confidence. With the exception of a few dull speeches in favor of a protective tariff, intended for circulation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and still fewer number of pitiful appeals for squandering the public lands, the whole canvass was conducted by the most bitter and malignant appeals to the anti-slavery sentiment of the North.

        Fellow-citizens of Georgia, I have endeavored to place before you the facts of the case, in plain and unimpassioned language; and I should feel that I had done injustice to my own convictions, and been unfaithful to you, if I did not in conclusion warn you against the danger of delay and impress upon you the hopelessness of any remedy for these evils short of secession. You have to deal with a shrewd, heartless and unscrupulous enemy, who in their extremity may promise anything, but in the end will do nothing. On the 4th day of March, 1861, the Federal Government will pass into the hands of the Abolitionists. It will then cease to have the slightest claim upon either your confidence or your loyalty; and, in my honest judgment, each hour that Georgia remains thereafter a member of the Union will be an hour of degradation, to be followed by certain and speedy ruin…'”
        – Howell Cobb (future President of the Provisional Confederate Congress), December 6, 1860

        I’m sure as you know, he played a significant role in the guidance of the CSA constitution.

        “I assume you, like Mackey, cannot produce one? Now what UIS law did the statesbreak by leaving the Union. Please just post the law since I am not interested in opinions. As a matter of fact it could be said that since slavery was legal in the United States the Union was fighting to save slavery. Won’t you agree?”

        No I wouldn’t agree. Careful, you are starting to show some serious intellectual dishonesty now. The only states that hadn’t already abolished slavery were southern border states that were detained in the union like Kentucky, Delaware, etc…slavery being legal in southern border states doesn’t mean there was no goal of abolition. As I said before, the republican party’s goal was always to abolish slavery, within the constitutional boundaries. The fairy tale you concoct allows for abolition to be done by some illegal means and it ignores the fact that all the other northern states abolished slavery before the war, some as early as the 1700s as I stated above.

        Regarding secession, when you say you are not interested in opinions, does that include the framers of the constitution? What about the events that took place in the ratifying conventions? What about of the supreme court? May I post those? I can find you rulings dated both before and after the war that show its illegal to secede unilaterally. Perhaps to you these are “opinion” but they are nothing less than authoritative. Would you consider Marshalls ruling an “opinion”? Despite the fact that he was part of the VA ratifying convention? I certainly hope not, given the supreme court’s role. If you deny the supreme court’s role then I think you have the wrong country in mind.

        What about General Lee’s opinion:

        “Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.
        It was intended for “perpetual union” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by a revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession, Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.”
        – Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861

        I will never understand why General Lee understood it but people who try to defend his regime dont.

        And honestly, if it was really legal, why not just take your case to the courts? Surely the Taney court had ruled in favor of the slave power before. They didn’t take their case to court because they had no case and there was no long term constitutional violation that would justify insurrection.

        As for the law:

        the famous “supremacy clause” of Article VI, Clause 2

        This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

        Clause 3 of Article VI:

        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

        This one really isn’t up for debate. You’d have to ignore some very specific things from the framers of the constitution, and you’d have to ignore all the supreme court decisions dated both before and after the war. I’m gonna have to agree with Al Mackey on this one when I say that anyone who thinks states can secede at will unilaterally have “no credibility”. As you would have to disagree with decades worth of supreme court rulings in order to make such a claim unabashed.

        And don’t bother with the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment only refers to things that affect that particular state where as secession involves the formation of the Union and therefore affects the entire country. Thats why secession cannot be done without consent from the other states.

        “Nice quotes from individuals but they do not speak for the entire Confederacy. Still with all your quotes you fail to provide one in which the Confederacy declares war for the purpose of maintaining slavery. Now if you truly believe the war was about slavery, who was trying to take away slavery. Surely Not Lincoln. Shall I post some examples of this or do you already know?

        Now here are a couple Lincoln quotes for you —”

        Actually I have some Lincoln quotes for you:

        “Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue.” – Lincoln’s Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862

        Actually Lincoln was definitely trying to take away slavery. But he knew he was constitutionally bound not to interfere with it in states that remained loyal to the Union (and barely any slaves left in the “north”). And yes I already know what examples you will post, and they do not prove he and his party were not abolitionists. The only way to come to the conclusion you came to is to ignore everything he said that contradicts you, and then keep statements that agree with you removed out of all forms of contexts. That really is the only way to conclude what you just did, but thats hardly an accurate way to evaluate.

        Nice quotes from Lincoln but that hardly proves the war was not about slavery. Let me start out by saying its interesting that you are turning to Lincoln in defense when Jeff Davis had rebel troops raised before he was even in office. Many people try to cherry pick Lincoln, but many of his statements are just describing his duties in office which really doesn’t have anything to do with the cause of the war. And Lincoln of course, came into office after the crisis had already begun.

        The republican party was founded as mainly an abolitionist party. People may find some quote Lincoln said and distort its meaning how ever they want. So your proof is look up the republican slogan in 1856 2 years after the party was created. “free labor, free land, free men”. to go back to 1854 the Republican party was Literally started because the Kansas-Nebraska Act which the Republicans successfully won by having it repealed by the Missouri compromise keeping slavery out of the Great Plains. And the final proof is Abraham Lincoln’s Peoria speech he have in 1854 he openly announced his intentions to run for president on the bases of ending slavery. This lines up perfectly with all the southern states complaints about him and his hostility to slavery despite any compromise he tried to make.

        You are making very controlled requests that are crafted to prove yourself right. This is not uncommon for people who don’t want to look at something objectively and only want to find arguments that fit their presupposition. For example you might request a declaration of war…or terms of surrender that discuss slavery, neither of which exist since the CSA was never recognized as a country (by anyone) and never officially surrendered. So when you ask for a “declaration of war for X” you are making an erroneous argument. Find me a declaration of war from the CSA that says they fought because of “taxes”…actually…find me a declaration of war…period…

        And lincoln didn’t need a “declaration of war” anyways, Fort Sumter was fired upon and all he needed was the militia acts and insurrection acts which empowers the executive branch to deal with rebellions. Its really no different than anything Washington had done and Jackson had threatened to do prior, but obviously on a much larger scale. It is simply the presidents duty regardless of any personal feelings:

        “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”
        -Lincoln

        “Mr. Lincoln’s Reply in the Alton Joint Debate.

        If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another man comes upon t e same ground with his slave, upon the assum tion that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal rig t all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many Democrats are there about here [“A thousand”] who have left slave States and come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of slavery? [Another voice: “A thousand and one.”] I reckon there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now advocating had prevailed when this country was in a territorial condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it? Where would you have found your free State or Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to go to?

        Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil, and better their condition in life_ I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their condition in life.

        ********************

        “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.” ~ Lincoln, on whether blacks – slave or free – should be allowed in the new territories in the west, October 16

        And

        I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

        Interesting you would bring this one up. Lets see what Lincoln was responding to and what Douglass said:
        “Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free negro colony, in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with yourselves?
        If you desire negro citizenship, if you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the white man, if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible to office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party” – Stephen Douglass, The First Debate

        The South wasn’t even nearly that kind on him, they recognized him as a threat to the long term survival of their peculiar institution

        And again, how relevant is this really? isn’t it only an attempt at distraction and to falsely vilify Lincoln by taking him out of his time and judging him by contemporary standards? Lincoln could have been more racist than anyone in the country, he wasn’t and he was able to overcome the racial attitudes he did have, but he was still absolutely against slavery and shows a lifetime dedicated to abolition, and the war was caused by the Southern desire to protect and expand slavery, not on preventing civil rights for blacks.

        People constantly try to take him anti-historically out of context just to slander him at all costs.

        “I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – Lincoln

        “Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg” (October 7, 1858), p. 226

        “In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border.” Lincoln, “Letter to Joshua F. Speed” August 24, 1855

        “One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.” – Lincoln

        Have you read Lincoln’s Peoria speech? Hopefully I don’t need to pull quotes from there. Its pretty straightfoward.

        “See racism existed on both sides.”

        Definitely, no one should deny that there was racism on both sides.

        “Now what did Davis say about fighting for slavery–

        “No, I cannot. I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this war is on my hands,—I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us gov

        1864.] 0ur Visit to Richmond. 379″

        ern ourselves; and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight his battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self – government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence,–and that, or extermination, we will have.

        The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 14, 1864
        372 Our Visit to Richmond. September,”

        Now you see there is proof positive the Confederacy was not fighting for slavery. President Davis says so!!!!”

        How naive…you believed exactly what he wanted you to believe in 1864 but I wouldn’t exactly call that proof. Especially not from 1864…Everyone knows Jeff Davis said things like that after the fact…so when he says “We fight not for slavery, but for independence”

        that very LATE war statement (and many others) by Davis is mere apologetics like his post war distortions. That’s not the tune he was singing before the war and during the formation of the rebel state. the statments you are using without context is from sources such as the English newspaper, the “Spectator”, Well of course Davis going to say that, for the general public’s sentiment in England was anti-slavery and he was playing for recognition that would never come especially not after antietam , and by 1864 that was the South’s only hope (notice the timing). If the War wasn’t about slavery, than at that point at the very least, it would have been the time to give it up in order to seek recognition. But they couldn’t, because that would defeat the entire purpose of the war. And I doubt I need to cite this but it is even widely known that General Lee mourned the fact that slavery was more important than independence.

        Anyways, reading the interview further, Davis gives away the game by stating:
        “Why sir, the first man who should go before the Southern people with such a proposition, with any proposition which implied that the North was to have a voice in the determining the domestic relations of the South, could not live here a day. He would be hanged the first tree without judge or jury.” “The Spectator” Sept. 10, 1864

        As you can see Davis is completely full of @#$% pardon my french…, he admits it’s all about slavery in the very same interview.

        By reading the actual article with the interview as it originally appeared, you in reality see that the paper is mocking Davis, and doesn’t even believe him (although as one can see, you fell for Davis’s tricks, unlike they did).

        “The Conversation throughout is a remarkable one … It realizes almost for the first time how strong and calm a government may be founded for a moment on one man’s clear, patient, evil purpose to enlist the best and noblest parts of a degraded people’s life in the serve of their worst institution and lowest passions, till they themselves have almost learnt to identify ignorant, servile, and cruel habits with patriotism, self devotion and martyrdom. Nay, it does more, it realizes how the designer who projects and half accomplishes this, may almost forget his own former craft and trickiness and intrigue in the superficial grandeur of his bad design, and display in his character the same strangely inverted strata of character, – personal heroism, asceticism, fortitude, self-reliance, equanimity, beneath, – above, the vision of a nation existing for the sake of an oligarchy – a nation kept ignorant that a few may be cultivated, kept poor that a few may be rich, Kept brutal that a few may be powerful.” – The Spectator” Sept. 10, 1864

        See? Even back then it was recognized that Davis was not trustworthy and full of it.

        The point is, I dont think anyone doubts that Jeff Davis said things like that towards the end of the war and after. I think its quite commonly known that he was singing a different tune before and after the war. He is well known for trying to fabricate later apologetics. You do realize you are talking about the same person who hired mercenaries to attack Kansas in order to prevent it from becoming a non-slave state right? He was willing to say and claim anything to win the war. “I tried all in my power to avert this war” yeah right what a joke. If he really wanted to avert this war perhaps he should have listened to robert tombs warning:

        “Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.” Robert Tombs very prophetic advice to Jeff Davis that was ignored, sadly

        And furthermore, ironically, Jeff Davis is under the impression that Lincoln will NOT start a war (as he mentioned in a letter) when he orders the firing on Ft Sumter which initiated the war. Talk about contradicting oneself.

        There is a reason why Jeff Davis is so heavily discredited, even to the point to where southern heritage groups try to avoid using him in justification…of anything really. And yet people like Jubal Early were very concerned about being seen as having fought for slavery and wanted to change the image…I wonder why.

        “It has been a conviction of pressing necessity — it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us [slavery] — which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races” – Jeff Davis’ Farwell speech to the Senate

        “Your quotes abot secession may be try, I don’t know and I don’t really care. Sl;avery was a cause of secession and so were Indian raids, however these incidents themselves did not cause war. The act of secession itself was not a cause of the war, neither Buchanan or Lincoln ever said we are going to Charleston because secession is illegal under such and such. So for what reason did the fleets go to Charleston and what was the purpose? It wasn’t to free slaves but to COLLECT REVENUE!!!”

        I would care about slavery being the cause of secession. You see, because when the secession movement is dying, and you fire on a US fort in order to get other states to join you (like VA and NC), thus galvanizing the north to respond militarily, very quickly the reason for secession becomes the reason for rebellion. And the reason for rebellion is the reason for the war.

        And now its time to turn your own argument on its head. Please show how the war was about “revenue”. States have little to no complaints regarding taxes or tariffs, but they have a lot of complaints about Lincoln and his hostility to slavery. The fleets went to Charleston to collect revenue? I thought they went to Ft Sumter…unless you are referring to a different incident….Ft Sumter is not a good place to collect revenue…seeing as how it wasn’t even completed. Honestly the men there were in need of supplies and were starving. It wasn’t a good place to collect anything…because nothing was there.

        But seriously revenue? That has to be one of the worst interpretations of the war. I honestly thought states rights was a stronger argument. Jefferson Davis said different. The message Jeff Davis sends the rebel congress upon the ratification of the Confederate Constitution. The most single important letter in confederate history for the most important single document in confederate history mentions Tariffs/Taxes/revenue 0 times. it does mention slavery/slave 24 times. the Governing body upon the ratification of their constitution says absolutely nothing about tariffs or revenue and the such. But even if you fall back on states rights:

        “Hummm is rigyt it is a mystery why both classes of brits came together and built some of the best sailing ships the world has ever seen right there on good old England for the CSA—hummmmmmmmm”

        Hmmm is right since you are making things up. The British Navy does what they are told I am not sure what you mean when you say “both classes came together” I am not really sure what your point is. One class supported the CSA, one did not. Guess what the greatest factor was in that decision? The working class supported the Union and effectively said defeat the rebellion and free the slaves…thats after they tried to pressure Britain regarding the blockade…which means this all happened after they “came together and built some of the best sailing ships the world has ever seen”… This works against your argument…not for it. Hmmmmm….indeed.

        Reply ↓

        gpthelastrebel
        on July 12, 2016 at 2:25 PM said:
        “It seems that Mr. Perez has decided he does not want to engage in an exchange of quotes. I checked out this quote he posted by Jefferson Davis.–”

        It seems more that you are eager to win an argument. You took a few days to respond to me shouldn’t I be given the same courtesy? Or should I have claimed to be the victor after hearing no response? Please be mindful of your own standards. You technically took longer than I did to respond. And no, I very much do want to engage, I enjoy this sort of thing and see this as a good discussion even if we both don’t change our minds in the end.

        “Resolved: That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of ANY other State, either in escape thereto or transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States or any of the Territories thereof.” – Jefferson Davis

        I had a friend, who is excellent at interpreting these old documents, give me impression of this quote and he says this —This would restrict states from imposing certain regulations on a specific living property in the U.S. Constitution. This amendment would give the right to Human property within any state, either free or slave, to the owner either during transportation, temporary visitation or by escape to any state to the recognized rightful owner of another state. Such human property will not be taken away or deprived from or restricted from use by the owner of said property by Federal or by U.S. Territorial law.

        This was later basically placed into the body of the Confederate Constitution

        This phrase…

        “shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized;”

        In general relates to this 1841 debate…

        The Governments have no power to discriminate, and fix upon one description or species of property greater tax than that fixed by law upon every other description or species of property of equal value, subjected to taxation.

        Every individual may lawfully acquire and possess any species or description of property if he does not thereby destroy or deprive some other person of his property. or some enjoyment thereof, in which he is protected by law.

        But property, when acquired and possessed, must be so kept and disposed of as not to injure any paramount legal right of another, or affect injuriously the public morals, or public good, so far as they are protected by law.

        Below is an explanation of the tax meaning…

        “Legislatures cannot, by first prohibiting the use of any article or the exercise of any calling, and then allowing it upon payment of a certain sum into the Treasury, create a privilege. If this could be done, there would no longer be any meaning or effect in the provision that no one species of property should be taxed higher than another species of property of equal value. If this could be done, the Legislature could tax every bureau a hundred dollars, or every table, or chair, or sofa, or book-case, to the same amount‘, merely by prohibiting the use or possession of each article except upon payment of such sum, and so making it a privilege to have, use, or possess it. They might pass sumptuary laws, and tax shoes, boots, hats, coats, cloaks, and every article of dress, comfort, luxury or necessity, by pursuing the same course, and making it a privilege to have, wear, or possess it.

        There are certain rights which belong to us as freemen; we do not derive all our rights from Legislative grant; we have some which belong to us by nature, and as citizens of a free country; such are the rights of holding any species of property we choose, of wearing whatever garments we choose, and of possessing and holding any article of comfort or luxury which we please. As all then belong to us originally, they cannot be converted into privileges by any process of Legislative alchemy. No such magical transmutation can be effected. If it could, nothing would be easier than by the enactment of sumptuary laws and acts creating privileges to transform us at one sweep from free citizens of a republic to the mere serfs of the soil.

        The right to keep and use a billiard table is one of these common rights. It is an article of furniture which every citizen had the right to own and possess before we framed the Constitution, and the Legislature cannot confer upon us the privilege of keeping what we already have the right to keep and use. Privileges are not so created; if they are, every thing can be transmuted into a privilege, and by undergoing this process, an article of property worth a hundred dollars may to-day be taxed one dollar and to-morrow a thousand, while another article of the same, may still remain subject to the original tax of one dollar.”

        There you have it folks, explained and historical background given. A man should not lose his property period.
        You can read the whole text of the Compromise at — http://www.civilwarcauses.org/comp.htm#Jefferson Davis of Mississippi

        Perhaps one should read what Mr. Seward of new York proposed?”

        Oh I dont deny that rhetoric was used, taxes, property, etc generically for decades leading up to the war. But this begs the question, what “property” was in jeopardy? I think you know the answer to that. Perhaps your friend could have mentioned that this little resolution would have basically allowed slavery to be legal everywhere (and that was the point) since I don’t think anyone’s billiard tables were in jeopardy at the time. Lets see what the arguments from the 1840s were really about according to real civil war historians since you saw fit to bring it up:

        “When you go back and you look at the actual documents, many people have said since then that it was about states’ rights, but really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property — property and slaves unimpeded — and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to. So it’s clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way” – Historian Adam Goodheart.

        “Slavery was the main issue in national politics from 1844 to the outbreak of the Civil War. And many times before 1844, this vexed question had set section against section, as in the Missouri debates of 1819-1920. Even the nullification crisis of 1832, ostensibly over the tariff, had slavery as its underlying cause. The South Carolina nullifiers feared that the centralization of governmental power, as manifested by the tariff, might eventually threaten slavery itself.” McPherson, “Ordeal by Fire” p57

        So even in the 1830s [and 40’s and 50’s] the real issue behind the scenes was still slavery. Calhoun admitted as much in a private letter he wrote

        “I consider the tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick (sic) institutions of the Southern States, and not the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation on opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power to rebel, or submit to have… their domestick (sic) institutions exhausted by colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situated, the denial of the right of these states to interfere constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking than all other causes.” – Calhoun to Virgil Macy, Sept 11, 1830

        The entire idea of ‘states rights’ as used by the South was formulated by John C. Calhoun a way to protect slavery.

        “John C. Calhoun, the South’s leading political philosopher, formulated an elaborate constitutional structure of states-right’s theory to halt the use of federal power that might be conceivably used at some future time as a precedent to act against slavery.” – James McPherson In the Antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery. One cannot talk about the economy and the South without coming back to slavery. “If congress can make banks, roads, and canals under the constitution,” said Senator Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina in the 1820s, “they can free any slave in the United States.” “But even for Calhoun, state sovereignty was a fall back position. A more powerful instrument to protect slavery was control of the national government. Until 1861 Southern politicians did this remarkably well. They used that control to defend slavery from all kinds of threats and perceived threats. They overrode the rights of Northern states that passed personal liberty laws to protect black people from kidnapping by agents who claimed them as fugitives.” “This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War,” McPherson, p7

        So as he relates, the entire idea of “states’ rights” [or property or whatever rhetoric you invoke] itself relates back to attempting to protect slavery and its economic base, plantation staple cropping, and again that the South was hypocritical, their issue wasn’t really tariffs or an ideological states rights, it was slavery, and they showed it by stepping on the states’ rights of others. _”It is quite true, of course, that economic conflicts of interest took place between agrarian and industrial factions. … But these matters divided PARTIES (Whig and Democrat) and interest groups more than they divided North and South. The South in the 1840s and 1850s had its advocates of industrialization and protective tariffs and a national bank, just as the North had its millions of farmers and its low tariff, antibank Democratic majority in many states. The Civil War was not fought over issues of the tariff or banks or agrarianism vs. industrialism. These and similar kinds of questions have been the bread and butter issues of American politics throughout the nation’s history, often generating a great deal more friction and heat than they did in the 1850s. But they have not caused any great shooting wars.”_ James McPherson “The Mighty Scourge” p10

        “Nor did the upper and lower parts of the great valley [the Mississippi Valley] differ as regions on the protective tariff issue. Democrats in both favored tariffs for revenue only, while Whigs, regardless of region, followed Henry Clay in support of protection. In the Northwest the Ohio Valley was usually the Democratic stronghold, but in the late thirties and early forties, the wheat growers of the Lakes region, in their drive to break the English corn laws and to open markets for their growing surplus, were free traders almost as ardent as the cotton producers in the Lower South.” – Avery O. Craven, “The Growth of Southern Nationalism”, 1848-1861, p26

        “Discussion of the tariff, which preceded the act of 1846, again aroused Western anger. Prices of all Western produce were low that year and surpluses great. The proposed tax on tea and coffee especially aroused feelings. Jacob Brinkerhoff of Ohio called it ‘a sectional tax’–one that was ‘wrong, unequal and unjust.’ All Western people–all free laborers–used tea and coffee, whereas ‘three million slave laborers’ scarcely used them at all. ‘[You] ask us for a war tax upon tea and coffee to make Southern conquests,’ he concluded, ‘while Northern territory is given away by empires.'” – Ibid., p.32

        So in summary:

        “States rights” as expressed by the South simply means; issues concerning slavery.

        “Of all these interpretations, the state’s rights argument is the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state’s rights for what purpose? States rights and sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle. … In the Antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery.” – James McPherson “This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War,” p7

        “Confederates during the Civil War had no problem whatsoever in associating their cause with the protection of slavery and a system of white supremacy which they thought was inherent in the Confederate world order. The Confederates of 1861-65 were much more honest about the importance of slavery than are the neo-Confederates of today.” – Professor Brooks D. Simpson

        “White Southerners had no problem using the federal government’s powers when it came to protecting and promoting the interests of slavery. They only invoked states’ rights rhetoric in trying to restrict federal power against slavery. Divisions over the interpretation of the Constitution were directly related to the issue of slavery.” – Professor Brooks D. Simpson

        “With us the two great divisions of society are not rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and we are respected as equals… and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them.” – Calhoun

        “Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ [or anything else] has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
        “I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.” – Dr. James Loewen

        Many people continue to believe that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery: that the South tried to leave the Union to protect “states’ rights” in general or because it objected to the Republican Party’s stand on tariffs or other unrelated matters.
        But the record of the North-South conflict during the 40 or so years before the war shows unmistakably that slavery was central to it. And the leaders of the secession movement said as much in 1860-61. They left the Union because they believed that Lincoln’s election imperiled the security of slavery, an institution that they considered essential to their own happiness and prosperity.” – Professor Bruce Levine, Apr. 8, 2011

        So in other words, if I wanted to protect a peculiar institution, or a specific right or property, a very effective way to do that, is to target a broad amount of them, but at the end of the day the other things encompassed are just a means to an end. No one was afraid back then to make a broad generalization in order to protect slavery, but I’m sure the “furniture” was inadvertently made safe too from the fed govt who clearly threatened to swipe it.

        So:

        “Having swept away the counterfactual Myth of the Lost Cause, a historian may briefly state the history of the Civil War as follows. The eleven states that seceded and became the Confederate States of America did so in order to protect the institution of African slavery from a perceived political threat from the majority of the people of the United States who disapproved of the institution.” – Gary W. Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan “The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History” p29

      • Good grief, who replies with such a long post? what a mess. I assume it is your intention to beat me down with a massive bit of information? I started not to post this simply because it is so long, but just on the chance it may have some facts worth esearching I’ll post it.

        Mr. Perez I already have some doubts about your research. This quote that your posted, attributed to Jefferson Davis, I just cannot find a first source for it. Can you please supply a source ?

        “frican slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.”
        Jefferson Davis

      • “Good grief, who replies with such a long post?”

        Would you have preferred more paraphrasing and unsupported statements or did you want historical quotes and statements from civil war historians? Ironically its length caused me to take so long that you accused me of not wanting to “engage”, then of course ironically again, you actually took longer to respond than I did. Well sorry for the length.

        “what a mess. I assume it is your intention to beat me down with a massive bit of information?”

        Well I suppose that puts you at 2 wrong assumptions now. First you said I didn’t want to engage in “quote” wars, now you are complaining that my post is too long. So I guess you proved yourself wrong. This time my intent is to overwhelm you with content?

        So no wrong again. Perhaps your intent is to misrepresent me and beat up a straw man version of me? Keep it up and you will hat-trick for 3 in a row.

        “I started not to post this simply because it is so long,”

        And as I took a lot of time to put that post together, believe me, I appreciate it. Its not fun to work all day, then spend a bunch of your free time posting on someone’s blog, only to see it get trashed.

        “but just on the chance it may have some facts worth esearching I’ll post it.”

        Well seeing as how most of what I posted were either quotes from historical figures, or quotes from civil war historians who based their statements on primary sources…I don’t think lack of facts will be an issue. But if by that you mean I may have some things that you will actually want to respond to, then sure.

        “Mr. Perez I already have some doubts about your research.”

        Depends on what you are doubting. If you are doubting what I am quoting, then its not me you are doubting, in the grand scheme of things. For example you might doubt a quote from Brooks Simpson. Well then you would be doubting his research and you are welcome to express as such on his blog. If I had to choose, Id take your doubt over disagreeing with Brooks Simpson though if it came to it.

        “This quote that your posted, attributed to Jefferson Davis, I just cannot find a first source for it. Can you please supply a source?”

        I believe that would be:
        The Papers of Jefferson Davis: 1856-1860 Louisiana State University Press, 1989

        “frican slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.”
        Jefferson Davis”

        Well now I am starting to doubt your research…I’m honestly surprised you didn’t know about this quote. Its one of the more commonly used ones from him. He has quite a mountain of quotes just like this. I simply chose one of many…He has a lifetime dedicated to being a racist scumbag. I would have assumed that you knew about it.

        You can find more lovely little gems from this fine fellow here:

        https://archive.org/details/speechesofhonjef00davia

        https://archive.org/details/speechofmrdaviso00lcdavi

        or

        (since you linked civilwarcauses I trust that you trust it as a source):
        http://www.civilwarcauses.org/davisexit.htm

        How much of Jeff Davis do you actually know about, one can wonder if you dont even know that quote? How much research have you done…really…on Jeff Davis…Hopefully this is not because you only know of his post-war apologetics dated late in the war and beyond…as I told you…he was singing a different tune before.

        https://www.kshs.org/p/jefferson-davis-and-kansas-territory/13132

        “His position on the relationship of the territories to the federal government was best described in a speech in 1858. He declared the territories did not occupy the same position as states, that he never subscribed to the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, and that the federal government had power over territories. He maintained the territories were dependencies of the Union, that they were in a condition of pupilage, to be governed by the states, and that if men, either foreign or native, should congregate themselves upon a territory, and raise the standard of rebellion against the federal government and in defiance of law, “it is not only within the power, but it is the plain, palpable duty of the Government to put down such an insurrection, and to compel obedience.” [11]

        As a seer he pointed to the collision in Kansas as a miniature of the division throughout the United States, declaring that the struggle was “melancholy evidence of the decadence of the political morals of our times that has been necessary to employ the troops of the United States to secure the execution of its laws. It gives melancholy forebodings as to the capacity of our people for self-government.”

        Haha, sorry but this one really cracks me up, when compared to the quotes you gave me from 1864…notice anything…strange? or…hypocritical perhaps? Funny, Jeff Davis didn’t seem to have any dilemmas abusing fed govt powers or resorting to violence when it came to assisting the slave power…between him and david rice atchison killing on behalf of spreading slavery. He even said resisting slavery in Kansas was an “intolerable grievance”. Then he later whines towards the end of the war after leading his own insurrection about the government putting down his rebellion…

        Also commonly known:

        “It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern
        themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by
        the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution,
        marks that inferiority”

        “In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile,
        intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts
        but with careful religion instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor
        had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their
        condition”

        As you can see this is barely scratching the surface…I could continue but I fear my post will get long again so I will have to leave it to you.
        Well knock yourself out theres lots more where that came from. Read about Jeff Davis, not just the lost cause side of him and you will see why he went down in history as a scumbag.

      • It doesn’t matter how much I know or don’t know about Davis, I am not interested in anything but the one quote as mentioned. Please post a first source for it.

        Since it is not fun to make such large posts why don’t you be a smart man and make a few comments it will make it easier on the both of us. I will let you make as many as you need as long as you are civil.

        Ohhhh I got a capital idea. Instead of me spending so much time answering you novels, I just won’t let them through. Works for me. This is the last post of this length I will let through.

        I have spent several days answering your other loooonnnnggggg post. I will make a blog post out of it with my responses in bold. It will be unedited and your original will be here. Are you agreeable to that?

      • I’ve got a capital idea. Maybe you can read. If you did then you would see that I provided you with the Jeff Davis source that you asked for. Then I even provided you more so you can see many other quotes like it.

        And to your statement it doesn’t matter how much you know about Jeff Davis…well then it doesn’t matter what you think of anything regarding him. If your gonna be ignorant then no one should care what you think.

        No let’s not agree on the post then since you don’t like long responses. No point in doing the work if ur gonna single out one thing. If you only care about one quote then I gave you your source and we can just leave it at that. Problem solved. Enjoy your source.

        In conclusion, you can post your grievances against all Mackey’s post in his comment section. He doesn’t do blog wars.

      • I find it amazing that you refuse to answer the question about a quote you credit to Davis. What is so hard about that, you do have a source don’t you? Now in our upcoming discussion I am certain you may want some sources from me, what if I reply in like fashion to you? Would that be very civil?

        Again it doesn’t matter what I know or don’t know about Davis, it was your quote from some un-identified source, I still see no problem in providing a source. That is unless you have just cruised the web and found all the negative quotes you could about Davis and posted them without vetting them. Is That what you did, if not then, post a first source.

        Ah Mackey, you see I did atone time post to his trashy bigoted blog, it seems that Mackey can’t handle the truth very well and hayes for his lies to be exposed. He banned me some time ago. In fact I notice that most all Yankee supporters, had rather display their biased and bigotry without posting opposing views, why is that. You do notice I let anyone peat as long as they are civil????

        Now please post a first source for the Davis quote.

      • I find it amazing that you refuse to read. Your credibility goes down every time I post and you have shown that you are not worth my time. I gave you the source. I’m not giving it to you again. Your memory issues or denial (whichever it may be) are not my problem sir.

        “Now please post a first source for the Davis quote.”
        Please learn to read. I gave you the source. Acting like I did not give you the source does not mean I didnt give you the source.

        “Again it doesn’t matter what I know or don’t know about Davis, it was your quote from some un-identified source”

        un-identified source…nice to know I”m dealing with someone rational. You clearly are not qualified to discuss this topic. And of course it matters what you know or don’t know about davis…what kind of assertion is that? If we are talking about any subject, why wouldn’t it matter how much you know or don’t know about the subject?

        “unless you have just cruised the web and found all the negative quotes you could about Davis”

        Selectivism seems to be an issue with you. Not me since you openly say it doesn’t matter how much you know about Davis and are “not interested” (your words not mine) in other things…it sounds like you are the only one here finding quotes that fit your presupposition. …I guess that should be clear since you are posting his quotes from 1864 and saying its “evidence” and don’t seem to care to research anything else regarding him…what that shows more than anything is that his (and other lost causer’s) propaganda late and after the war was effective…obviously it worked on you ~150 years later.

        I can see there is no point in talking to you and that you don’t really care about looking at something objectively.

        And ive seen your interactions with Mackey,..I guess before you were banned… and upon reading it shows the same thing that can be seen here, that you really dont know what you are talking about and that you don’t want to know what you are talking about. Then when it is shown that you are wrong…you label the other person a bigot. No wonder you were banned….then you lecture me about being “civil” talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

        I’m afraid you sir are the bigot. good day. I leave you with this going away present since you mentioned in your original post about what “mama’s teach their kids”, how much of this do you think mama’s teach their kids:

        http://civilwarkillers.blogspot.com/2014_06_01_archive.html

      • Folks,

        Looks like Jason Perez got his panties in a wad. Why is mad? Because the quote he states is a Davis quote is a lie— African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.
        Jefferson Davis

        There is no first source that I can find on the web. If Mr. Perez had a source he would have posted it, it is just that simple. Now as will see in my next blog post a debate with Perez I completely destroy the quotes he presents by Mosby and Lee.

        Oh and if the link leads to Perez’s blog, don’t bother, it is just more cherry picked info to support the idea of It was about slavery. Heck Perez hasn’t got the guts to allow opposing commnets nor does he have his name listed that I can see. Trash, pure trash.

        Perez you are a joke at best.

      • I provided you the source. You just keep denying that I did. Then you said it doesn’t matter how much you know about the subject we are talking about…truly amusing. And thats why whatever conclusion you draw doesn’t matter. Seriously who says that? haha.

        Thank you for showing you are a waste of time.

      • You know the long post you also made for today? It never will show up. Why? No slimy ass Yankee puke is gonna come here and call me names. You had your chance, you blew it and besides I proved everything you said was a lie. This is your last post that will show up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s