A post by Mr. Jason Perez and my responses

This is a response by Mr. Jason Perez to one of my blog posts. It is so long and awkward to follow that I decided to make a blog post out of it and my responses to Mr. Perez’s points. I hope the end result is not to confusing. I tried to answer each and every point Mr. Perez made, if I missed some or offered an incomplete answer I offer my apologies. If you would like a more complete answer, just ask. I am sure one of us can accommodate you. My responses are in bold


“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…

Ah so you want to play on words do you? That is Ok we know what the Constitution says. It is right there in black and white. Section 9
1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person

Is there any doubt about the subject of this article? Remember your words they may come back to haunt you!!!!

Well of course it was legal in states that hadn’t 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

So slavery was still legal under the Us Constitution, you just admitted as much. Now you are referring to secession not the reason for the being of the Confederacy. You are simply grasping at smoke. Do you think the reason for secession was the abuse of the Constitution and the laws of the land awarding slavery. Could the idea behind the secession docs be how easy it isto break the law. That fact comes out clearly if you actually read theses docs.

“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

Well I never read of a Yankee soldier who expressed regret that he was fighting for the Union , the Constitution, while trying to subject his fellow country man to his rule. McPherson—he is not biased is he? I have heard that statement made before. I would guess that anyone could find SOMEONE who states they are fighting for slavery or to free the slaves. Now please tell me how is this official Confederate policy?

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.

Yes That is correct, and all show that Lincoln was NOT trying to take away any slaves. So if Lincoln was not trying to take away slavery, why on earth would the South be fighting to save slavery. The very fact that you try to make this point doesn’t make any sense at all. It is in conflict with all history of the war.

No law has been passed—Thank you again you prove the legality of slavery

“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 don’t believe you are correct. I think that if Lincoln would not have started his war, slavery would have been preserved. If the war was about slavery, then the CSA could have came back under the 1st Emancipation Proclamation. Why would they not?

As to Mosby’s quote, here is something I think may interest you—
afterwards Mrs. Stevenson, of Manchester, Massachusetts, who was employed to teach his sisters. She was a strong and outspoken abolitionist and a friend of Garrison and Wendell Phillips. All the Mosby family were, and remained, devoted to Miss Southwick. She and young Mosby had numerous talks on the subject of slavery and other political topics. At the close of the war she immediately sent money and supplies to the family and told how anxiously she had read the papers, fearing to find the news that he had been killed.

In the CSA government what was Mosby’s title?

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.

Ah yes the old Cornerstone Speech. I knew you would get around to that sooner or later. Are you sure it is accurate? This website says something totally different—
The Cornerstone Speech was delivered extemporaneously by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, and no official printed version exists. The text below was taken from a newspaper article in the Savannah Republican, as reprinted in Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, before, during, and since the War, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 717-729.
[REPORTER’S NOTE. — Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. — G.]

“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.

I did say slavery was an issue to secession, so were Indian raids. That doe not mean they were fighting to keep slavery, nor does it mean the CSA only existed for the institution of slavery. That is like saying the USA only existed to maintain slavery or to do away with titles of nobility. It is just not true. Like I said earlier you want to play with words. Here is another example of such. Now as I said before, if the issue was slavery, the South could have easily came back to the Union and kept their slaves per the Ghost Amendment or the 1st Emancipation Proclaination

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.

I addressed each and every issue you presented, maybe not in the manner you expected but they were addressed. Again the cause of secession was many, including slavery. Yes I know all about the causes and such, however none of this proves the Confederacy existed to maintain slavery or went to war for the institution. It is not for me to present this argument, but it is our responsibility since you took up Mackey’s argument.

Ghost Amendment:
The Thirteenth Amendment that Never Was
“No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” –Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861
Read more at http://ghostamendment.com/#lt5H4bw8OZijhzSI.99

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

Prove Soth Carolina and the Confederacy went to war because of slavery. Let’ see your document.

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

Have you noticed when you post a cherry picked quote, it doesn’t mean the same thing when you find the whole paragraph. As a favor to you, I will post the entire quote–

Now while I think as badly of slavery as Horace Greeley did I am not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance – Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors were pirates & cattle thieves. People must be judged by the standard of their own age. If it was right to own slaves as property it was right to fight for it. 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.

South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding

Now that makes quite a bit of difference in what you report Mosby said. He is not He is saying if it is right to own property, it is right to fight for that property. I think even you can agree to that. However the real meat of this quote is the fact Mosby is attacking those who claim slavery is not the cause of the war.

Now since Mosby is not a historian, and he didn’t have access to all the information you and I do, it is possible he didn’t know why South Carolina went to war. Maybe he was not aware of the invasion fleet sent by Lincoln???

Again what was his title within the CSA government?

Secession right, read the documents. Lincoln did not seek out South Carolina that is not true. There were peace delegates waiting to meet him as his invasion fleet sailed,

“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.

Ah so? Mister Cobb was not the only vote in the Confederate Congress? It appears he is just like any other man of his times including Lincoln Remember the Lincoln comment I posted? Same thing just different men. Nowhere in the CSA Constitution does it say the Confederacy exists to maintain slavery. So you point and all this wasted space is for nothing.

“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.

Careful you are trying to play with words again. Slavery was legal in the United States, I have already posted that article. If one was fighting to preserve the Union, then they were also fighting to protect the Constitution and slavery. What is dishonest about that? Name me a Union state that said we are fighting to free the slaves. I am sure it ws the gaol of everyone to abolish slavery t some point, but the action never took place did it? In fact West Virginia was admitted to the Union as aslave state—under Lincoln. The war had nothing to do with slavery, Lincoln admits in his first inaugural that he didn’t have the power to abolish slavery. Again if the war was about slavery who was trying to take away the slaves?

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.

Uh Oh yes I want you to post a law that specifically outlaws secession, pre 1860. I would like to see it. Don’t bother with Texas vs. White. That is well after the facts and is meaningless.

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 peop le who try to defend his regime dont.
Lee was a Unionist like Davis. Because they, like everyone had their opinion is nothing new. Which side dfid he fight for? Lee had a regime? News to me.
Did it ever occur to you that evolution can be peaceful? Look at the Bernie Sanders, Donald Trumpp revolutions. No war. See your Lincoln started a war and it was because of slavery.

You never understood Genl Lee because you only chose part of his letter to post. Perhaps if you read the entire letter and took in all of the facts you would know lee said this also—
The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress .


Please remind us again what Genl. Lee’s position in the Confederate government was.

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.

And if secession was not legal why didn’t Lincpln start his war on that cause. He nerve said we are going to war because the act of secession is illegal under the Constitution xyz. And efforts were made to secede peacefully, why do think the secession docs. were drawn up???

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. That’s why secession cannot be done without consent from the other states.
So where does your references state secession is illegal.

Remember this? — “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…”

It is your words about slavery, even though slavery is clearly addressed. Now I make the same claim about secession. Show is where secession is specifically outlawed. What makes you think the South was not following leagel means of secession?

Wasn’t it Justice S. P. Chase who said “No law has ever been passed?” I think so.

Please just post the sentence where secession is outlawed. . Your long meaningless fact free post gives me a headache.

“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

Yes the war had already started in April of 1861, Lincoln had to justify his actions someway. I already gave you a quote from Davis. I think that pretty much covers the issue of the war but in case it doesn’t here is another Lincoln quote that address the issue .
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
There you go. Notice ”as it was” slavery and all.

Regardless of the quotes you bring, Lincoln and Davis neither state the war is about slavery. We can plain to see from both sides slavery was not the issue as you believe.
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.

Actually Lincoln did not care about slavery. That is evident in his actions. If the Constitution was first in Lincoln/s mind then he sure did not demonstrate it by starting a war. It appears to me that you somehow believe that you are much superior to me. You are on the border of calling me a liar. You sir are nothing more than a product of Yankee propaganda

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…

Any Constitution can get amended. Useless point.

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.

Lincoln proves that the war wasn’t about slavery. He wasn’t trying to free them, so the South had no reason to “fight for slavery”

So do you know “rebel” troops were raised before Lincoln was in office. I’ll bet you do, but I am going to give you a chance to answer.
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

So who cares?.The issue of war still wsn’t slavery, and you have yet to prove the CSA existed to maintain slavery. Like I said you can drag out quotes all day, but until you find a document or find a quote by Davis stating such, your quotes are meaningless.

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…

You are cherry picking quotes and adding your spin to make you roght, so what is the difference? The difference I can prove my point with documents, you have to rely on quotes from individuals who are not policy makers to prop up your claims. You have yet to provide one accurate document that supports your “it was all about slavery” issue. I don’t have to look at anything in any particular manner, history has already take care of that for me.

You do have some don’t you?

Declarations of war??? The Confederacy never declared war, but Lincoln did. And do you know why. This is a question I will alos give you a chance to answer. Let’s see what you really know.
Oh and yes I do have all of the declarations of war for the states that issued one. Only one state even mentions slavery do you know what state that is?
Seems to me you have your homework cut out for you.

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.”

So how many slaves were freed at Sumter?

No but he made a declaration and then called congress back in secession – four months later. And do you know why Fort Sumter was fired on??? Do you know who fired the first shot? I do and it wasn’t the Confederates.

“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
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
Doesn’t matter what he was responding tothe fact remains he didn’t want Negroes in the territories free or slave. These are Lincolns words, there just no argument about that.
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.

Lincoln was as racist as anyone who lived in that day. It was the Northern states who started the Black Codes. Like you I see no relevance for this

People constantly try to take him anti-historically out of context just to slander him at all costs.
Isn’t that the same with the Confederacy and the Confederate leaders.
“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.

Pull up quotes from wherever you need them. So far I have proved nerarly every quote you posited to be a cheery picked partial of the while designed to only support you opinion not the historical truth.

“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”
So now I am naïve? What exactly would you call yourself after bowing down and worshiping at the throne of Lincoln? So prove that Davis fought for slavery. We know for a fact Lincoln was fighting to free them.
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.
So you don’t know about the Davis quote? Why am I not surprised. The only thing you seem to know is your own opinion and that is wrong. Now can you prove that quote is incorrect or not? I think I posted the source for it, look it up.
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.

Yes but what is Davis talking about? You fail to post that part. So here is what I am going to do, I am going to give you a chance to make it right by posting the entire exchange. You see this had nothing to do with slavery. You are simply being dishonest.

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.
Ah but that is just an opinion by one man. Much the same as opinions we hear about Trump, Clinton, Sanders or any world leader. Who knows there may even be some bias involved here. You example as noted doesn’t amount to anything.
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.
Thank you. So it was Fort Sumter that started the war. I thought you said it was over slavery, make up your mind—slavery or Fort Sumter. You cannot have bothe. Now had I bee Davis, I too would have ordered the firing at Sumter because like all Confederate officials he knew Lincoln had already started hostitilities.
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.
Well I simply don’t understand, if Davis made this statements about fighting for independence late in the war, where is the early statements from tbefore or at the beginning of the war stating we are fighting for slavery. Let’s see a war declaration or something to prove your point. So far all you have posted is negative and biased opinions.
“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
So? Mississippi voted to leave the Union because of slavery? So what? Slavery was an issue to secession but not the only reason. We have covered that ground once. So I find it strange you didn’t post this about Mississippi Secession docs — It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

Jeff Davis farewell Humm I thought he didn’t start talking about peace until the war was nearly over. You are being dishonest again.

I find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours. I am sure I feel no hostility to you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent towards those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in God and in our own firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may.

“Your quotes about secession may be true, I don’t know and I don’t really care. Slavery 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.

You see that is the difference between us. You must hang your hat on the slavery nail and ignore all of the other issues involved. You somehow feel you must take and hold the moral high ground and slavery is the foundation of your argument and it must be protected at all cost.
Why? You need to justify an illegal war and the atrocities committed by the Yankee invaders. History is the victim of your argument.

Me I readily admit slavery was a cause of secession but not a cause to the war. It is provable through documents of the period

“very quickly the reason for secession becomes the reason for rebellion.” And that is nothing more than your opinion, you have failewd miserably to provide one document or quote that states we are fighting for slavery. NOT ONE have you provided.

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.

I’ll be happy to prove the revenue point, but that will be another blog post

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:

I would suppose you are entitled to your opinion since you don’t know the facts. Now when I prove the point are you going to admit you are wrong?
“Hummm is right 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.
Really let’s se, Can you tell me who built the CSS Shenandoah? The Alabama?


One thought on “A post by Mr. Jason Perez and my responses

  1. Folks I will never let a post of this length be posted again. If you can’t make your point and post your facts in a short paragraph use several posts. Good grief this was time consuming!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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