Was the civil war about slavery?

Forums: History, Civil War, Slavery
Email this Topic • Print this Page

@Frank Apisa,

Do you suppose Davey thought is was about the style of the flag??? Or uniform colours?? Perhaps the price of cotton??? Well, the bare assed truth is the continued privilege of being allowed to own people. Apparently that was a tough sell, it would have cut into profit to pay free people. It's always about the filthy lucre.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Do you suppose Davey thought is was about the style of the flag??? Or uniform colours?? Perhaps the price of cotton??? Well, the bare assed truth is the continued privilege of being allowed to own people.

Glitterbag, if u choose to argue that
the South left the Union because
thay were going to LOSE black slavery,
then please prove your point.
Show us some evidence of it.
If the South chose to stay in the Union,
then HOW cud it possibly lose black slavery???

The 13th Amendment cud not possibly have been enacted,
if the South were voting against it in both houses of Congress
and also in the States' ratification. If I m rong,
then please show how.

David

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.

FOR THE REASONS
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.
FOR THE REASONS
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.

All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.
FOR THE REASONS
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.

All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.

If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.

Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)

Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.

When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.

That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.
FOR THE REASONS
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.

All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.

If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.

Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)

Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.

When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.

That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.

David

As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.

You gotta deal with that, David.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.
FOR THE REASONS
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.

All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.

If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.

Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)

Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.

When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.

That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.

David

As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.

You gotta deal with that, David.

I will deal with that, if u give me quotes
and maybe some links to whatever it is that u allege that thay SAID.

U STILL have ignored my questions herinabove in this post, Frank.
U don t like it, when people do that to U!

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.
FOR THE REASONS
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.

All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.

If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.

Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)

Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.

When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.

That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.

David

As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.

You gotta deal with that, David.

I will deal with that, if u give me quotes
and maybe some links to whatever it is that u allege that thay SAID.

U STILL have ignored my questions herinabove in this post, Frank.
U don t like it, when people do that to U!

David

I have suggested that you read the declarations of secession of the southern states from the Union...and see if you can find one that does not make the institution of slavery an essential ingredient in what they are doing.

Google the declarations of secession of South Carolina first...and then the other seceding states afterwards, David.

If the institution of slavery is not mentioned...you may be on to something. But I think you will find it mentioned...and mentioned prominently.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.
FOR THE REASONS
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.

All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.

If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.

Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)

Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.

When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.

That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.

David

As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.

You gotta deal with that, David.

I will deal with that, if u give me quotes
and maybe some links to whatever it is that u allege that thay SAID.

U STILL have ignored my questions herinabove in this post, Frank.
U don t like it, when people do that to U!

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have suggested that you read the declarations of secession of the southern states from the Union...and see if you can find one that does not make the institution of slavery an essential ingredient in what they are doing.

Google the declarations of secession of South Carolina first...and then the other seceding states afterwards, David.

If the institution of slavery is not mentioned...you may be on to something. But I think you will find it mentioned...and mentioned prominently.

OK, Frank, I don t intend to make a big research project
of this, but per your recommendation,
I Googled South Carolina 's declaration of secession
and got this brief summary description:

Wikipedia wrote:

An official secession convention met in South Carolina following the November 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States.[1] On December 20, 1860, the convention issued an ordinance of secession announcing the state's withdrawal from the union.[2]
The ordinance was brief,
containing no explanation of the reasoning behind the delegates' decision:
We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and eight eight, whereby the Constitution of the United State of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendment of the said Constitution, are here by repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of “The United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.[3]

Perhaps u wanna quote us something
that particularly impressed u on this subject,
or offer a link to the information that u have specifically in mind??

(Note that all of my questions to u STILL remain un-answered by u.
When guys have done that to u, u did not like it and u objected!!!)

How about it, Frank???????

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely
if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...
and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War. [BALONEY!!!]

What did thay say, that impressed u so much, Frank???

Regardless of what thay said in their declarations of secession,
thay were obviously in no danger of losing black slavery
IF thay remained in the Union, fully represented in Congress
to vote in defense of their interests. If I have mis-calculated,
and thay had something to gain, in terms of securing black slavery
by leaving the Union, then please tell us WHAT it was.

David

Maybe they were collectively being as illogical and stoneheaded as you are being in this discussion, David.

I really do not know.

But because THEY said they were leaving the Union because of the supposed interference with the institution of slavery by the non-slave states...I am going to take them at their word.

I wonder why you are not.
FOR THE REASONS
THAT I ALREADY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE
IN THIS THREAD. ENUF WITH THE REDUNDANCY, ALREADY.

All I am interested in establishing is that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, David...so it is fine with me if this ends.

If u r INTERESTED in doing that,
then GO AHEAD and PROVE IT.
In my opinion, u will find that impossible to do,
because in NO way did leaving the Union
serve to perpetuate black slavery. It simply does not make sense,
for the reasons that I have already set forth above in this thread.

Prove me rong: go ahead! (U can t.)

Incidentally, in support of my argument,
I have asked u many questions hereinabove,
which u have completely Ignored.

When U claim that someone has failed to answer
one of YOUR questions, then u have been very persistent
and repetitive, but u dont return the favor:no, u just leave my questions IGNORED,
instead of admitting that I 'm right.

That 's poor sportsmanship, Frank.
If u wanna make it right, then please look up above in this post
and see all of my questions to u, that u ignored, as if I did not ask them
and ANSWER them.

David

As I have said before and will continue to say, David...I will take the seceding states word for why they seceded. In their resolutions of secession...THEY say they are seceding primarily because of the attitude of the Union toward slavery.

You gotta deal with that, David.

I will deal with that, if u give me quotes
and maybe some links to whatever it is that u allege that thay SAID.

U STILL have ignored my questions herinabove in this post, Frank.
U don t like it, when people do that to U!

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
I have suggested that you read the declarations of secession of the southern states from the Union...and see if you can find one that does not make the institution of slavery an essential ingredient in what they are doing.

Google the declarations of secession of South Carolina first...and then the other seceding states afterwards, David.

If the institution of slavery is not mentioned...you may be on to something. But I think you will find it mentioned...and mentioned prominently.

OK, Frank, I don t intend to make a big research project
of this, but per your recommendation,
I Googled South Carolina 's declaration of secession
and got this brief summary description:

Wikipedia wrote:
An official secession convention met in South Carolina following the November 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States.[1] On December 20, 1860, the convention issued an ordinance of secession announcing the state's withdrawal from the union.[2]
The ordinance was brief,
containing no explanation of the reasoning behind the delegates' decision:
We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and eight eight, whereby the Constitution of the United State of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendment of the said Constitution, are here by repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of “The United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.[3]

Perhaps u wanna quote us something
that particularly impressed u on this subject,
or offer a link to the information that u have specifically in mind??

(Note that all of my questions to u STILL remain un-answered by u.
When guys have done that to u, u did not like it and u objected!!!)

How about it, Frank???????

Here is the South Carolina Declaration of Secession:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. 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. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

0 Replies

Here is Mississippi's Declaration:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

0 Replies

Hopefully everyone still understands English, well mainly those who argue why a war was fought, will be able to decipher what those articles of secession actually say. I will add that it's highly unlikely that anyone who witnessed or assisted drafting these documents is still alive, so lets not start quibbling about asking the deceased to testify.

0 Replies

This the declaration of Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

You can see how often slavery is mentioned in this declaration also.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

MY ancestors arrived in America AFTER
the War Between the States. We owe them nothing.
I don t wanna pay tax money to blacks. I owe them nothing.

David

You have a lot of company, in your sentiments, in my opinion. Plus, you forgot to add the most robust arguement, in my opinion, in that many people today did not have any slaveholders in their families.

The counter argument might be that when families came to this country they did not come here to see their sons fight in future wars. That was the price paid to become an American, at least in the past. So, being an American is different than being a person most anywhere else.

But, of the two minorities that have disadvantaged populations in the country today, Hispanics and Blacks, I have read that both have their respective mentor demographics, that interestingly is based on religion - Blacks have white Protestants, and Hispanics have white Catholics. So, based on who owns and runs this country, I would believe that Blacks will continue to be receiving some government largesse, based on that fact alone. Let's not forget many Blacks have WASP surnames for a reason.

You do know that there are Catholic churches that assist illegal aliens, mostly Hispanic. Now, do you think the white Protestants in the Southwest find that appealing?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Incidentally, I do not believe that any Union soldiers
were asked whether thay love the Africans enuf
to put up with inconveniences or to endanger their lives and limbs for them.

As I've read, many Union soldiers joined the Civil War to eventually have a white west, when the western territories became states. That means if slavery was prohibited in those western territories, when they became states, then white males would have jobs there, since plantations needed few white males to be employed, if the western territories became slave states.

0 Replies

Was the civil war about slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know