Nikki Haley

Prometheus85 said:

In a interview with Glenn Beck Nikki Haley said the Confederate Flag was a symbol of "service and sacrifice and heritage" unit Dylan Roof hijacked it.

This is nothing new. After the war, Confederate apologists concocted a narrative about 'states rights', lionized generals like Robert E. Lee. They were so successful that to this day most people have no idea what really caused the Civil War, and think that monuments to traitors are part of our heritage.

Click to expand...

And the replacement?

A black man in dreads, wearing a hoodie, and sporting Nikes.


New Statue Unveiled In Response To Richmond's Confederate Monuments

Oh the grand future. ..

Well, that was easy enough. At least we have established that it was the ****yankees that were the traitors and not the South.

So, since this thread involves Nikki Haley and the Confederate flag we may as well address the flag issue. I doubt Nikki Haley knows much about it herself as most don't. If she did she could defend herself much better.

But, we know now that it doesn't represent 'traitor' as the Southernor was not the traitor. The next big accusation is that it represents 'slavery'...if we are still allowed to speak the word. So, how does the Confederate flag represent slavery? Because there were slaves in the South? There had been and were still some slaves in the North. We had chickens in the South too. Does the the Confederate flag represent chickens? Silly isn't it?

People claim the South seceded due to slavery as it is written in their own secession statements. But that is a yes/no answer. Yes the North hated the slavery of the South, but only because it supported the agriculture economy of the South. Not because they gave a **** about the negro. The North wanted to destroy the economy of the South, and taking away slavery would do just that. So yes, slavery was an issue. The South opposed the North's constant allowance of the lunatic abolitionist's attacks against them.

But, as I have already pointed out, slavery was protected by the Constitution. And the Supreme Court had just ruled in the South's favor in the Dred Scott case, that the Southernor was free to take his slaves anywhere he wanted. Why would the South secede to enslave the negro people when slavery was protected by law?

And, it only gets better. After Lincolns election, the North recognized the South was ready to secede. Thus they offered the 13th amendment at that time known as the Corwin Amendment. It was a guarantee to the South that no amendment can be made to the Constitution that would interfere with slavery. That meant 'forever', as long as they don't secede.

And, Lincoln, yes the great emancipator, promised to support this amendment. So, talk about slavery being protected...it couldn't have been more protected. Yet the South said no to all the above. They were not seceding to enslave the negro people. There was much more at stake. You can easily google these facts. But if any require I will get you the quotes.

So, if the South did not secede because of slavery, then the Confederate flag does not represent slavery. It doesn't matter what the NAACP says or the SPLC says, or the PC crowd says, or the liberal leftist feel good says. That is history 101.

Good-Ole-Rebel

My, my. Where are all the libs, and haters of the Confederate flag? Where are all the '****yankees' who love to abuse the Southern flag and people?

What seems to be the problem? Yall just curled into your shell?

Breathe deep that smoke the Feds have been feeding you. It come from a pile of dried bull****.

Is there any men among you? Probably not...just 'guys'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

The irony in this thread astounds me.

Woberts said:

The irony in this thread astounds me.

Click to expand...

Me too.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Prometheus85 said:

In a interview with Glenn Beck Nikki Haley said the Confederate Flag was a symbol of "service and sacrifice and heritage" unit Dylan Roof hijacked it.

This is nothing new. After the war, Confederate apologists concocted a narrative about 'states rights', lionized generals like Robert E. Lee. They were so successful that to this day most people have no idea what really caused the Civil War, and think that monuments to traitors are part of our heritage.

Click to expand...

The problem with this assessment, is it stays in the shallows. If go deeper and look at the bigger picture, the Democrat Party of the 19th century, invented the rebel flag. They are the party who wanted to perpetuate slavery. Once this did not pan out, they tried to divide the country with a Civil War. All the monuments to Confederate Generals, are also monuments to die hard Democrats, who drank too much of the Democrat Party cool aid. Their heart was in the right place, but the cool aid was poison, so their action fell short of justice.

Segregation, KKK, Jim Cow laws were all products of the Democrats. My advice is, instead of wading in the shallows, we need to look at the common link. The term "Democrat Party" needs to be torn down like a evil monument to the past. Treating the surface of a cancer, does not kill the cancer. You need to dig out the source of the cancer at the roots.

In the time of Lincoln, who was a Republican, the Democrats loss a major self defining issue; slavery. Today they lost another self defining issue called globalism. In both cases, instead of accept the results and move on, both times they tried to divide the country. The modern Democrats also perpetuate monuments to their resistance; sanctuary cities. The cancer was never treated. Only the surface was bandaged.

The Democrats need to break from the past, by renaming themselves, so they can kill the cancer. We would have the same people, with the same principles, but a new name with no history. Why perpetuate a root cancer monument, to a shady past, that turned good people, into people, the young people now hate. In the future, this will be you.

Once a new tradition begins, the past is gone, You have a second chance.

wellwisher said:

The problem with this assessment, is it stays in the shallows. If go deeper and look at the bigger picture, the Democrat Party of the 19th century, invented the rebel flag. They are the party who wanted to perpetuate slavery. Once this did not pan out, they tried to divide the country with a Civil War. All the monuments to Confederate Generals, are also monuments to die hard Democrats, who drank too much of the Democrat Party cool aid. Their heart was in the right place, but the cool aid was poison, so their action fell short of justice.

Segregation, KKK, Jim Cow laws were all products of the Democrats. My advice is, instead of wading in the shallows, we need to look at the common link. The term "Democrat Party" needs to be torn down like a evil monument to the past. Treating the surface of a cancer, does not kill the cancer. You need to dig out the source of the cancer at the roots.

In the time of Lincoln, who was a Republican, the Democrats loss a major self defining issue; slavery. Today they lost another self defining issue called globalism. In both cases, instead of accept the results and move on, both times they tried to divide the country. The modern Democrats also perpetuate monuments to their resistance; sanctuary cities. The cancer was never treated. Only the surface was bandaged.

The Democrats need to break from the past, by renaming themselves, so they can kill the cancer. We would have the same people, with the same principles, but a new name with no history. Why perpetuate a root cancer monument, to a shady past, that turned good people, into people, the young people now hate. In the future, this will be you.

Once a new tradition begins, the past is gone, You have a second chance.

Click to expand...

If the South, which was Democrat, wanted to perpetuate slavery, why did it secede? See post #(42).

You can blame the KKK on the Northern Republicans. As it was just a response to the Reconstruction.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Me too.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

You might want to point that at yourself, buddy.

Woberts said:

You might want to point that at yourself, buddy.

Click to expand...

Why...pardner?

Good-Ole-Rebel

@ImmortalFlame

Waiting. What happened? You were so bold in another thread. I thought you were serious about discussing the Confederate Flag.

Gee, just like all the rest. You ever heard of 'crawfish'. Note how they always back up.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

@ImmortalFlame

Waiting. What happened? You were so bold in another thread. I thought you were serious about discussing the Confederate Flag.

Gee, just like all the rest. You ever heard of 'crawfish'. Note how they always back up.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

Nice try, but I'm not really interested in having you talk at me for a long time about how a blatantly racist symbol of black enslavement is totally not the thing it obviously is.

I learned long ago that trying to reason with such people is pointless. I'm happy to expose your lack of logic to other people, though!

EDIT: Although, to be fair, I shouldn't really have brought up your post in an unrelated thread. Bad form, I'll admit.

ImmortalFlame said:

Nice try, but I'm not really interested in having you talk at me for a long time about how a blatantly racist symbol of black enslavement is totally not the thing it obviously is.

I learned long ago that trying to reason with such people is pointless. I'm happy to expose your lack of logic to other people, though!

EDIT: Although, to be fair, I shouldn't really have brought up your post in an unrelated thread. Bad form, I'll admit.

Click to expand...

No, you're not interested because you're scared it will reveal how wrong you are. You and the yankee nation have believed for too long the lies that have been told. To find out they were but lies, is too much for yall to bear.

You and the rest would rather remain ignorant and continue on the direction you are going.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

No, you're not interested because you're scared it will reveal how wrong you are. You and the yankee nation have believed for too long the lies that have been told. To find out they were but lies, is too much for yall to bear.

You and the rest would rather remain ignorant and continue on the direction you are going.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you'll believe it.

ImmortalFlame said:

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you'll believe it.

Click to expand...

No I'm telling you. I already believe it. Prove me wrong. Read post #(42). Answer my questions. Why would the South secede to keep the negro enslaved when the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scot, and the offer of the 13th amendment, and Lincolns endorsement of it, protected slavery forever in the U.S?

But the South did secede? Why?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

No I'm telling you. I already believe it. Prove me wrong. Read post #(42). Answer my questions. Why would the South secede to keep the negro enslaved when the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scot, and the offer of the 13th amendment, and Lincolns endorsement of it, protected slavery forever in the U.S?

But the South did secede? Why?

Click to expand...

Okay then, I'll bite.

Because secession wasn't just about retaining slaves. It was about the expansion of slavery into the territory states, and a proposal put forward by congress to prevent it:

Wilmot Proviso - Wikipedia

The Confereracy didn't just want to continue owning slaves. They built their entire ethos around the idea of slave-owning as a right, and the natural state of black people being enslavement. They weren't happy to simply retain their slaves, they believed it was a right that they wished to expand into other territories, justified by the foundational principle that they believed black people were inferior to white, and their correct place was in subordinate to whites:

ImmortalFlame said:

Okay then, I'll bite.

Because secession wasn't just about retaining slaves. It was about the expansion of slavery into the territory states, and a proposal put forward by congress to prevent it:

Wilmot Proviso - Wikipedia

The Confereracy didn't just want to continue owning slaves. They built their entire ethos around the idea of slave-owning as a right, and the natural state of black people being enslavement. They weren't happy to simply retain their slaves, they believed it was a right that they wished to expand into other territories, justified by the foundational principle that they believed black people were inferior to white, and their correct place was in subordinate to whites:

"[...] But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. [...]"

- Alexander H. Stevens, Vice President of the Confederate States, 1861

SOURCE: Cornerstone Speech


"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* [emphasis in the original] 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 "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."

- South Carolina, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, 1860


"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."

- Mississippi, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, 1860


"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

- Texas, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, 1860

SOURCE: The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States​

Click to expand...

Not so. The Dred Scott decision annulled the Missouri Compromise and the Southernor was free to take his slaves in any state and in territory he wanted to.

So, again, why would the South secede when slavery was Constitutionally protected by the 4th amendment and the Southernor was free to take his slaves in any state or territory he wanted as stated in the Dred Scott decision, and the offer of the 13th amendment to protect it forever in the U.S. was offered and supported by Lincoln?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Not so. The Dred Scott decision annulled the Missouri Compromise and the Southernor was free to take his slaves in any state and in territory he wanted to.

So, again, why would the South secede when slavery was Constitutionally protected by the 4th amendment and the Southernor was free to take his slaves in any state or territory he wanted as stated in the Dred Scott decision, and the offer of the 13th amendment to protect it forever in the U.S. was offered and supported by Lincoln?

Click to expand...

I notice that you clearly skipped over the bulk of my post which quotes leaders of the Conferderacy and the actual declaration of seceding itself as saying that the reasons for the war was because of slavery, and because the introduction of such things as the Wilmot Proviso lead them to believe that the North - and thus, the federal government - were gradually working towards outlawing of slavery.

It's what they quite unambiguously said.

Prometheus85 said:

In a interview with Glenn Beck Nikki Haley said the Confederate Flag was a symbol of "service and sacrifice and heritage" unit Dylan Roof hijacked it.

This is nothing new. After the war, Confederate apologists concocted a narrative about 'states rights', lionized generals like Robert E. Lee. They were so successful that to this day most people have no idea what really caused the Civil War, and think that monuments to traitors are part of our heritage.

Click to expand...

ImmortalFlame said:

Okay then, I'll bite.

Because secession wasn't just about retaining slaves. It was about the expansion of slavery into the territory states, and a proposal put forward by congress to prevent it:

Wilmot Proviso - Wikipedia

The Confereracy didn't just want to continue owning slaves. They built their entire ethos around the idea of slave-owning as a right, and the natural state of black people being enslavement. They weren't happy to simply retain their slaves, they believed it was a right that they wished to expand into other territories, justified by the foundational principle that they believed black people were inferior to white, and their correct place was in subordinate to whites:

"[...] But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. [...]"

- Alexander H. Stevens, Vice President of the Confederate States, 1861

SOURCE: Cornerstone Speech


"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* [emphasis in the original] 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 "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."

- South Carolina, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, 1860


"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."

- Mississippi, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, 1860


"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

- Texas, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, 1860

SOURCE: The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States​

Click to expand...

Just a note. If you read the full texts you should notice how religion is invoked. This was a repeat of issues the RCC had in the 15th/16th centuries. The Bible claims people of all lands heard the message of Christ. Yet as centuries went by more and more civilizations were encountered that never heard of Christ let alone any message. The resolution to this error was to conclude those people were sub-human in order to maintain religious claims instead of concluding the text was wrong. Also the natural order point was Greek, Athenian if I remember correctly.

ImmortalFlame said:

I notice that you clearly skipped over the bulk of my post which quotes leaders of the Conferderacy and the actual declaration of seceding itself as saying that the reasons for the war was because of slavery, and because the introduction of such things as the Wilmot Proviso lead them to believe that the North - and thus, the federal government - were gradually working towards outlawing of slavery.

It's what they quite unambiguously said.

Click to expand...

Agitation from Northern abolitionist's over slavery had been going on for quite some time. But slavery was protected by the 4th amendment. Once the Dred Scott decision came down from the Supreme Court, the South's slavery was protected and the Southernor could take his slaves any where he wanted.

I did not ignore your post. Your answer to my question was not correct. The South could now go into the territories with their slaves if they wanted to. So why should they secede? Not only could they go into the territories, but they could go also into any northern state they wanted. Once they seceded, that would be lost.

Slavery was definitely the issue used to fire up opposition against the South. So it is not surprising that some leaders saw it as the reason for secession. But here again, why? When they had all the protections they needed?

Understand that for several of the States which would eventually make up the Confederacy, such as Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and N. Carolina, slavery was not even a consideration in seceding. They seceded later, and only because Lincoln was going to force them to go to war against the lower states that seceded.

So, the question still remains. Why did the Southern states secede when slavery was protected by the 4th amendment? It was protected by the Dred Scott decision giving the Southernor the freedom to go anywhere he wanted with his slaves. And the 13th amendment was promised to the South to protect slavery forever in the U.S. And Lincoln endorsed this amendment?

Good-Ole-Rebel