Nikki Haley

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Actually, it was. Read the article of secession.

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.

Except, as I explained, the continual agitation from the North and the prevailing sense that the North was slowly working towards abolition coupled with the fact that those representing the south saw slavery not simply a their State's right but something that should be enshrined within the ethos of the entire country is what lead to the war. It wasn't just about the south wanting to keep their slaves - it was about them believing that slavery was a moral good that the North was attempting to restrict, if not abolish.

Again, it's all there in the declaration and the words of Alexander H. Stevens above. This isn't historical revisionism. These are the actual stated reasons for secession by those states.

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?

Because they didn't have the protections they wanted. They didn't just want to own slaves, they saw slave owning as the right of all Americans and slavery as the natural state of black people, and wanted that enshrined in Federal law.

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.

Irrelevant. They joined the cause of several States who initially seceded for reasons entirely relating to slavery.

They seceded later, and only because Lincoln was going to force them to go to war against the lower states that seceded.

The reason those lower states seceded being slavery.

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?

See above.

And yet you haven't responded or even acknowledged the STATED REASONS why they seceded. Why not?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Actually, it was. Read the article of secession.


Except, as I explained, the continual agitation from the North and the prevailing sense that the North was slowly working towards abolition coupled with the fact that those representing the south saw slavery not simply a their State's right but something that should be enshrined within the ethos of the entire country is what lead to the war. It wasn't just about the south wanting to keep their slaves - it was about them believing that slavery was a moral good that the North was attempting to restrict, if not abolish.

Again, it's all there in the declaration and the words of Alexander H. Stevens above. This isn't historical revisionism. These are the actual stated reasons for secession by those states.


Because they didn't have the protections they wanted. They didn't just want to own slaves, they saw slave owning as the right of all Americans and slavery as the natural state of black people, and wanted that enshrined in Federal law.


Irrelevant. They joined the cause of several States who initially seceded for reasons entirely relating to slavery.


The reason those lower states seceded being slavery.


See above.

And yet you haven't responded or even acknowledged the STATED REASONS why they seceded. Why not?

No, they had the protections they wanted. That is the point. They had it under Federal Law. It was already protected by the 4th amendment. The Dred Scott decision was a Federal Supreme Court decision. They had everything they wanted. And even more. It was the North that offered up the 13th amendment to protect slavery forever in the U.S. if the South would not secede. The South didn't ask for it.

So, again, why would the South secede when they had it all?

You mentioned the 'prevailing attitude of the north'. Yes, that certainly played a role. But not as you describe. Their attitude had been prior to secession to allow the South to be bombarded by the abolitionist's propaganda promoting war and slave insurrection. They allowed a murderer John Brown to run free in the North and develop his terroristic war against Southern slave owners, who were supposedly protected by the Constitution.

When the Dred Scott decision was given by the Supreme Court, which was to settle forever the slave question, what was the North's reaction? They exploded against the decision and refused to acknowledge it. In other words, the attitude of the North was they didn't care about the protections offered under the Constitution to the South.

That slavery was the issue used to come against the South is immaterial. It was the refusal of the North to acknowledge to the South their protection under the Constitution, which she always had. The North could offer anything it wanted, such as the 13th amendment, but their 'prevailing attitude' would not change. The South would not be treated as an equal in the Union.

Jefferson Davis gives the reason for secession. (The Rise and Fall f the Confederate Government, Vol. I, Jefferson Davis, DA CAPO, 1990,) "It was not the passage of the 'personal liberty laws,' it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union--generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion form the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity. " (p. 70)

And concerning the Dred Scott decision Davis said, "All parties, however, had united in declaring that a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States--the highest judicial tribunal in the land--would be accepted as final." (p. 70)

He goes on to say, "Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal--the ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions--as conclusive of a controversy that had so long disturbed the peace and was threatening the perpetuity of the Union, it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility. " (p. 71)

He goes on to say, "What resource for justice--what assurance of tranquillity--what guarantee of safety--now remained for the South?....No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it. "

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, they had the protections they wanted.

Evidently, they did not. Hence the declaration of secession.

That is the point. They had it under Federal Law. It was already protected by the 4th amendment. The Dred Scott decision was a Federal Supreme Court decision. They had everything they wanted. And even more. It was the North that offered up the 13th amendment to protect slavery forever in the U.S. if the South would not secede. The South didn't ask for it.

Because the proposed amendment only amounted to protecting slavery in the states where it was already legal, not in allowing it to expand to further states where it had been outlawed.

As it clearly stated in the declaration of secession, this was not good enough for the southern states, who saw their campaign as an attempt to bring slavery into being a national institution, as they believed the US was founded, and they saw ANY attempt to contain slavery - or further restrict it - as a betrayal of this fundamental value. The election of Abraham Lincoln, who was generally regarded as hostile to the institution of slavery, only fanned the flames. The proposed 13th amendment was a last-ditch attempt by Lincoln to prevent secession, but was not satisfactory to the southern Union states because it specifically restricted slavery to the states where it was already legal, and didn't allow for its expansion into further territories or states. This was further worsened by what was seen as attempts by Northern politicians to agitate the south through aiding and encouraging runaway slaves ,and the constant disconnect between North and South where it concerned the return and free status of what the south viewed as their property.

That property in question being people.

Specifically, black people.

Because it was all about slavery.

So, again, why would the South secede when they had it all?

Because they didn't have it all. They felt the north had rallied unjustly to elect a president who was hostile to what they saw as one of their fundamental values: that black people should be subservient to whites. This was made extremely clear in the declaration and was specified as THE primary reason for secession by multiple states in the Confederacy.

You mentioned the 'prevailing attitude of the north'. Yes, that certainly played a role. But not as you describe. Their attitude had been prior to secession to allow the South to be bombarded by the abolitionist's propaganda promoting war and slave insurrection. They allowed a murderer John Brown to run free in the North and develop his terroristic war against Southern slave owners, who were supposedly protected by the Constitution.

All irrelevant to the fact that the secession was fundamentally based on white supremacist ideology and the desire for slavery to be federally protected in all states, not just in the south, and that they saw attempts by the North to aid and free slaves as attacks on their financial infrastructure and rights as white citizens.

When the Dred Scott decision was given by the Supreme Court, which was to settle forever the slave question,

Except it didn't. The Dred Scott decision didn't legalize slavery in all states, nor did it legislate that black people should naturally be considered subservient to whites or never be considered full citizens.

This is what the confederacy desired, as stated in the declaration of secessation.

what was the North's reaction? They exploded against the decision and refused to acknowledge it. In other words, the attitude of the North was they didn't care about the protections offered under the Constitution to the South.

Protections which were immoral, unjust and racist, and only justified by white supremacist ideology.

That slavery was the issue used to come against the South is immaterial.

Not according to the confederate states, who stated unequivocally that:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

In The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.

It was the refusal of the North to acknowledge to the South their protection under the Constitution, which she always had.

False. As you yourself have already established, the south was offered all the protection it needed. It seceded anyway, because it wasn't after just being protected. It saw the institution of slavery as a cornerstone of the US, and any attempt to contain or abolish it as a betrayal of those ideals.

They waged war against the north on the back of white supremacist ideology.

The North could offer anything it wanted, such as the 13th amendment, but their 'prevailing attitude' would not change. The South would not be treated as an equal in the Union.

While that may have been true, it is undeniable that the central issue that divided the Nation WAS slavery.

Jefferson Davis gives the reason for secession. (The Rise and Fall f the Confederate Government, Vol. I, Jefferson Davis, DA CAPO, 1990,) "It was not the passage of the 'personal liberty laws,' it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union--generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion form the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity. " (p. 70)

And concerning the Dred Scott decision Davis said, "All parties, however, had united in declaring that a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States--the highest judicial tribunal in the land--would be accepted as final." (p. 70)

He goes on to say, "Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal--the ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions--as conclusive of a controversy that had so long disturbed the peace and was threatening the perpetuity of the Union, it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility. " (p. 71)

He goes on to say, "What resource for justice--what assurance of tranquillity--what guarantee of safety--now remained for the South?....No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it. "

Good-Ole-Rebel

You mean, the Jefferson Davis who said this:

"In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction.

"Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slave-holding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man.

"With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced."

- Address to the Confederate Congress, 29 April 1861
SOURCE: Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)​

Davis saw the wealth and power of the Southern States as intrinsically linked with its use of slaves - something he clearly celebrated and stated was indispensable, and that it was when the north challenged the institution of slavery - not just as a financial aid but a moral right, as they believed they had dominion over the black race - that directly lead to the civil war. The interests he is talking about in your quote above are the interests of owning slaves. The values he is referring to are the values of white supremacy.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Evidently, they did not. Hence the declaration of secession.


Because the proposed amendment only amounted to protecting slavery in the states where it was already legal, not in allowing it to expand to further states where it had been outlawed.

As it clearly stated in the declaration of secession, this was not good enough for the southern states, who saw their campaign as an attempt to bring slavery into being a national institution, as they believed the US was founded, and they saw ANY attempt to contain slavery - or further restrict it - as a betrayal of this fundamental value. The election of Abraham Lincoln, who was generally regarded as hostile to the institution of slavery, only fanned the flames. The proposed 13th amendment was a last-ditch attempt by Lincoln to prevent secession, but was not satisfactory to the southern Union states because it specifically restricted slavery to the states where it was already legal, and didn't allow for its expansion into further territories or states. This was further worsened by what was seen as attempts by Northern politicians to agitate the south through aiding and encouraging runaway slaves ,and the constant disconnect between North and South where it concerned the return and free status of what the south viewed as their property.

That property in question being people.

Specifically, black people.

Because it was all about slavery.


Because they didn't have it all. They felt the north had rallied unjustly to elect a president who was hostile to what they saw as one of their fundamental values: that black people should be subservient to whites. This was made extremely clear in the declaration and was specified as THE primary reason for secession by multiple states in the Confederacy.


All irrelevant to the fact that the secession was fundamentally based on white supremacist ideology and the desire for slavery to be federally protected in all states, not just in the south, and that they saw attempts by the North to aid and free slaves as attacks on their financial infrastructure and rights as white citizens.


Except it didn't. The Dred Scott decision didn't legalize slavery in all states, nor did it legislate that black people should naturally be considered subservient to whites or never be considered full citizens.

This is what the confederacy desired, as stated in the declaration of secessation.


Protections which were immoral, unjust and racist, and only justified by white supremacist ideology.


Not according to the confederate states, who stated unequivocally that:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

In The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.


False. As you yourself have already established, the south was offered all the protection it needed. It seceded anyway, because it wasn't after just being protected. It saw the institution of slavery as a cornerstone of the US, and any attempt to contain or abolish it as a betrayal of those ideals.

They waged war against the north on the back of white supremacist ideology.


While that may have been true, it is undeniable that the central issue that divided the Nation WAS slavery.


You mean, the Jefferson Davis who said this:

"In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction.

"Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slave-holding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man.

"With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced."

- Address to the Confederate Congress, 29 April 1861
SOURCE: Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)​

Davis saw the wealth and power of the Southern States as intrinsically linked with its use of slaves - something he clearly celebrated and stated was indispensable, and that it was when the north challenged the institution of slavery - not just as a financial aid but a moral right, as they believed they had dominion over the black race - that directly lead to the civil war. The interests he is talking about in your quote above are the interests of owning slaves. The values he is referring to are the values of white supremacy.

Sorry, the Dred Scott decision annulled the Missouri Compromise. The Southerner could take his slaves any where he wanted. He could take them to territories, he could take them to free states. That was the ruling of the Supreme Court. Expansion no more played a role.

Whether the North or you agree with the Dred Scott decision is immaterial. It was the decision. Thus the South had everything they could have hoped for. Except the North was not willing to allow them to have it or keep it. The South was for the Constitution. The North viewed it as a Covenant with Hell. Whose the traitor now?

It is not irrelevant to the fact. The fact was the South was operating legally under the Constitution. The North was not going to abide by that Constitution and allow the South the protections they deserved. The South didn't secede because of slavery. The South seceded because they were not treated equally under the Constitution.

Of course slavery was tied to the wealth and economics of the South. No one is denying that. And of course Southernors had a view of white supremacy. No one is denying that. Just like Abe Lincoln and the North had the same views of white supremacy.

That is not the point. The point is that the reason the South seceded was because they were not given the protections they were allowed under the Constitution. You can holler slavery, you can holler white supremacy all you want. You can disagree with it. It doesn't matter. It was Constitutional. And up to now, we have only been talking about slavery. It wans't the only issue.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[MikeDwight]

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.

Well the Governor of South Carolina makes a good point that most people just ended up there, like, the aforementioned Robert E. Lee. Yes, that's your state's school, etc.

On the topic, it doesn't seem to do the "heritage" job its supposed to. Don't we know the States were formed from the religious zeal of the Pilgrims who sought a new home in America, the Puritan Pilgrims. That's reduced to a single Thanksgiving on the day George Washington has proclaimed one obviously.

Clearly, the Presbyterians are no longer in the usual worldwide objectives of Christianity, are they? The Westminster Confession signed by the Puritans in Westminster, London, England, were the result of the military aid of the Covenanters in Scotland who swore a Solemn League and Covenant to form a Reformed Confession between the two Kingdoms, with the Puritan Parliament. Then obviously the whole journey is an identity politics journey, obviously.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry, the Dred Scott decision annulled the Missouri Compromise. The Southerner could take his slaves any where he wanted. He could take them to territories, he could take them to free states. That was the ruling of the Supreme Court. Expansion no more played a role.

I've already explained that that wasn't relevant, because it wasn't just about the ability to TAKE slaves anywhere. It was about the south's belief in racial superiority being imbued in the Constitution, and they saw ANY attempt by the north to contain slavery - even if just protecting slavery within the confines of the south and agitating them by lobbying for abolition - as infringing on their rights to own slaves. Again, this isn't postulation on my part. It's literally what is written in the declaration of secession.

Whether the North or you agree with the Dred Scott decision is immaterial. It was the decision. Thus the South had everything they could have hoped for.

Why do you insist on repeating arguments I've already debunked?

As is made abundantly clear in the declaration of secession and the words of the leaders of the Confederacy themselves, they did NOT have everything they wanted, and still felt like the institution of slavery was not being treated with the respect they felt it deserved by the north.

Except the North was not willing to allow them to have it or keep it. The South was for the Constitution. The North viewed it as a Covenant with Hell. Whose the traitor now?

That's garbage and you know it. As the vice president of the Confederacy observed, the parts of the Constitution that were used as justification for retaining slaves were considered at the time by the founding fathers as only temporary, as they generally saw slavery as an unjust institution that would eventually be abolished. The south rejected that ideal, and instead took on the ideal that slavery was the black man's natural state, and that America should be founded upon the principle of white supremacy.

Then, a leader was democratically elected president who was hostile to slavery, and so the south seceded and waged war against their own country.

They were traitors to the Constitution, and the nation.

It is not irrelevant to the fact. The fact was the South was operating legally under the Constitution. The North was not going to abide by that Constitution and allow the South the protections they deserved. The South didn't secede because of slavery. The South seceded because they were not treated equally under the Constitution.

This is just ignoring the fact that every right we're talking about regards the ownership of slaves. If you understand that slavery is immoral, then you should understand that any Constitutional protection afforded to it was rightly removed. The founding fathers themselves saw slavery only as a necessary evil that would, in time, be abolished. The South rejected this idea and embraced white supremacy.

Of course slavery was tied to the wealth and economics of the South. No one is denying that.

No, but you're clearly trying to avoid admitting it by talking exclusively about wealth and economics, without mentioning their intrinsic ties to slavery. When you talk about the north hampering southern industry, you're talking specifically about the north hampering the institution of slavery. When you're talking about the south being agitated by the north not acknowledging their rights, you're talking specifically about the rights to own slaves.

At this stage, talking about the former while avoiding talking about the latter isn't just missing the point - it's outright dishonest.

And of course Southernors had a view of white supremacy. No one is denying that. Just like Abe Lincoln and the North had the same views of white supremacy.

Possibly. But at least they were working to abolish slavery.

Lincoln wasn't a saint who freed the slaves because he believed in total racial equality. But at least he freed the slaves.

That is not the point. The point is that the reason the South seceded was because they were not given the protections they were allowed under the Constitution.

The protection to own slaves unhindered by the north and the non-slave holding states.

You can holler slavery, you can holler white supremacy all you want. You can disagree with it. It doesn't matter. It was Constitutional. And up to now, we have only been talking about slavery. It wans't the only issue.

You've yet to mention a single issue that wasn't intrinsically connected to slavery. Meanwhile, I have quoted both the president and vice president of the Confederacy stating that their positions are entirely based on the north's rejection of the institution of slavery and the threat they posed to it and their white supremacist ideology. And I have quoted the declaration of secession which unambiguously states such things as:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I've already explained that that wasn't relevant, because it wasn't just about the ability to TAKE slaves anywhere. It was about the south's belief in racial superiority being imbued in the Constitution, and they saw ANY attempt by the north to contain slavery - even if just protecting slavery within the confines of the south and agitating them by lobbying for abolition - as infringing on their rights to own slaves. Again, this isn't postulation on my part. It's literally what is written in the declaration of secession.


Why do you insist on repeating arguments I've already debunked?

As is made abundantly clear in the declaration of secession and the words of the leaders of the Confederacy themselves, they did NOT have everything they wanted, and still felt like the institution of slavery was not being treated with the respect they felt it deserved by the north.


That's garbage and you know it. As the vice president of the Confederacy observed, the parts of the Constitution that were used as justification for retaining slaves were considered at the time by the founding fathers as only temporary, as they generally saw slavery as an unjust institution that would eventually be abolished. The south rejected that ideal, and instead took on the ideal that slavery was the black man's natural state, and that America should be founded upon the principle of white supremacy.

Then, a leader was democratically elected president who was hostile to slavery, and so the south seceded and waged war against their own country.

They were traitors to the Constitution, and the nation.

You cannot make the Dred Scott Constitutional decision irrelevant. It was now the Supreme Rule of the Land. It doesn't matter about any white supremacy. It doesn't matter who disliked it and for what reasons. It struck down the Missouri Compromise.

Concerning the Dred Scott decision and Chief Justice Taney: "Congress had no authority to excluded slavery from the territories. The property right of a slaveholder to his slaves merited full protection under the Constitution......But his decision elevated to supreme law of the land the extreme southern position on slavery in the territories, first enunciated by John C. Calhoun n response to the Wilmot Proviso. The Republicans found their major political tenet declared unconstitutional." (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court, 1996, p. 112-113)

"Northerners were stunned. Greeley's New York Tribune scorned the Court's decision as 'entitled to just so much oral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room." (p. 113)

I keep repeating these because you haven't 'debunked' anything. Due to the decision of the Supreme Court, the South was Constitutionally protected in taking it's slaves anywhere it wanted. It had everything it could have hoped for, except the North's willingness to abide by it.

Oh no, it's not garbage. I just showed you Greely's view of the Constitutional decision. Here is William Lloyd Garrison's view of the Constitution. Garrison was a leading Abolitionist and the Republican party was the party of the Abolitionist. "On July 4, 1854 William Llody Garrison set fire to a a copy of the U.S. Constitution. A covenant with death he called it, and an agreement with hell. Holding the parchment above his head, he repeated forcefully a psalmic rouse to the hundreds of men and women gathered around him: 'And let all the people say, Amen.' The crowd exploded 'Amen'. " (neh.gov/humanities/2013/januaryfebruary/feature/the-agitator)

Note also William Seward's view concerning the Constitution. Seward was a staunch abolitionist and would become later Lincolns' Secretary of State. In 1850 he said in denouncing Henry Clay's Compromise, "The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare, and to liberty.

"But there is a higher law than the Constitution which regulates our authority over the domain and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part--no inconsiderable part--of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe. We are His stewards and must so discharge our trust as to secure , in the highest attainable degree, their happiness...."

That is lofty language by Steward which means whenever I don't like what the Constitution says, I am not beholden to it. I invoke a higher law.

This is how the North viewed the Constitution. Which is why the Dred Scott decision was anathema to them and they would not abide by it. As I said, you don't have to like it. But the South was not the traitor. It was the North who turned away from the Constitution. It was the North that was the traitor.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You cannot make the Dred Scott Constitutional decision irrelevant. It was now the Supreme Rule of the Land. It doesn't matter about any white supremacy. It doesn't matter who disliked it and for what reasons. It struck down the Missouri Compromise.

Why do you keep repeating this argument that is irrelevant to what I have clearly demonstrated?

Concerning the Dred Scott decision and Chief Justice Taney: "Congress had no authority to excluded slavery from the territories. The property right of a slaveholder to his slaves merited full protection under the Constitution......But his decision elevated to supreme law of the land the extreme southern position on slavery in the territories, first enunciated by John C. Calhoun n response to the Wilmot Proviso. The Republicans found their major political tenet declared unconstitutional." (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court, 1996, p. 112-113)

"Northerners were stunned. Greeley's New York Tribune scorned the Court's decision as 'entitled to just so much oral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room." (p. 113)

I keep repeating these because you haven't 'debunked' anything. Due to the decision of the Supreme Court, the South was Constitutionally protected in taking it's slaves anywhere it wanted. It had everything it could have hoped for, except the North's willingness to abide by it.

I've already explained that all of this is irrelevant. I am not going to repeat myself.

Oh no, it's not garbage. I just showed you Greely's view of the Constitutional decision. Here is William Lloyd Garrison's view of the Constitution. Garrison was a leading Abolitionist and the Republican party was the party of the Abolitionist. "On July 4, 1854 William Llody Garrison set fire to a a copy of the U.S. Constitution. A covenant with death he called it, and an agreement with hell. Holding the parchment above his head, he repeated forcefully a psalmic rouse to the hundreds of men and women gathered around him: 'And let all the people say, Amen.' The crowd exploded 'Amen'. " (neh.gov/humanities/2013/januaryfebruary/feature/the-agitator)

Again, I'm not going to repeat myself. Stop harping on about this particular case when I have already explained repeatedly how and why it's irrelevant.

Note also William Seward's view concerning the Constitution. Seward was a staunch abolitionist and would become later Lincolns' Secretary of State. In 1850 he said in denouncing Henry Clay's Compromise, "The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare, and to liberty.

"But there is a higher law than the Constitution which regulates our authority over the domain and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part--no inconsiderable part--of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe. We are His stewards and must so discharge our trust as to secure , in the highest attainable degree, their happiness...."

That is lofty language by Steward which means whenever I don't like what the Constitution says, I am not beholden to it. I invoke a higher law.

This is how the North viewed the Constitution. Which is why the Dred Scott decision was anathema to them and they would not abide by it. As I said, you don't have to like it. But the South was not the traitor. It was the North who turned away from the Constitution. It was the North that was the traitor.

I've already quoted both leaders of the Confederate states, one of them stating in clear, unambiguous language that what they did ran contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers in the Constitution.

And yet again you avoid addressing the actual issue. I'll make it plain since you are keen to avoid it.

Slavery is a moral evil.

White supremacy is a moral evil.

The south depended on slavery and didn't want it abolished.

The south justified slavery using white supremacist rhetoric.

The north enacted laws that agitated the slave states and challenged their right to own slaves.

The south seceded, stating the attack on slavery as their main reason.

All this "Constitutional rights" stuff is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about the actual issue - which is obviously slavery. The right you're talking about is the right to own slaves, which is unquestionably a moral evil. I don't care if the south felt it was Constitutionally protected; it never should have been, because slavery is immoral and the slave trade is evil. The south, in attempting to justify and perpetuate that evil, rebelled against the US government and what was seen as the intent of the founding fathers in the writing of the Constitution.

They were traitors.

Once again, I refer you to this particular extract from the Confederacy's own Declaration of Secession:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

This is just ignoring the fact that every right we're talking about regards the ownership of slaves. If you understand that slavery is immoral, then you should understand that any Constitutional protection afforded to it was rightly removed. The founding fathers themselves saw slavery only as a necessary evil that would, in time, be abolished. The South rejected this idea and embraced white supremacy.


No, but you're clearly trying to avoid admitting it by talking exclusively about wealth and economics, without mentioning their intrinsic ties to slavery. When you talk about the north hampering southern industry, you're talking specifically about the north hampering the institution of slavery. When you're talking about the south being agitated by the north not acknowledging their rights, you're talking specifically about the rights to own slaves.

At this stage, talking about the former while avoiding talking about the latter isn't just missing the point - it's outright dishonest.


Possibly. But at least they were working to abolish slavery.

Lincoln wasn't a saint who freed the slaves because he believed in total racial equality. But at least he freed the slaves.


The protection to own slaves unhindered by the north and the non-slave holding states.


You've yet to mention a single issue that wasn't intrinsically connected to slavery. Meanwhile, I have quoted both the president and vice president of the Confederacy stating that their positions are entirely based on the north's rejection of the institution of slavery and the threat they posed to it and their white supremacist ideology. And I have quoted the declaration of secession which unambiguously states such things as:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

No, I'm not ignoring any fact. The fact is we are discussing who was obedient to the Constitution and who wasn't. The South was. The North rejected it. As far as changing it, that is a totally different subject.

White supremacy was held just as much in the North as it was the South. Are you that gullible? Note Stephen Douglas and Abe Lincoln's views during their debates for a senate seat in Illinois. From: (The Annals of America, Ency. Britannica INC.,2003)

Stephen Douglas: "For one, I am opposed to Negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. " (p. 9)

Lincoln: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment,will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality....I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary..." (p. 11)

The reason these two Northern politicians could speak like this is because it would get them votes. In other words, this was the thinking of the Northern people. So you can forget your constant rattle about the Southern white racist. Both North and South were racist.

I just said it, how is that avoiding it. Of course slavery was tied to the economics and wealth of the South. Which is why they were opposed to the North's constant agitation against it. What you are failing to see is that the North's overall concern over slavery was not the humanitarian aspect. It was also the economic aspect. As well as it was the racist aspect. Those racist yankees didn't like slavery because they didn't like blacks moving to where they were at.

Actually, Lincoln didn't free the slaves. It wouldn't be till the 13th amendment that was passed during the Reconstruction that the slaves were freed. The Emancipation was a war measure and never freed any slave.

There are many declarations of secession. You will find many other reasons given in them. I have not mentioned any other at this time because the slavery issue has to be addressed. You can quote the vice president of the Confederacy all you want. I showed you what Jeff Davis declared was the sole cause for secession. And it doesn't matter what the vice president of the Confederacy said as far as making something law in the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision gave the South all they could hope for. They had, and they had it legally. No need to secede....unless. Unless the North turns their nose up at the Constitution and refuses to abide. Which they did.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I'm not ignoring any fact. The fact is we are discussing who was obedient to the Constitution and who wasn't.

Actually, I've been trying to discuss slavery and the fact that it's the reason the South started the Civil War.

Apparently, you don't want to discuss that.

The South was. The North rejected it. As far as changing it, that is a totally different subject.

The leaders of the Confederacy believed that the founding fathers were anti-slavery, and allowed protections for the slave trade into the constitution as a necessary evil, with a view to abolition being inevitable. They determined that this view was wrong, and that black people should never be entitled to equal rights. In this, they ran counter to the intent of the Constitution - knowingly.

The Constitution did contain protections for the slave trade. The problem is that it did not contain protections for white supremacy, which is what the Confederate leaders wanted, because they wanted their slaves to always be slaves and never citizens.

They were traitors to the Constitution.

White supremacy was held just as much in the North as it was the South. Are you that gullible?

The difference being that the south saw white supremacy as a guiding principle of the nation, and a cornerstone of American civilization. The north, by and large, wanted to abolish the slave trade.

Note Stephen Douglas and Abe Lincoln's views during their debates for a senate seat in Illinois. From: (The Annals of America, Ency. Britannica INC.,2003)

Stephen Douglas: "For one, I am opposed to Negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. " (p. 9)

Lincoln: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment,will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality....I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary..." (p. 11)

The difference being that they eventually campaigned to free the slaves, and never waged a war against their own country for the right to ensure that black people never become full citizens.

This is something you seem to conveniently ignore.

The reason these two Northern politicians could speak like this is because it would get them votes. In other words, this was the thinking of the Northern people. So you can forget your constant rattle about the Southern white racist. Both North and South were racist.

Again, see above. Racism was endemic at the time. The difference being that one side fought for the abolition of slavery, the other fought in favour of it.

I just said it, how is that avoiding it.

Because you keep obfuscating the issue of slavery as a moral evil by constantly referring to the south fighting for their "Constitutional rights". They were - but the said rights were the rights to own and trade slaves.

Of course slavery was tied to the economics and wealth of the South. Which is why they were opposed to the North's constant agitation against it. What you are failing to see is that the North's overall concern over slavery was not the humanitarian aspect.

I never said it was. In fact, that's something neither of us have even brought up. I harbour no allusions that the abolition of slavery was anything other than a political move.

The difference is that I don't care why it was done, because slavery is a moral evil and deserved to be abolished. I'm on the side of the people who abolish a moral evil.

It was also the economic aspect. As well as it was the racist aspect. Those racist yankees didn't like slavery because they didn't like blacks moving to where they were at.

Uh huh. Sure.

Meanwhile, the Confederates were totally pro-black people, right? It's not like they literally fought to deny black people citizenship and ensure they would always remain a slave race.

Actually, Lincoln didn't free the slaves. It wouldn't be till the 13th amendment that was passed during the Reconstruction that the slaves were freed. The Emancipation was a war measure and never freed any slave.

Also irrelevant and nothing to do with anything I've mentioned.

There are many declarations of secession. You will find many other reasons given in them. I have not mentioned any other at this time because the slavery issue has to be addressed. You can quote the vice president of the Confederacy all you want. I showed you what Jeff Davis declared was the sole cause for secession.

Which was slavery, as I quoted him saying earlier.

And it doesn't matter what the vice president of the Confederacy said as far as making something law in the Constitution.

Are you serious?

The Dred Scott decision gave the South all they could hope for. They had, and they had it legally. No need to secede....unless. Unless the North turns their nose up at the Constitution and refuses to abide. Which they did.

You're never going to stop harping on about that total irrelevancy, are you?

"It doesn't matter what the Declaration of secession or the leaders of the secessionist movement actually SAID the reasons for secession were! I determined that this one legal decision means that slavery totally wasn't an issue even though it has nothing to do whatsoever with any of the reasons stated by the secessionists for why they seceded."

So, to recap:

Basis for your argument:
One law and handful of quotes to generate a revisionist account of what the reasons for secession were.

Basis for my argument:
What the secessionists actually said their reasons were.

Lest we forget:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

 

[MikeDwight]

I'm getting pretty tired of the "opinions only" threads between @ImmortalFlame and @Good-Ole-Rebel. Which only proves one point really, that people digging in dirt went to shooting each other before they were going to flesh out this argument.

Abraham Lincoln said "I'd save the Union with or without slavery"
Lincoln counters "may all the blood of the whip be taken from every slavemaster"
Lincoln says "a house Divided cannot stand"
Jefferson Davis says "There's no greater disturbers of the peace since the time of Oliver Cromwell"
Thomas Jackson said "God had ordained Slavery"
Robert E Lee said "Christianity without controversy can free the slaves"

I'd heard from Robert Dabney Chief of Staff to Gen. Jackson (Presbyterian) the opinion that when the North outlawed slavery in Northern States it wasn't to free these slaves and it was to send them away and have no part in the betterment of the African race.

No one is going to Conclude the South started the war. The seeming HIDDEN storyline from the Public seems like, Jefferson Davis left the Senate with a clean slate and purposefully no grudges or wrongs, and thoroughly politically regretted the Fort Sumter Headline to appear outmaneuvered as the starter of a war.

Napoleon was the Model of military modernity to the entire United States. Gen. Maclellan's nickname was 'little napoleon' and long before and after, this is about an invasion of the heritage of the States by forces of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Setting up Napoleon's Republican uncles to be Kings of Spain or wherever. Still a Majority of US history is going to exist Before the French Antislavery society sends and completes the 1886 Statue of Liberty in New York, the Empire State. Could read that twice.

So obviously somebody has to counter these people at every turn that we all Need France's Laicite to eradicate the political and worldly effect of religion in your public life. We must all need all our youth protesting in the streets about your jobs-for-the-old-for-life and communist scale minimum wages reduces the job available numbers in France to nothing.

So no one argues with you that we're not into butlers, staff, household servants, and that is totally in the package deal, apparently.

Every Southern State mentioned the security and welfare caused by John Brown at Harper's Ferry. Robert E Lee was married into Washington's family, which is a permanent fixture of their viewpoint today. General Bureaugard is of frequent mention, well, the first General of the Confederacy before the April of 1861 was a full blood Frenchman. Stonewall Jackson at 2nd Battle of Bull Run or Harper's Ferry don't have the lasting political influence as sites such as Gettysburgh, obviously.

Basis for ImmortalFlame's farting:

Jefferson Davis's Inauguration of over 3,000 words, has 0 occurrence of slavery, or passing mention of any institution, when he was inaugurated to Providence's guiding hand of a Provisional Government restoring the original laws of the Land. There were no songs, no speeches, no military men involved in protecting slavery or a single word about slavery, over government. "I found senators talking about the North being mad about slavery, and Projecting this psychologically as the South's fault that the Northman is mad about slavery". The Dixie's Children's Book described " The North are good traders, but they're Crazy about slavery".

Basis for Good-ole-Rebel's farting:

The Confederate Government positions in the legal documents and interpretations aren't outlawed in the 13th amendment Before outlawing slavery? ​

 

[MikeDwight]

White Supremacist Ideology? What about European legalism ideology? The only officiated Anthem of the South is a horribly complicated examination of European Legalism. Some who play Europa Universalis would be familiar with this. When Elizabeth I toppled Queen Mary of Scots it didn't produce a Personal Union. The Personal Union, or two countries who share a Divine Monarch, was with Queen Mary of Scots son, King James. Queen Anne officiated also after that after 1602, a 1702 Act of Union creating the Union Jack flag of the United Kingdom today. This is a Union of Countries politically. Obviously, The Church of Scotland officiated in rendering a Personal Union in twain to defeat King Charles in favor of Puritan Parliament during the English Civil War with the Covenanter army, after the Bishop's War. The "Bonnie Blue Flag" has Scottish Religious forces taking on a rather Republic of Texas flair, I assume.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Why do you keep repeating this argument that is irrelevant to what I have clearly demonstrated?


I've already explained that all of this is irrelevant. I am not going to repeat myself.


Again, I'm not going to repeat myself. Stop harping on about this particular case when I have already explained repeatedly how and why it's irrelevant.


I've already quoted both leaders of the Confederate states, one of them stating in clear, unambiguous language that what they did ran contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers in the Constitution.

And yet again you avoid addressing the actual issue. I'll make it plain since you are keen to avoid it.

Slavery is a moral evil.

White supremacy is a moral evil.

The south depended on slavery and didn't want it abolished.

The south justified slavery using white supremacist rhetoric.

The north enacted laws that agitated the slave states and challenged their right to own slaves.

The south seceded, stating the attack on slavery as their main reason.

All this "Constitutional rights" stuff is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about the actual issue - which is obviously slavery. The right you're talking about is the right to own slaves, which is unquestionably a moral evil. I don't care if the south felt it was Constitutionally protected; it never should have been, because slavery is immoral and the slave trade is evil. The south, in attempting to justify and perpetuate that evil, rebelled against the US government and what was seen as the intent of the founding fathers in the writing of the Constitution.

They were traitors.

Once again, I refer you to this particular extract from the Confederacy's own Declaration of Secession:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

I repeat it because it is relevant and shows you have clearly demonstrated nothing. The Dred Scott decision removed the boundary between slave and free states as set down in the Missouri Compromise. It opened up the territories to the Southernor to take his slaves anywhere he wanted. You say it is all about slavery. Well, yes it is all about slavery, but it is about the North's refusal to support the Constitution concerning slavery.

Well, I have showed you that the South was not traitor to the Constitution. That is relevant. You don't like it, but there is nothing you can do about it. The Constitution supported the South. This means the South was not traitor. The North was traitor who disregarded the Constitution.

Repeat yourself? My quotes concerning Garrison, and Greeley, and Seward, were in response to your claim that what I said was garbage about the North having a disparaging view of the Constitution. Instead of reading it and responding you opt for the easy, 'this is irrelevant'. The quotes prove that the North did not give the Constitution the place it should have. And when they disagreed with it, it was just a 'covenant with hell'. Whose traitor now?

I will make it simple for you. We are not discussing the morality of slavery. We are not discussing whether you think it was right or wrong. That doesn't matter one wit. That it existed legally under the Constitution and was protected by the Government of the U.S. is what we are discussing. Thus the South, legally, had what it wanted. The North, on it's moral high horse, would not allow it. The South was in the legal position. The North was in the illegal position. Who is the traitor now?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Actually, I've been trying to discuss slavery and the fact that it's the reason the South started the Civil War.

Apparently, you don't want to discuss that.


The leaders of the Confederacy believed that the founding fathers were anti-slavery, and allowed protections for the slave trade into the constitution as a necessary evil, with a view to abolition being inevitable. They determined that this view was wrong, and that black people should never be entitled to equal rights. In this, they ran counter to the intent of the Constitution - knowingly.

The Constitution did contain protections for the slave trade. The problem is that it did not contain protections for white supremacy, which is what the Confederate leaders wanted, because they wanted their slaves to always be slaves and never citizens.

They were traitors to the Constitution.


The difference being that the south saw white supremacy as a guiding principle of the nation, and a cornerstone of American civilization. The north, by and large, wanted to abolish the slave trade.


The difference being that they eventually campaigned to free the slaves, and never waged a war against their own country for the right to ensure that black people never become full citizens.

This is something you seem to conveniently ignore.


Again, see above. Racism was endemic at the time. The difference being that one side fought for the abolition of slavery, the other fought in favour of it.


Because you keep obfuscating the issue of slavery as a moral evil by constantly referring to the south fighting for their "Constitutional rights". They were - but the said rights were the rights to own and trade slaves.


I never said it was. In fact, that's something neither of us have even brought up. I harbour no allusions that the abolition of slavery was anything other than a political move.

The difference is that I don't care why it was done, because slavery is a moral evil and deserved to be abolished. I'm on the side of the people who abolish a moral evil.


Uh huh. Sure.

Meanwhile, the Confederates were totally pro-black people, right? It's not like they literally fought to deny black people citizenship and ensure they would always remain a slave race.


Also irrelevant and nothing to do with anything I've mentioned.


Which was slavery, as I quoted him saying earlier.


Are you serious?


You're never going to stop harping on about that total irrelevancy, are you?

"It doesn't matter what the Declaration of secession or the leaders of the secessionist movement actually SAID the reasons for secession were! I determined that this one legal decision means that slavery totally wasn't an issue even though it has nothing to do whatsoever with any of the reasons stated by the secessionists for why they seceded."

So, to recap:

Basis for your argument:
One law and handful of quotes to generate a revisionist account of what the reasons for secession were.

Basis for my argument:
What the secessionists actually said their reasons were.

Lest we forget:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

The South didn't start the War. The South seceded. The South seceded because the North did not treat them as equals under the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision gave the Southernor the freedom to go anywhere he wanted with his slaves. The North would not allow it. The North would not support the Constitution. Whose the traitor now?

Your constant use of white supremacy is empty as I have showed you that both North and South were white supremacists. And it was even worse in the North. Alex De Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" said, "Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in these where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." Whose the traitor now?

I just showed you both Douglas and Lincoln's view of blacks, and the North's view also. That Lincoln, in the middle of the War, made emancipation an issue means nothing as to the reason for the war. There again if the war had been over slavery Lincoln would have emancipated before 1863. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure, not a humanitarian measure. Lincoln's purpose for the blacks was to send them another country as whites and blacks couldn't live together.

Who told you the North was fighting for the abolition of slavery?

The said rights under the Constitution is what we are talking about. Not the morality or right and wrong of slavery. What you think of as moral or right or wrong doesn't amount to a pile of beans. The Constitutionality of Slavery. That is the subject. And who supported that Constitution? Not the North. Who is traitor now?

You can be on the side of whomever you want to be against a moral evil. But if what you call a moral evil is Constitutionally protected, then it means you are against the Constitution. The South was not against the Constitution. The North was. Who is traitor now?

Uh huh, sure was. The North was full of white racism. When Lincoln decided to make slavery an issue in the war with the emancipation proclamation, which was in 1863, two years into the war, New York city hung about 80 blacks to show they were not going to fight a war to free slaves. And, have you ever heard of that 'underground railroad' that was used to get slaves from the South to the free North? Well, that railroad went all the way to Canada. Why? Because the North didn't want those free blacks coming up there. I didn't say the South was not racist. We are and were. The problem is the north was and is also. But it is only us who get the label.

Actually it is relevant to what you did say. You said Lincoln freed the slaves. He didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. It shows you don't know what you are talking about and to hide it you use your go to phrase, 'it isn't relevant'.

Yes, I am serious. Neither Davis or Stephens view makes anything Constitutional. That was already set. And that is what we are discussing. The issue is slavery....but it is slavery as supported by the Constitution. It is not just 'slavery'. And the Dred Scott decision solidified the freedom of the Southenor to take his slaves anywhere he wanted. A freedom the North would not allow. Who is traitor to the Constitution now?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[MikeDwight]

Good Ole Rebel is incapable of creating positive energy out of a movement , just how they saw it? Beats all the flag wavers and nationalism. How did anyone ever leave?! Its illegal! How'd Hitler do it! Its illegal! You could probably put it in with the Crusader States. I base this on Andrew Jackson finally alleviated the states of Alabama and Mississippi based on his Presbyterian Christian Character, absent in the indian. I base it on "Down in Alabam" came a blind horse from Jerusalem, the Crusader State. Exactly everyone was talking about imposing some sort of Religion. In fact that was the requirement. "Dixie" and "Bonnie Blue Flag" involve marriage metaphors or examples or plays on "the sacred union" or every battle song Usually involves either "the Pope" or the "compelled seceder". I note the Teutonic state and the Kingdom of Jerusalem also cleared away previous inhabitants on most occasions ,or sometimes there were an underclass.

The Papal State or say the Reconquista don't really fit, or the Knights of Santiago, anybody? "Brown Rosie of Alabama" sort of makes fun of failed lady-ship.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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. ..

The statue isn't meant to commemorate a grand future.

From the article, the statue "...commemorates African American youth lost to the social and political battles being waged throughout our nation."

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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

Likely they saw the writing on the wall about slavery and wanted to secure their future with it. Opposition to slavery was growing regardless of the laws in place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

monuments to traitors

That cannot be restated enough.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To redirect in what direction?

A direction that ends the nonsense of glorifying traitors and pretending the Civil War was not at all or in any way fought for slavery.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Likely they saw the writing on the wall about slavery and wanted to secure their future with it. Opposition to slavery was growing regardless of the laws in place.

In other words, the North was unwilling to obey the Law of the Land. Who is the Rebel now? Who is traitor to the Constitution now?

Good-Ole-Rebel