On the nature of the Confederacy, the American Civil War, and Slavery

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, you have not elaborated on your position. You've pointed me at a quote you posted days ago, and refused to elaborate any further, and in fact even refused my request to clarify your position.

You also have so far avoided answering my questions about that quote:


Are you going to address these at some point?

I have elaborated on my position. And Davis quote supports it.

What is there to address. Davis was the President of the Confederacy. He gave the reason for the secession. You can't get more proof than that.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Prim969]

The number is pretty shocking when you consider whites in the South were only around 4 million and declining due to war casualties.

Shad where do you get your figures from? It’s ok to ask. I took the 4 million slaves to mean the whole of the Confederate and Union states together but yes the majority was more so in the confederate states. As to the strength of the Confederacy I thought it was around 9 -10 million with the Union being around 21 million.

 

[Tambourine]

It only passed the senate in 1864, It still had to pass the house, and to be ratified by the states. That would include the Southern states. Lincoln died in April 1865. The 13th amendment was not ratified until Dec. 1865.

This was accomplished through the dog and pony show of the Reconstruction Courts.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So I was correct when I said Lincoln "helped pass" it - note how I said "helped pass" and not "succeeded in passing".

 

[Tambourine]

I have elaborated on my position.

I have asked you twice to state your position in your own words. You have refused to do so every time.

And Davis quote supports it.

That statement is a non sequitur, since you have not actually stated your own position.

What is there to address. Davis was the President of the Confederacy. He gave the reason for the secession. You can't get more proof than that.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So there is no further evidence forthcoming.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Please support your claims.


Yes, because that was the only way to preserve slavery.


I know John Brown exists. What of him?

So I presented something which I failed to present? How does that work?


Finally, a source!

So we agree that the South had to secede if it wanted to preserve slavery.



As I have shown in the beginning, Georgia and South Carolina claimed that they seceded to preserve slavery.

And as you said, the Union (not the North, the Union - Delaware and Maryland were slave states, remember?) was not going to just let them secede. So in order to preserve slavery, the reason for their secession, they had to go to war.


They were a threat to slavery and pro-slavery advocates.
But yes, by advocating an end to slavery, and by actively engaging in actions to further that goal, abolitionists constituted, by their very existence, a threat to the Southern slave economy.

As long as there were US citizens advocating an end to slavery, there was the threat of a government unsympathetic or actively hostile to the cause of slavery - which was realized when Lincoln came to power. And because of that threat to slavery, the South seceded.



Wikipedia says that the amendment was passed in 1864 and ratified in 1865. Do you have sources which contradict that?

Concerning Lincolns 13th amendment: "One that gained Lincoln's acceptance was a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit interference with slavery in the states and that would be unamendable." (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court, 1996, p. 134)

No, the upper Southern States were not concerned with slavery. They seceded only because Lincoln wanted them to go to war with other states. See (States which Seceded ehistory.osu.edu/articles/states-which-seceded). Also observe this. "But the President's call for state militia garnered an opposite reaction in the slave states....more decisive was its impact upon the wavering states of the upper South. 'The militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view,' replied Virginia's governor, John Letcher. .....'Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object....will not be complied with'.....Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas all promplty transfered their allegiance to the Confederate States of America. Previously unwilling to secede over the issue of slavery, these four states were now ready to fight for the ideal of a voluntary Union." (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court, 1996, p. 140-141)

Concerning John Brown, you asked. So, read post #(124)

This is how it works. You didn't present the North's reaction. You presented some things that resulted. The North's reaction is what I gave you, to which you said, 'finally a source'. Yet you did not admit that it proved that the North rejected the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. In other words, what proves you are wrong, you ignore. Or you blow smoke.

No, we don't agree. The South had to secede to find peace and protection outside of the Union. Because the Union made it clear we would not get it there. Even though we were under the same Constitution. Read again Jeff Davis quote.

No. In the secession declarations, you are reading only slavery into them. Only what you want. In the South Carolina declaration of secession they say: "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof." This is the language of all the lower seceding states.

Yes, we agree. The Union was not going to let the Southern States secede. That is the cause of the war. The Union brought the war to the South. The South simply seceded. Glad you finally see my point.

Being 'abolitionist's' didn't give them the right to terroristic activity. Didn't give them the right to circumvent the Constitution. Sorry pal. That dog won't hunt.

Lincoln was dead by the time of the Reconstruction Courts which dog and pony showed the amendment through. It was not ratified until Dec. 1865. Lincoln was dead in April 1865. As I have showed you with the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln could care less for the slaves. He moved with the politics of the thing. Just check the dates I gave you.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

So I was correct when I said Lincoln "helped pass" it - note how I said "helped pass" and not "succeeded in passing".

No, the impression you are giving is incorrect. Lincoln did not submitt the 13th amendment. He simply signed it. He signed it as by that time he had already made slavery an issue with his emancipation proclamation. Which did not free any negroes and left them enslaved when he could have freed them.

Don't you see? In 1861 he was willing to keep blacks enslaved forever with the original 13th amendment. By 1864, the political climate had changed and it was beneficial for him to support freedom for the blacks. In other words, if the South had agreed, Lincoln would have been willing to 'help pass' the 13th amendment enslaving blacks.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I have asked you twice to state your position in your own words. You have refused to do so every time.


That statement is a non sequitur, since you have not actually stated your own position.


So there is no further evidence forthcoming.

Davis statement is evidence. I am stating my position throughout this discussion. Just pay attention.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

@Tambourine

Please respond to post (160) and (161).

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Concerning Lincolns 13th amendment: "One that gained Lincoln's acceptance was a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit interference with slavery in the states and that would be unamendable." (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court, 1996, p. 134)

I've already argued - and you agreed, as far as I know - that they did not think Lincoln's offer was genuine. So I don't understand why you are still bringing it up. It is clear that, no matter his attempts to compromise, the leaders and politicians of the Southern states saw Lincoln as a dangerous abolitionist who posed a threat to slavery.

No, the upper Southern States were not concerned with slavery. They seceded only because Lincoln wanted them to go to war with other states. See (States which Seceded ehistory.osu.edu/articles/states-which-seceded). Also observe this. "But the President's call for state militia garnered an opposite reaction in the slave states....more decisive was its impact upon the wavering states of the upper South. 'The militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view,' replied Virginia's governor, John Letcher. .....'Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object....will not be complied with'.....Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas all promplty transfered their allegiance to the Confederate States of America. Previously unwilling to secede over the issue of slavery, these four states were now ready to fight for the ideal of a voluntary Union." (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court, 1996, p. 140-141)

They seceded because Lincoln wanted the Union to go to war with slaveholder states. Remember, they were not individual sovereign nations.

As for the "voluntary Union", the Confederate constitution did not explicitly allow its member states to secede, either, so it was no more or less "voluntary" than the Union they seceded from. They would, however, be united with fellow slaveholder states, and share the same goal of upholding slavery in perpetuity (which the Confederate constitution did explicitly protect), something which would not have been possible in the Union.

This is how it works. You didn't present the North's reaction. You presented some things that resulted. The North's reaction is what I gave you, to which you said, 'finally a source'. Yet you did not admit that it proved that the North rejected the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. In other words, what proves you are wrong, you ignore. Or you blow smoke.

I have acknowledged your source. Why do you need my explicit agreement every single time you post something?

No, we don't agree. The South had to secede to find peace and protection outside of the Union. Because the Union made it clear we would not get it there. Even though we were under the same Constitution. Read again Jeff Davis quote.

Did you not find any additional sources supporting his claims? Again, please show me evidence supporting that Jefferson Davis's assessment was an accurate depiction of the facts on the ground, and not simply his personal opinion.

No. In the secession declarations, you are reading only slavery into them. Only what you want. In the South Carolina declaration of secession they say: "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof." This is the language of all the lower seceding states.

These "constitutional obligations" are all concerned with upholding slavery and protecting the slave property of Southern slaveholders. If you wanted to present evidence that the South wasn't concerned primarily with slavery, then this is not it.

If you disagree, then I challenge you to find supporting evidence to the contrary.

Yes, we agree. The Union was not going to let the Southern States secede. That is the cause of the war. The Union brought the war to the South. The South simply seceded. Glad you finally see my point.

Except the South attempted to seize Union territory in their attack on Fort Sumter (and they had already seized multiple military arsenals of the US Army prior to that). So they were clearly not interested in peaceful resolution.

Being 'abolitionist's' didn't give them the right to terroristic activity. Didn't give them the right to circumvent the Constitution. Sorry pal. That dog won't hunt.

You still haven't supplied any evidence for any specific Northern states violating the Constitution. Since you claim that they were so numerous, it should be trivial to find at least one such instance.

Lincoln was dead by the time of the Reconstruction Courts which dog and pony showed the amendment through. It was not ratified until Dec. 1865. Lincoln was dead in April 1865. As I have showed you with the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln could care less for the slaves. He moved with the politics of the thing. Just check the dates I gave you.

Good-Ole-Rebel

And as I have said multiple times, I don't care about the alleged motivations of Lincoln. They are not subject of this discussion.

If you want to discuss how evil you Abraham Lincoln was, then please open a new thread.

 

[Tambourine]

@Tambourine

Please respond to post (160) and (161).

Good-Ole-Rebel

I have already responded to them in post #199.

 

[Tambourine]

No, the impression you are giving is incorrect. Lincoln did not submitt the 13th amendment. He simply signed it. He signed it as by that time he had already made slavery an issue with his emancipation proclamation. Which did not free any negroes and left them enslaved when he could have freed them.

As far as I know, not signing it would have made it impossible to pass. How could Lincoln have freed slaves by any other means than a constitutional amendment?

Don't you see? In 1861 he was willing to keep blacks enslaved forever with the original 13th amendment. By 1864, the political climate had changed and it was beneficial for him to support freedom for the blacks. In other words, if the South had agreed, Lincoln would have been willing to 'help pass' the 13th amendment enslaving blacks.

Which shows that Lincoln considered the preservation of the Union as more important than the emancipation of slaves.

So in other words, despite your claims to the contrary, the North was more interested in preserving the Union than emancipating slaves, directly refuting Southern (and your) claims that the North wanted to destroy slavery and was willing to do anything to destroy the South - clearly, they were not going to endanger the Union over slavery.

The South, meanwhile, attacked Fort Sumter, choosing an act of armed violence against Federal property. Clearly, and unlike the North, the South was willing to endanger the Union over slavery.

 

[Tambourine]

Davis statement is evidence. I am stating my position throughout this discussion. Just pay attention.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So you ask me to accept Jefferson Davis as the sole authority on what really happened and what were the real motivations behind secession, and discard any and all possible evidence to the contrary as Northern lies? Is that what you are asking?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I've already argued - and you agreed, as far as I know - that they did not think Lincoln's offer was genuine. So I don't understand why you are still bringing it up. It is clear that, no matter his attempts to compromise, the leaders and politicians of the Southern states saw Lincoln as a dangerous abolitionist who posed a threat to slavery.


They seceded because Lincoln wanted the Union to go to war with slaveholder states. Remember, they were not individual sovereign nations.

As for the "voluntary Union", the Confederate constitution did not explicitly allow its member states to secede, either, so it was no more or less "voluntary" than the Union they seceded from. They would, however, be united with fellow slaveholder states, and share the same goal of upholding slavery in perpetuity (which the Confederate constitution did explicitly protect), something which would not have been possible in the Union.


I have acknowledged your source. Why do you need my explicit agreement every single time you post something?


Did you not find any additional sources supporting his claims? Again, please show me evidence supporting that Jefferson Davis's assessment was an accurate depiction of the facts on the ground, and not simply his personal opinion.


These "constitutional obligations" are all concerned with upholding slavery and protecting the slave property of Southern slaveholders. If you wanted to present evidence that the South wasn't concerned primarily with slavery, then this is not it.

If you disagree, then I challenge you to find supporting evidence to the contrary.


Except the South attempted to seize Union territory in their attack on Fort Sumter (and they had already seized multiple military arsenals of the US Army prior to that). So they were clearly not interested in peaceful resolution.


You still haven't supplied any evidence for any specific Northern states violating the Constitution. Since you claim that they were so numerous, it should be trivial to find at least one such instance.


And as I have said multiple times, I don't care about the alleged motivations of Lincoln. They are not subject of this discussion.

If you want to discuss how evil you Abraham Lincoln was, then please open a new thread.

In post (199) you asked for my source for this. I gave it to you. Your statement as to wonder why I bring it up is dishonest. Again, if you don't want to know, don't ask. You wanted proof, I gave it to you. Lincoln was willing to enslave blacks perpetually in the U.S. with the 13th amendment. The point being the South had all the protections it could ask for concerning slavery. But the South seceded. Not because of slavery. Because of the reasons given by Jeff Davis in the quote I gave you.

No. The issue with the upper Southern States was Lincolns attack upon Southern States. Not slavery. Read again the quote I gave you. Slavery played no role at all in their decision. Do you believe the source I gave you is wrong?

The quotes I gave you showing the North's reaction to the Dred Scott decision show that the North disregarded the Constitutional decision. This shows that the North was not going to abide by the Constitution. This is the reason for secession. Not slavery. So, do you agree, based on the sources I gave you?

Why do you need an additional source when the main source has been presented? You need to provide evidence or proof that what Jeff Davis has said is not right. Thus far, you have provided nothing. Therefore Jeff Davis statement stands as true, and your statements stand as false. But...I'm willing to listen if you think you have anything.

I don't need supporting evidence concerning the Constitutional failure on the part of the yankees. I have given it throughout our discussion. From John Brown to Dred Scott. The fact is there. You have provided nothing to disprove it. All you can do is yap about slavery.

Fort Sumter was no longer Union property. I have showed you this already. Why would you continue to restate it. Secession made the property South Carolina's. Plus, the agreement of three year completion was not fulfilled by the Federal govt. which meant Sumter went back to S. Carolina. You provide nothing before to prove your statement, and you provide nothing now. You just spit out the politically correct myths like a robot. The South negotiated the terms with the North concerning the other forts. All was done peacefully, and any Northern soldiers could return home in peace.

You were talking about 'abolitionist's'. I answered concerning 'abolitionist's'. Don't now try shift the focus on 'specific northern states' and away from my questions to you. Does their being an abolitionist give them the right to terrorism? Does it give them the right to ignore the Constitution? Are you going to crawfish here also?

Typical answer from you. You bring up Lincoln as help passing the 13th amendment. I show you that it wasn't Lincoln, it was the Reconstruction courts. Then you say you don't care about the motivations of Lincoln. If you don't care, quite bringing Lincoln up. When you make ignorant statements and I correct you, try and learn.

Have you noticed a trend here? I am constantly bringing verification for my position. You bring nothing. You just duck and dodge and ask for more proof.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I have already responded to them in post #199.

Yes, to (160). But Where is post (161) responded to?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

As far as I know, not signing it would have made it impossible to pass. How could Lincoln have freed slaves by any other means than a constitutional amendment?


Which shows that Lincoln considered the preservation of the Union as more important than the emancipation of slaves.

So in other words, despite your claims to the contrary, the North was more interested in preserving the Union than emancipating slaves, directly refuting Southern (and your) claims that the North wanted to destroy slavery and was willing to do anything to destroy the South - clearly, they were not going to endanger the Union over slavery.

The South, meanwhile, attacked Fort Sumter, choosing an act of armed violence against Federal property. Clearly, and unlike the North, the South was willing to endanger the Union over slavery.

He couldn't have. It's good to have Presidential support, but amending the Constitution doesn't require the presidents signature. It does require ratification by 3/4 of the States. Which made the Emancipation proclamation null and void. Correct? But it didn't matter as the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slave anyway.

Lincoln was concerned with the Union, not slaves. Yes. That is what I have been telling you. It wasn't about slavery. It was about the Union and it's preservation.

The North was interested in preserving the union only when the South seceded. And that was based upon money. Not for any freedom of the blacks. Prior to that, yes the North wanted to destroy slavery in the South as it would affect the South's economy. It would destroy it. The North made the mistake of pushing the South too far not believing they would ever secede. But, they were wrong.

Again, you project your ignorance concerning Sumter. Sumter was property of S. Carolina when S. Carolina seceded. And it was in fact S. Carolina's property earlier as the Federal govt. did not fulfill it's three year obligation in completing it's purpose for it. Sumter involved secession, not slavery. Lincoln and the North came down to force the Southern States back into the Union. Not to free slaves.

The firing on Forth Sumter was instigated by Lincoln and the North. Not the South.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

So you ask me to accept Jefferson Davis as the sole authority on what really happened and what were the real motivations behind secession, and discard any and all possible evidence to the contrary as Northern lies? Is that what you are asking?

You can't get more 'source material' for the reason of secession then the President of the Confederacy.

If you disagree with Jeff Davis's statement, then show where he is wrong. So far, you have presented nothing to prove him wrong. Go ahead and present your 'all possible evidence to the contrary'. So far all you are doing is whining about the Politically Correct subject of slavery.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

You can't get more 'source material' for the reason of secession then the President of the Confederacy.

If you disagree with Jeff Davis's statement, then show where he is wrong. So far, you have presented nothing to prove him wrong. Go ahead and present your 'all possible evidence to the contrary'. So far all you are doing is whining about the Politically Correct subject of slavery.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Is that a yes or a no? Is Jefferson Davis the sole authority on what really happened and what were the real motivations behind secession? Should I discard any and all possible evidence to the contrary as Northern lies? Yes or no?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Is that a yes or a no? Is Jefferson Davis the sole authority on what really happened and what were the real motivations behind secession? Should I discard any and all possible evidence to the contrary as Northern lies? Yes or no?

Jefferson Davis is the best authority as to why the South seceded. Yes, you can discard much of the Politically Correct view that the yankees and Fed. govt. have been teaching. You can consider them myths or lies or whatever you want.

If it is shown to be a myth or lie, then it is. Most today who hold these wrong views of the war have done so because they have been taught that. They are not trying to lie. But they should look into it themselves instead of ignoring true history.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Jefferson Davis is the best authority as to why the South seceded. Yes, you can discard much of the Politically Correct view that the yankees and Fed. govt. have been teaching. You can consider them myths or lies or whatever you want.

If it is shown to be a myth or lie, then it is. Most today who hold these wrong views of the war have done so because they have been taught that. They are not trying to lie. But they should look into it themselves instead of ignoring true history.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Are the Declarations of Secession a greater or lesser authority than Jefferson Davis's personal opinion on why the South seceded from, and fought a war against, the Union? What about any of the other documents I laid out in support of my argument? Are any of these valid, or should I defer to Jefferson Davis as the sole authority on what happened between 1824 and 1865 in the United States? Is he to be the sole authority on the US Constitution, US politics, the US South, and slavery?

I'm just checking whether you consider anything in support of my argument valid or not.


And what is the reason for you to claim that "Jefferson Davis is the best authority as to why the South seceded"? Do you have any evidence in support of that argument? Is there any other reason why I should accept Davis as the sole correct authority on what happened 1824-1865 in the United States?

Just so I get an idea why he is "the best" authority. Or do you consider that self-evident and axiomatic?

 

[Tambourine]

Yes, to (160). But Where is post (161) responded to?

Good-Ole-Rebel

You did not ask any questions in 161, and I didn't see a need to comment on your statements. If you want me to respond to a question, ask a question, and don't rely on me magically figuring out what you want me to say. I know you are capable of asking questions in a correct manner, you did it before.