Hillary endears herself to South Carolinians

[Tiger Al 0]

Maybe it is just a difference of opinion. I take offense very easily when somebody paints with a broad brush in relation to the Civil war. For that I apologize. I should keep my cool better.

I do not like my heritage being attacked and it is downright disrespectful of my ancestors to imply that was the main reason for the war.

The fireaters of the time on both sides got both side to a unnegotiable position.

You have nothing at all to apologize for. Our resident southerner haters, Frick and Frack, both know what they were alluding to.

No Southern hater here, just not an apologist.

What was the allusion?

[Tiger Al 0]

Maybe it is just a difference of opinion. I take offense very easily when somebody paints with a broad brush in relation to the Civil war. For that I apologize. I should keep my cool better.

I do not like my heritage being attacked and it is downright disrespectful of my ancestors to imply that was the main reason for the war.

The fireaters of the time on both sides got both side to a unnegotiable position.

Slavery was the major component to the secession. Take slavery out of the equation and there's no civil war. With the passage of the Misouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the overwhelming minority the south was becoming in the House of Representatives due to migration and immigration into the industrial north and the rising voice of abolitionists made the writing on the wall very discernable for the south.

State's rights became an issue as the states felt they had the right to determine if they would permit slavery, not the federal government, and, if not allowed to, then the right to secede from the union as a result. The north's fight was primarily one of preservation of the country as a whole, not necessarily the abolition of slavery, although, the vast majority of slave owners were in the south and the only states that allowed blacks to vote were in the north. The perception of slavery and its acceptance as an institution were in great decline in the north.

But, again, if you don't have the issue of slavery, then you don't have the civil war.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

That anyone that chose to fight on the side of the confederacy was a freedom hating, slave owning racist.

Since you spoke up first, are you Frick or Frack?

[saniflush 0]

But, again, if you don't have the issue of slavery, then you don't have the civil war.

I disagree on this. You will not change my mind I will not change yours.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

But, again, if you don't have the issue of slavery, then you don't have the civil war.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Tiger Al 0]

That anyone that chose to fight on the side of the confederacy was a freedom hating, slave owning racist.

Now you're building strawmen.

Since you spoke up first, are you Frick or Frack?

I'm whichever one you want me to be since you're already inclined to give me my opinion.

[Tiger Al 0]

Here's what George Williamson-Commissioner of the State of Louisiana in 1861 says to the Texas Secession Convention March 9, 1861:

"Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention.

Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages.

The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington.

Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."

He seemed pretty intent on the fact that slavery was a key issue as to whether Texas should secede from the Union. How about Alabama? This is from a speech of E.S. Dargan at the Secession Convention of Alabama January 11, 1861:

I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.

Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded.

He says Alabama needs to preserve slavery, not so much for monetary gain, but, because of the social ramifications of releasing them.

How about Tennessee Governor Isham Harris, speaking to the Tennessee Secession Convention on January 7, 1861:

The States entered the Union upon terms of perfect political equality, each delegating certain powers to the General Government, but neither deterring any power to the other to interfere with its reserved rights or domestic affairs; hence, there is no power on earth which can rightfully determine whether slavery shall or shall not exist within the limits of any State, except the people thereof acting in their highest sovereign capacity.

As slavery receded from the North, it was followed by the most violent and fanatical opposition. At first the anti-slavery cloud, which now overshadows the nation, was no larger than a man's hand. Most of you can remember, with vivid distinctness, those days of brotlierhood,.when throughout the whole North, the abolitionist was justly regarded as an enemy of his country. Weak, diminutive and contemptible as was this part in the purer days of the Republic, it has now grown to collossal proportions, and its recent rapid strides to power, have given it possession of the.present House of Representatives, and elected one of its leaders to the Presidency of the United States; and in the progress of events, the Senate and Supreme Court must also soon pass into the hands of this party--a party upon whose revolutionary banner is inscribed, "No more slave States, no more slave Territory, no return of the fugitive to his master"--an "irrepressible conflict" between the Free and Slave States; "and whether it, be long or short, peaceful or bloody, the struggle shall go on, until the sun shall not rise upon a master or set upon a slave

Plain and unmistakable as is the duty of each State to deliver up the fugitive slave to his owner, yet the attempt to reclaim is at the peril of the master's life. These evils can be obviated to a great extent, if not entirely, by the following amendments to the Constitution:

Ist. Establish a line upon the northern boundary of the present Slave States, and extend it through the Territories to the Pacific Ocean, upon such parallel of latitude as will divide them equitably between the North-and South, expressly providing that all the territory now owned, or that may be hereafter acquired North of that line, shall be forever free, and all South of it forever slave. This will remove the question of existence or nonexistence of slavery in our States and Territories entirely and forever from the arena of politics. The question being settled by the Constitution, is no longer open for the politician to ride into position by appealing to fanatical prejudices, or assailing the rights of his neighbors.

2d. In addition to the fugitive slave clause provide, that when slave has been demanded of the executive authority of the State to which he has fled, if lie is not delivered, and the owner permitted to carry him out of the State in peace, that the State so failing to deliver, shall pay to the owner double the value of such slave, and secure his right of action in the Supreme Court of the United States. This will secure the return of the slave to his owner, or his value, with a sufficient sum to indemnify him for the expenses necessarily incident to the recovery.

3d. Provide for the protection of the owner in the peaceable possession of his slave while in transitoin, or temporarily sojourning in any of the States of the Confederacy; and in the event of the slave's escape or being taken from the owner, require the State to return, or account for him as in case of the furitive.

4th. Expressly prohibit Congress from abolishing slavery in the District of Colimbia, in any dock yard, navy yard, arsenal, or district of any character whatever, within the limits of any slave State.

5th. That these provisions shall never be changed, except by the consent of all the slave States.

With these amendments to the Constitution, I should feel that our rights Were reasonably secure, not only in theory, but in fact, and should indulge the hope of living in the Union in peace. Without these, or some other amendments, which promise an equal amount and certainty of security, there is no hope of peace or security in the government.

If the non-slaveholding States refuse to comply with a demand so just and reasonable ; refuse to abandon at once and forever their unjust war upon us, our institutions, and our rights ; refuse, as they have heretofore done, to perform, in good faith, the obligations of the compact of union, much as we may appreciate the power, prosperity, greatness and glory of this government; deeply as we deplore the existence of causes which have already driven one State from the Union ; much as we may regret the imperative necessity which they have wantonly and wickedly forced upon us, every consideration of self-respect require that we should assert and maintain our "equality in the Union, or independence out of it."

In my opinion, the only mode left us of perpetuating the Union upon the principles of justice and equality, upon which it was originally established, is by the Southern States, identified as they are in interest, sentiment, and feeling, and must, in the natural course of events, share a common destiny, uniting in the expression of a fixed and unalterable resolve, that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be respected, and fully and perfectly secured in the present government, or asserted and maintained in a homogeneous Confederacy of Southern States.

Sounds like he thought that slavery was on the outs and, to preserve it, secession was necessary.

Mississippi, the land of Jefferson Davis, had this to say in its Declaration of Causes for Seceding States:

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

Slavery: the greatest material interest in the world. They wanted to perpetuate slavery because only black people can work in the hot sun.

The Georgia Declaration of Clauses to Secede:

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

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

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

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

They seceded because of slavery, too. What about the CSA's Constitution? Well, it reads much like the one that they claimed they had no obligation to abide by with some exceptions. The first eight sections talk about what powers go to who, who makes up the House and the Senate and so on. But, when you get to section 9, some interesting rules come about:

Section 9. 1-The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

2-Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

3-The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

4-No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Three of the first four dealt with slaves.

LINK

[CCTAU 3,350]

It dealt with slaves because it was AN issue. Mostly because in the agricultural south, if you upset the delicate way of life in an ABRUPT manner, you destroy the south. Which was the plan of northerners all along. The norht knew the way to cripple the south was through slavery. But the president also knew that it was not all about slavery. He would have gladly allowed slavery to remain legal if it would have sropped the war...it would not have. Slavery was a visible hot button issue on which the south could rally its poeple in amanner that stated we will not be told what to do by a bunch of yankees. Like I said, read the books on the time period, not just the heated debates in congress. Not studying the time period of the war of northern aggression is like reading one of you guy's post and coming to the conclusion that you have a brain...just not a valid argument.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

I don't have any doubt that the secessionists saw themselves as patriots. I'm sure despots around the world had that same self-image, too. But, it doesn't make it so.

See, here's where we differ: I'm not about to paint every single member of the Confederacy with the same broad brush. They weren't all evil slaveholders in the form of Simon Legree. To denounce them all as traitors & insurgents is pure hyperbole. Robert E. Lee was offered a major command in the Army by Lincoln himself. Lee was against secession and the Confederacy but chose to fight on the side of the Confederacy because he was a native Virginian. Is it too much to imagine other Southeners feeling the same way? That's why I think the flag issue needs to be resolved among South Carolinians.

[Tiger Al 0]

I don't have any doubt that the secessionists saw themselves as patriots. I'm sure despots around the world had that same self-image, too. But, it doesn't make it so.

I'm not about to paint every single member of the Confederacy with the same broad brush. They weren't all evil slaveholders in the form of Simon Legree. To denounce them all as traitors & insurgents is pure hyperbole.

Nor am I. Nor have I.

[Captain Liger 0]

Robert E. Lee was offered a major command in the Army by Lincoln himself.

Yep. Actually, he was offered command of the ENTIRE Union Army. Unheard of at the time (still unheard of today) for an officer of Lee's branch to be offered that sort of command. Lee was an engineer officer, a product of West Point's impeccable engineering school. The sort of command he was offered was, and still is, earmarked for officers of the infantry, armor (cavalry back then), and field artillery branches. Lee was "the man" in not so many words.

Lee was against secession and the Confederacy but chose to fight on the side of the Confederacy because he was a native Virginian. Is it too much to imagine other Southeners feeling the same way?

Yep. Lee felt, and said, that there was a higher duty to Virginia and despite his disagreements with Virginia over secession he stayed true to the place where he was born and raised. Personally, I find that very noble and I feel the same way about Alabama.

That's why I think the flag issue needs to be resolved among South Carolinians.

Agreed. The b!+*# from New York, Arkansas, Illinois or wherever the hell she's from needs to STFU.