America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 15 months ago by RayR. 77 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
States Rights!!
RiverRatRuss Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
The Civil War was over "States Rights" Prove me Wrong!!!

btw I love Abraham Lincoln Quotes!!! Herfing


https://tinyurl.com/56y449vk
Brewha Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
Given that "States Rights" often equals "States Wrongs", you have a fair observation.

States thought they had a "right" to slavery - they were wrong.
RiverRatRuss Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
Brewha wrote:
Given that "States Rights" often equals "States Wrongs", you have a fair observation.

States thought they had a "right" to slavery - they were wrong.


Emancipation Proclamation did not come out until later in the war. Both sides were running out of Cannon Fodders...

Staes Separated and went to war because the southern states did not want this newly formed government to infringe on their rights. the North was standing by the newly afformed Government. our Constitution. Both sides had slaves at the time..
RayR Online
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
But LEFTY says the war was waged to free da SLAVES and for racial diversity, equity, and inclusion. Anxious

Now you say you love quotes attributed to Lincoln, but did you ever research them to find out which quotes are fake?
There is no President that has more fake quotes attributed to him than Dishonest Abe.

Both the LEFTY Democrats and the RIGHTY GOP'ers have spouted out fake Lincoln quotes.

LEFTY especially relishes mocking RIGHTY when they spill some fake quotes, like here...

These Fake Lincoln Quotes May Help The GOP

https://www.bustle.com/p/these-fake-abraham-lincoln-quote-memes-might-help-out-the-gop-37479

Trump posts fake Abraham Lincoln quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2017/02/13/trump-posts-fake-abraham-lincoln-quote/


Even Obammy did it to make him look like he was smat, but he lied about a lot of stuff regularly...

Quote:
"In his remarks to Democratic lawmakers the day before they passed the health care bill, President Obama said: "I was tooling through some of the writings of some previous presidents, and I came upon this quote by Abraham Lincoln: 'I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true. I'm not bound to succeed, but I'm bound to live up to what light I have.' "

The Lincoln quotation was stirring. It was also bogus. There is no documentary evidence that Lincoln ever said any such thing."

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125169095

Also, a must-read...

Fake Lincoln Quotes
By Thomas DiLorenzo

July 10, 2002

Quote:
In his new book Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the Rich, Kevin Phillips fell for one of the numerous bogus Lincoln quotes that fill the literature on The Great Emancipator. The historian Paul Kennedy fell for it, too, in his review of the Phillips book in the New York Times.

The bogus quotation is: "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and it conspires against it in times of adversity. It’s more despotic than monarchy. It’s more insolent than autocracy. It’s more selfish than bureaucracy…. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow…."

Phillips thought he could attach the moral authority of Lincoln to the theme of his book, but as historian Matthew Pinkser wrote on the website, History News Network, on June 3, the quote is nowhere in Lincoln’s collected works, and his official biographer called it "a bold, unblushing forgery."

That same statement is true of a great many other supposed Lincoln quotations in the literature. In his 1989 book, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions (Oxford University Press), Paul F. Boller, Jr., devotes the better part of a chapter to fake Lincoln quotes.

For decades, scholars and journalists have been quoting Lincoln as saying, "All that loves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason to America." Labor unions have repeated this quotation endlessly and have published it hundreds of times, but "there is no record of his ever having uttered these words," concludes Boller.

More...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/07/thomas-dilorenzo/abeolony/






drglnc Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
At least 8 of the states that succeeded mention Slavery as a primary reason in the Articles/Ordinance of Secession... But sure... Slavery wasn't the issue.
HockeyDad Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
“I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!“ ~ Abraham Lincoln
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
He had da Rockin' Pneumonia and the Boogie Woogie Flu... Mellow
ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
“This theater group will blow your mind!”

~Honest Abe
RayR Online
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
At least 8 of the states that succeeded mention Slavery as a primary reason in the Articles/Ordinance of Secession... But sure... Slavery wasn't the issue.


So what? There were people who were concerned about Lincoln's true intentions as President as far as slavery even though he said he wasn't going to interfere with slavery where it existed. Nobody really trusted him much except maybe that 39% who supported him in the popular vote.
Lincoln's white supremacist "free soil, free labor" policies were tied to the expansion of slavery Westward because he and the many Republicans wanted the Western territories to be exclusively for white labor, and the soil free of blacks, slave or free.

A great example of this is an excerpt from a speech made by a Republican Lincoln supporter, named Judge Tracy. This was published in the Republican newspaper, the New York Tribune on June 8, 1860. The whole speech is even more revealing of the Lincolnian Republican mind at the time, but I only have a PDF clipping image of the original article and haven't written it all down as text.

"God taught us that the country was to be the country of freemen. It is not with us a question of [N_WORD] it is a question of white men. It is a question of whether we are to live and prosper, whether we are to have free homesteads with our wives and children, with our enjoyments and with our hopes clustered around our own hearth stone, or whether this blight of negro slavery is to be extended over us to crush out the hopes of white men for ever."

They also feared that if slavery was expanded into new Western states that these new territories and states would be aligned with the Democrat Party and the South and the Northern Republican aligned states would lose more power in D.C. as a result.

So yes, slavery was an issue for some but for different reasons. It really came down to a political power struggle, not some high-minded moral crusade to free the slaves. There were very few true abolitionists compared to those that were most interested in gaining political power and the money that could come with that or those that didn't care about slavery one way or another.
drglnc Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
RayR wrote:
So what? There were people who were concerned about Lincoln's true intentions as President as far as slavery even though he said he wasn't going to interfere with slavery where it existed. Nobody really trusted him much except maybe that 39% who supported him in the popular vote.
Lincoln's white supremacist "free soil, free labor" policies were tied to the expansion of slavery Westward because he and the many Republicans wanted the Western territories to be exclusively for white labor, and the soil free of blacks, slave or free.

A great example of this is an excerpt from a speech made by a Republican Lincoln supporter, named Judge Tracy. This was published in the Republican newspaper, the New York Tribune on June 8, 1860. The whole speech is even more revealing of the Lincolnian Republican mind at the time, but I only have a PDF clipping image of the original article and haven't written it all down as text.

"God taught us that the country was to be the country of freemen. It is not with us a question of [N_WORD] it is a question of white men. It is a question of whether we are to live and prosper, whether we are to have free homesteads with our wives and children, with our enjoyments and with our hopes clustered around our own hearth stone, or whether this blight of negro slavery is to be extended over us to crush out the hopes of white men for ever."

They also feared that if slavery was expanded into new Western states that these new territories and states would be aligned with the Democrat Party and the South and the Northern Republican aligned states would lose more power in D.C. as a result.

So yes, slavery was an issue for some but for different reasons. It really came down to a political power struggle, not some high-minded moral crusade to free the slaves. There were very few true abolitionists compared to those that were most interested in gaining political power and the money that could come with that or those that didn't care about slavery one way or another.



so we agree... Slavery was the Primary reason for secession of the traitor states...
ZRX1200 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Illegal taxes
drglnc Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
ZRX1200 wrote:
Illegal taxes



I'm curious, which states listed Taxes as a reason for secession in that states Articles/Ordinance of Secession?


through most of 1800-1860 there was no income tax on individuals and businesses or other taxes (sales, property) as we define them today -- Federal taxes were almost exclusively tariffs on imports. (The Nullification Crisis had come when tariffs were considerably higher in order to pay down debts from the War of 1812.)

So, "taxes" were considerably lower leading up to the war. The Tariff of 1857 was authored and supported by Southern legislators (the primary author was Virginia Senator Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, who would later be pictured on the Confederate $10 bill) and it lowered tariffs to a level they hadn't hit in 50 years.

Southern Democrats (the party that included most all Southern politicians) controlled Congress leading up to the Civil War (they lost the House in 1859) and had a Democratic president (Buchanan).

RayR Online
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
so we agree... Slavery was the Primary reason for secession of the traitor states...


You don't read so good. 👀
"Slavery was the Primary reason for secession" That's what the British said about those "traitor" colonists and their secessionist Declaration of Independence. So you are one who believes the Principles of '76 are treasonist.


States’ Rights

By Philip Leigh
March 22, 2018

Most modern historians reject any suggestion that the South fought the Civil War over states’ rights. They insist that the only states’ rights the South cared about, “as neo-confederates are loath to admit,” was slavery. (According to Wikipedia, “neo-confederate is a term that describes the views of [those] who use [illegitimate] historical revisionism* to portray the [Confederacy] and its actions in the Civil War in a positive light.”) Thus, they conclude, slavery was the solitary cause of the war. They ignore evidence like the South’s persistent objections to federal public works spending, which antebellum Southerners regarded as a responsibility of the individual states and therefore a counterpart to states’ rights. But that’s another story.

When pressed to admit that Southern secession need not have led to war because the North could have allowed the South to leave in peace, today’s historians often assert that the North chose to fight the war in order to “preserve the Union.” Yet if it is necessary to rhetorically ask, “Why did the South want to defend states’ rights?” it is equally proper to ask, “Why did the North want to preserve the Union?” Probing the second question reveals that “preserving the Union” was all about perpetuating Northern economic hegemony, which Pious Cause Mythologists** are loath to admit.

As a leading spokesman for “preserve the Union” mythology, even Professor Gary Gallagher admits that his students “are reluctant to believe that anyone would risk life or fortune for something as abstract as ‘the Union.’” The reluctance of his students is well founded and demonstrates the ancient wisdom that “common sense is not so common”— especially among leaders dedicated to promoting a dubious agenda.

In reality, “preserving the Union” was a euphemistic slogan for avoiding the consequence of disunion, which are grounded in economics.

More...

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/states-rights/


RayR Online
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
You might want to read this too because history is messy...

Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery

By Samuel W. Mitcham
July 22, 2020

Quote:
From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and to defend his home; the two great heroes of the war were Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee; and the South admitted that slavery was wrong but never conceded that it was cruel.

Around 1960, the Democratic Party—led by Lyndon B. Johnson—advanced the modern incarnation of identity politics. It worked very well for them. In the election of 1956, 75% of African-Americans voted Republican. By 1964, more than 90% of them voted Democrat, and they have been doing so until 2020. As part of their effort to control and manipulate the black vote, the Leftists and their myrmidons advanced the myth that the Civil War was all about slavery. It wasn’t. It was, in my opinion, about money, more than anything else. Now, at this point, I know some of my liberal friends will bristle up and say: “It was too all about slavery!” Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but let me ask you this: What was slavery about?

ANSWER: It was about money.

The “it was all about slavery” argument is an oversimplified and infantile claim that has duped many people. Those who subscribe to this flawed theory ignore one undeniable fact: history is messy. It is almost never as simple as the modern Left would have you believe. Oh, sure, slavery was an issue, but it was certainly not the only issue and not even the dominant one. Listed below are eleven others:

More...

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/why-the-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery/
drglnc Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
RayR wrote:
You don't read so good. 👀




That is hilarious coming from a guy that says Slavery wasn't the primary issue when the states themselves said it was in the very documents that explain why the wanted to leave the United States...
Brewha Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
RiverRatRuss wrote:
Emancipation Proclamation did not come out until later in the war. Both sides were running out of Cannon Fodders...

Staes Separated and went to war because the southern states did not want this newly formed government to infringe on their rights. the North was standing by the newly afformed Government. our Constitution. Both sides had slaves at the time..


So you are saying you are wrong to call it the "Civil War" as it really was the "War of Norther Aggression"?
Brewha Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
drglnc wrote:
so we agree... Slavery was the Primary reason for secession of the traitor states...

Ray agrees with no one - not even himself...
HockeyDad Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
The winner gets to write the history. The Civil War was about slavery and freeing the slaves. That’s why the slaves were freed so well!
RayR Online
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
That is hilarious coming from a guy that says Slavery wasn't the primary issue when the states themselves said it was in the very documents that explain why the wanted to leave the United States...


You and that Brewha guy both don't read so good. 👀
And are dumb too. Frying pan

But, if you can still somewhat read and comprehend, your LEFTY Yankee indoctrination grooming needs to be beaten out of you. I don't know if there is any hope though. Boo hoo!

Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery

By Gene Kizer, Jr.
February 25, 2022

Quote:
ACADEMIA’S ABSOLUTE PROOF that the War Between the States was fought over slavery is based primarily on the declarations of causes for the secession of four of the first seven Southern states to secede: South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas.

However, those four declarations prove nothing of the sort.

There were 13 Southern states represented in the Confederate government. That 13 included Missouri and Kentucky, which were divided states that did not actually secede. They remained Union slave states – two of six Union slave states – the entire war (WHAT! UNION SLAVE STATES! I thought the war was fought over slavery with the Union fighting to end slavery! Man, they should have started with their own country).

In fact, three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war. It took the second 13th Amendment in December 1865 for slavery to end in those three Union slave states.

Remember, the first 13th Amendment was the Corwin Amendment that left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress, in places where slavery already existed. It was passed by the Northern Congress, ratified by several states and strongly supported by Abraham Lincoln before the war made it moot.

The Corwin Amendment was the true feeling of the North on the slavery issue though it is only one small piece of the irrefutable evidence that the North did not go to war to end slavery.

More...

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-declarations-do-not-prove-the-war-was-over-slavery/


RayR Online
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
Brewha wrote:
So you are saying you are wrong to call it the "Civil War" as it really was the "War of Norther Aggression"?


No, it was no "Civil War" since there was no insurrection in D.C. to launch a coup d'état.

I heard the British launched a War to Prevent Colonial Secession and Lincoln launched a War to Prevent Southern Secession.
Both involved a War of Aggression against people who just wanted to be left alone.
RayR Online
#21 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
HockeyDad wrote:
The winner gets to write the history. The Civil War was about slavery and freeing the slaves. That’s why the slaves were freed so well!


The Yankees told a bunch of lies, War criminal Union General William Tecumseh Sherman issued Special Field Orders No. 15, proclaiming that freed people would get Forty acres and a mule. He was just kiddin', the Union would never go along with black people owning property, but they did go along with making those freed people slaves for the Union army.


drglnc Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
Oh… well if the broker-in-charge of Charleston Saltwater Realty and e book author says it is irrefutable then I guess it must be irrefutable
RayR Online
#23 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
Oh… well if the broker-in-charge of Charleston Saltwater Realty and e book author says it is irrefutable then I guess it must be irrefutable


I see...you can't refute anything he wrote because he knows more true history than you ever got from your indoctrination, so all you're left with is some lame personal attacks, that he's a real estate broker and an e-book author? Actually he started 2 publishing companies since the 80's, has published books also in print, hardcover and softcover including his current 360 pages title by himself, "Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument" and Michael R. Bradley's "The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States" and a 2 DVD Sett, "Mixed Up With All the Rebel Horde, Why Black Southerners Fought for the South in the War Between the States" featuring nationally renowned authority on black Confederates, Professor Edward C. Smith.

https://www.charlestonathenaeumpress.com/
Brewha Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
HockeyDad wrote:
The winner gets to write the history. The Civil War was about slavery and freeing the slaves. That’s why the slaves were freed so well!

I believe “the War” was fought over money and control of assets.
As are all wars.

“States Rights” is just a talking point.
RayR Online
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
Brewha wrote:
I believe “the War” was fought over money and control of assets.
As are all wars.

“States Rights” is just a talking point.


Well...Well...What do we have here? Brewha now believes that the military invasion of the Confederacy was not a moral crusade to free the slaves, but an invasion to secure money and power by denying the Confederacy their sovereignty. Lincoln said they couldn't be free to go because he needed them to pay their "fair share" to his regime. He had plans for that money.
Brew, you may be in danger of losing your LEFTY Membership ID card for believing such heresies, but congratulations!

But “States Rights” is not just a talking point, it's a fundamental liberty of the states enshrined in the Constitution, which means powers that have not been specifically prohibited to the states as was agreed by the states themselves in ratifying the Constitution and prohibited to the states because of the enumerated powers that were given to the general government exclusively meant the states and their people reserved the power to legislate on anything else except what their state constitutions prohibited their government(s) and people from doing.

See the 10th Amendment which is the foundation of States Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


The Constitution as originally ratified was neutral on the subject of chattel slavery, the Constitution gave no enumerated power to the general government to do anything about the institution one way or another. That meant the power to regulate slavery or abolish it altogether was reserved by each sovereign state. Even Dicktator Lincoln recognized that.
frankj1 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Brewha wrote:
I believe “the War” was fought over money and control of assets.
As are all wars.

“States Rights” is just a talking point.

and slaves were assets.

This is all really Buchanan's fault
DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
RayR wrote:
The Constitution as originally ratified was neutral on the subject of chattel slavery, the Constitution gave no enumerated power to the general government to do anything about the institution one way or another. That meant the power to regulate slavery or abolish it altogether was reserved by each sovereign state. Even Dicktator Lincoln recognized that.



You know damned well that the Founders wanted to abolish slavery but knew they'd never get everyone onboard. They needed something to ratify quickly hence the open document. They knew it was an evil, and yes many used slaves. How many nations have made it illegal to have slaves? It's still going on.
RayR Online
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
DrMaddVibe wrote:
You know damned well that the Founders wanted to abolish slavery but knew they'd never get everyone onboard. They needed something to ratify quickly hence the open document. They knew it was an evil, and yes many used slaves. How many nations have made it illegal to have slaves? It's still going on.


Not everybody wanted to abolish slavery and even those that did knew it wouldn't fly if the institution was denounced in the Constitution. Slavery was debated in the ratifying conventions, but because of the resistance to anything having to do with slavery even being hinted as an enumerated power of the general government, it was a no go. Therefore the Constitution was left neutral on the subject, but because of the 10th Amendment, the sovereign states could deal with it if they chose.

Even before all that, this original passage written by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence had to be deleted because of pushback by delegates from South Carolina, Georgia and the delegates from the North who represented merchants involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Quote:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

DrMaddVibe Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
I KNEW you knew...felt like you were dancing around that.
drglnc Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
Yep... Slavery wasn't the issue... even when they said it out loud, early and often...


Alexander Stephens Vice President of the Confederacy on Slavery and the Confederate Constitution, 1861


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

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man…. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another in glory.”

The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief stone of the corner” in our new edifice.



“Speech of A. H. Stephens,” Frank Moore, ed., Rebellion Record: A Diary of American Events, with Documents, Narratives, Illustrative Incidents, Poetry, etc. Volume I, (New York: 1861), 45-46.
HockeyDad Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
^ Joe Biden wrote that.
RayR Online
#32 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
What Alexander Stephens said could have been just as well said by a typical Northerner, Republican, or Democrat at the time. Even the Sainted Lincoln agreed that the white man was superior to the black man.

During his debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln famously said:

Quote:
From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.

"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."



The New York Times reprinted Lincoln's real quote from his speech in an article on December 28, 1860, debunking a totally fake Lincoln speech that was printed first a few day prior in the Albany Atlas and Argus in then copied and reprinted in The New York Tribune. Yes, even while he was alive people were making up fake Lincoln quotes.

The Article started out with the phony Lincoln speech as was printed in the Republican newspapers before the genuine statement at the debate with Douglas...

Quote:
The Tribune, of Wednesday morning, copied conspicuously from the Albany Atlas and Argus an article intended to prove that Mr. LINCOLN holds firmly and unflinchingly to the principles of the Republican Party, -- and that among them, is the principle of Negro Equality. With what special object the Tribune thus gave prominence and a quasi endorsement to this statement of Mr. LINCOLN's position, from an open and unsparing political opponent, it is no part of our purpose to inquire. Probably nothing has done more to embitter the minds of the Southern people towards the President elect than the imputation of such sentiments on this subject. We propose, therefore, to examine the basis on which the allegation rests.

The Atlas and Argus quotes from a speech said to have been made by Mr. LINCOLN "in September, 1858," the following:

"That central idea in our political system at the beginning was, and until recently continued to be, the equality of men. And although it was always submitted patiently to, whatever inequality there seemed to be, as a matter of actual necessity, its constant working has been a steady progress toward the practical equality of all men. In what I have done I cannot claim to have acted from any peculiar consideration of the colored people as a separate and distinct class in the community, but from the simple conviction that all the individuals of that class are members of the community, and in virtue of their manhood entitled to every original right enjoyed by any other member. We feel, therefore, that all legal distinction between individuals of the same community, founded in any such circumstances as color, origin and the like, are hostile to the genius of our institutions, and incompatible with the true history of American liberty. Slavery and oppression must cease, or American liberty must perish.
In Massachusetts, and in most, if not all, the New-England States, the colored man and the white are absolutely equal before the law.
In New-York the colored man is restricted as to the right of suffrage by a property qualification. In other respects the same equality prevails.
I embrace with pleasure this opportunity of declaring my disapprobation of that clause of the Constitution (of Illinois,) which, denies to a portion of the colored people the right of suffrage.
True Democracy makes no inquiry about the color of the skin or place of nativity, or any other similar circumstance of condition. I regard, therefore, the exclusion of the colored people as a body from the elective franchise as incompatible with the true Democratic principle."


Talk about FAKE LINCOLN NEWS! LOL





RayR Online
#33 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
HockeyDad wrote:
^ Joe Biden wrote that.


Well...Joe Biden did consider himself superior to Cornpop...right? Eh?
drglnc Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
RayR wrote:
What Alexander Stephens said could have been just as well said by a typical Northerner, Republican, or Democrat at the time. Even the Sainted Lincoln agreed that the white man was superior to the black man.

During his debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln famously said:




The New York Times reprinted Lincoln's real quote from his speech in an article on December 28, 1860, debunking a totally fake Lincoln speech that was printed first a few day prior in the Albany Atlas and Argus in then copied and reprinted in The New York Tribune. Yes, even while he was alive people were making up fake Lincoln quotes.

The Article started out with the phony Lincoln speech as was printed in the Republican newspapers before the genuine statement at the debate with Douglas...



Talk about FAKE LINCOLN NEWS! LOL







Sure... Except only one of them admits irrefutably that "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" known to all as the creation of the Confederacy and the primary cause of the Civil War...
Brewha Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
DrMaddVibe wrote:
I KNEW you knew...felt like you were dancing around that.

Next thing you know, you’ll be finishing each other’s sentences…..

Love
RayR Online
#36 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
Sure... Except only one of them admits irrefutably that "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" known to all as the creation of the Confederacy and the primary cause of the Civil War...


So you base your entire argument on one man's statement? No one is denying that slavery was ONE issue that caused contention but answer this...

"The nine Union slave states on April 12, 1861 when the war started were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina."
If slavery was the immediate cause of the war, why didn't Lincoln's army first free the slaves in those states still friendly to the Union at that time?

Also, later in the war why didn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free any slaves in Union controlled territory?

Why was it that "three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war"?

Well, I guess freeing slaves wasn't a priority after all.

I know LEFTY in particular likes to distill history down to single talking points, but dude...HISTORY IS MESSY!


You need to go back and read:

Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-declarations-do-not-prove-the-war-was-over-slavery/




DrMaddVibe Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
RayR wrote:
So you base your entire argument on one man's statement? No one is denying that slavery was ONE issue that caused contention but answer this...

"The nine Union slave states on April 12, 1861 when the war started were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina."
If slavery was the immediate cause of the war, why didn't Lincoln's army first free the slaves in those states still friendly to the Union at that time?

Also, later in the war why didn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free any slaves in Union controlled territory?

Why was it that "three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war"?

Well, I guess freeing slaves wasn't a priority after all.

I know LEFTY in particular likes to distill history down to single talking points, but dude...HISTORY IS MESSY!


You need to go back and read:

Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-declarations-do-not-prove-the-war-was-over-slavery/







Anyone remember why Juneteenth was even a thing? I mean even before it was declared a national holiday we were taught about that.
RayR Online
#38 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Anyone remember why Juneteenth was even a thing? I mean even before it was declared a national holiday we were taught about that.


You must be in Texas, I was never taught anything about Juneteenth.
I heard the fake national holiday called Juneteenth is a celebration of nothing

Juneteenth: A Celebration of Nothing

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/juneteenth-a-celebration-of-nothing/


HISTORY IS MESSY!
drglnc Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
RayR wrote:
So you base your entire argument on one man's statement? No one is denying that slavery was ONE issue that caused contention but answer this...

"The nine Union slave states on April 12, 1861 when the war started were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina."
If slavery was the immediate cause of the war, why didn't Lincoln's army first free the slaves in those states still friendly to the Union at that time?

Also, later in the war why didn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free any slaves in Union controlled territory?

Why was it that "three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war"?

Well, I guess freeing slaves wasn't a priority after all.

I know LEFTY in particular likes to distill history down to single talking points, but dude...HISTORY IS MESSY!


You need to go back and read:

Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-declarations-do-not-prove-the-war-was-over-slavery/







Not ONE Man's Statement... The Vice President of the Confederacy.... and MULTIPE STATES... and not ONE issue... the PRIMARY issue as he states in his own words... you can keep posting the same opinion based article, by the same guy that lives 150+ years removed all you want... i base my comments and opinions on the actual facts and the actual word of the people that did it... especially when they specifically say WHY they did it...
HockeyDad Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
RayR wrote:
You must be in Texas, I was never taught anything about Juneteenth.
I heard the fake national holiday called Juneteenth is a celebration of nothing

Juneteenth: A Celebration of Nothing

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/juneteenth-a-celebration-of-nothing/


HISTORY IS MESSY!


I get Juneteenth as a paid holiday. It ain’t fake to me!
RayR Online
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
HockeyDad wrote:
I get Juneteenth as a paid holiday. It ain’t fake to me!


A paid holiday to celebrate NOTHING! Only government could come up with something like that.


HockeyDad Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
RayR wrote:

Why was it that "three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war"?



For Delaware it was prolly because of the Biden family.
RayR Online
#43 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
Not ONE Man's Statement... The Vice President of the Confederacy.... and MULTIPE STATES... and not ONE issue... the PRIMARY issue as he states in his own words... you can keep posting the same opinion based article, by the same guy that lives 150+ years removed all you want... i base my comments and opinions on the actual facts and the actual word of the people that did it... especially when they specifically say WHY they did it...


Here we go again...you insist on basing your argument on a single sentence written by one man, and you say you are basing your comments and opinions on the actual facts. It's more like cherry-picking.

You only read and comprehend what you want to, that which you think bolsters your position.

The opinions of your man Alexander Stephens, that diehard defender of the institution of chattel slavery even pissed off President Jefferson Davis. Like Alexander Stephens, you have been trying to shift "the basis of the political debate from states’ rights to slavery".

Quote:
As the Confederacy evolved, Stephens was selected as a delegate and to many he appeared to be a good candidate for the vice presidency. He assumed an important role in the drafting of the Confederate Constitution and in other affairs, eventually accepting the vice presidency. Early in his tenure as Vice President, on March 21, 1861, he gave his politically damaging “Cornerstone” address in Savannah, where he defended slavery from a natural law perspective. President Jefferson Davis was greatly disturbed, as Stephens had shifted the basis of the political debate from states’ rights to slavery. Stephens was convinced that slavery was a necessity. The estrangement between Davis and Stephens increased, and by early 1862 the vice president was not intimately involved in the affairs of state. Accordingly, he returned to his home in Crawfordville. Pursuing actions he thought might assist in the denouement of the conflict, Stephens attempted several assignments, including a diplomatic sojourn to Washington. Returning to Richmond in December 1865, he introduced proposals to strengthen the Confederacy while presiding over the Senate.

From:
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/reconsidering-alexander-h-stephens/
drglnc Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
Lol, how many specific examples and direct statements dmwill it take to convince you? You seem convinced by the random guy 150 years later but write off the comments of the people that actually did it as nothing… I guess multiple states and the VP saying it was the primary reason was just an episode of punked to you… means nothing… but me real estate guys got the truth on lock for you.
RayR Online
#45 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
Lol, how many specific examples and direct statements dmwill it take to convince you? You seem convinced by the random guy 150 years later but write off the comments of the people that actually did it as nothing… I guess multiple states and the VP saying it was the primary reason was just an episode of punked to you… means nothing… but me real estate guys got the truth on lock for you.


Oh, that's right, your argument is based on a sentence by the Confederate VP AND four declarations of causes too. LOL

Quote:
Only four of the 13 Confederate states issued declarations of causes. Nine did not.

Those four declarations are the basis for the entire argument against the South because politicized academia and the ignorant news media simply ignore substantial evidence they don’t agree with.

They ignore the six Union slave states, the Corwin Amendment, the War Aims Resolution (war is being waged for Union, not to end slavery), Lincoln’s very clear statements that the war is about preserving the Union, and a ton of conclusive evidence that slavery was not the cause of the North’s invasion of the South.


How many times do I have to tell you? HISTORY IS MESSY! You have to read from ALL the real original sources about real historical events and not contrived historical myths. You seem to be offended by a real estate broker and publisher, who is a critically acclaimed historian, and literary scholar who does the hard work of historical research.
drglnc Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
RayR wrote:
Oh, that's right, your argument is based on a sentence by the Confederate VP AND four declarations of causes too. LOL



How many times do I have to tell you? HISTORY IS MESSY! You have to read from ALL the real original sources about real historical events and not contrived historical myths. You seem to be offended by a real estate broker and publisher, who is a critically acclaimed historian, and literary scholar who does the hard work of historical research.



Yea... i mean if Slavery was important to the confederacy they probably would have included it in their constitution or something... and its not like all the states ratified it...
rfenst Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
Is this thread going to get in to critical race theory?
Sunoverbeach Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,668
Like the Daytona 500? That one's pretty critical
RayR Online
#49 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
Yea... i mean if Slavery was important to the confederacy they probably would have included it in their constitution or something... and its not like all the states ratified it...


AH HA! I'm glad you brought up the Constitution of the Confederacy.
No, the Confederacy was not a republic of rabid enslavers that enshrined slavery in their constitution forever like the Corwin Amendment that Lincoln supported would have done. That's not to say that there were not some that did.
No...The Confederate Constitution of 1861 was like the Constitution of 1787, it remained neutral to the continued existence or the end of slavery in the several states. It was left up to the sovereign states to deal with.

I'm glad there have been experts on this subject to tell the historical and legal truth, like Vito Mussomeli, "a retired attorney living in Texas. He has spoken and written extensively on the Confederate Constitution and the Confederate legal system."
Thank God the Internet contains such repositories of great historical works. Otherwise mushy minds would be only subjected to the propaganda of LEFTY cultural Marxists, as well as the Neocons, and Strausians who agree with the LEFT more than not when it comes to American political history. It's bad enough that mushy minds are subjected to their crap on the Internet as well but also on Main Stream Media, the History Channel, and PBS. I heard HULU is pushing its 1619 Project documentary too. Bored

This is one awesome essay...

Slavery in the Confederate Constitution

By Vito Mussomeli
October 20, 2015

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/slavery-in-the-confederate-constitution/





frankj1 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
drglnc is typing too fast and trying to force the statements of those living there where and when it happened on us.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>