If the South was, and is, so wicked and corrupted, and if Southerners are and have always been a bunch of scum-sucking inbred racist hicks, a region of boorish imbeciles, what does it say about the "intellectually superior" north that they couldn't make it as a nation on their own, without Dixie?
What does it say about the "morally superior" north that they had to fight a war that killed hundreds of thousands on both sides to keep the brutish, morally inferior slavers and hick farmers in the South under their wealthy and powerful yankee thumb?
The north did not send a brutal army of invasion into the South to free slaves. That "cause" was tacked on well into the war. Read Lincoln's initial executive order calling for volunteers to make up the invasionary force; not a word, no a syllable about slavery.
At first, it was about "preserving the union."
Why was it necessary to keep the wicked Southern states in the union in order to preserve it? Well, it wasn't. It only required ratification of the Constitution by nine states to create the federal government -- the union -- and set it in operation. If the Southern states had been allowed to leave in peace, there would have been twenty-two (22) states left in the union -- more than twice the nine required to create it -- and they could have remained just as united as heck, if that was what they wanted.
Confederacy-bashers have told me it was necessary to keep the South as part of the USA in order to "form a more perfect union." But wouldn't it have been a more perfect union without the "dirty South" than with it?
Let's face it. The north knew it was missing some vitally important component -- some element necessary to survive as a nation -- that it lacked and that the South possessed. That is why the South had to be violently forced to remain in the union. Even after the war, when carpetbaggers and other assorted yankees came South and robbed state treasuries blind, bought up miles of virgin timber for pennies an acre, paid wretched Southern sawmill and mining workers with "scrip" instead of real money, to keep them enslaved to the company store, instigated discriminatory railroad freight rates so it woud be prohibitively expensive for Southern companies to ship finished goods (textiles, steel) to the north -- or even to other places in the South -- so all it could ship was cheaper, raw goods (which was then turned to finished goods in northern factories, which, of course, sold them at a handsome profit)...
It's time people realized that the north is not morally or intellectually superior to the South -- not at all. What the north excels in is greed, hypocrisy, exploitation of others and falsification.
"At first, it was about "preserving the union."
ReplyDeleteYes, you are correct Connie...for the North it was about preserving the Union.
For the South it was about preserving Slavery and the Slave Society built by slavery in the south.
You did not post my comments about the Mississippi Dec. of Secession..why not? Did it prove my point too well that the entire documdents list of complaints was all based on slavery?
Truth hurts sometimes Connie...get used to it.
Very well stated Connie. And instructive too. I am embarrassed that I did not so state myself! --Kenneth Smith
ReplyDeleteVery well stated Connie. And instructive too. I am embarassed that I had not already stated the substance of this blog myself to someone even in private conversation. --Kenneth Smith
ReplyDeleteThe North couldn't make it as a country on its own. "Preserving the Union" really meant keeping the South under the north's greedy thumb so the north could survive -- because it couldn't survive as a nation without the South.
ReplyDeleteThe north was doing its ample share of preserving slavery, too -- financing it, getting rich off of it. The South was about more than preserving slavery, and you know it. The South was about getting out from under the fraudulent north's greedy thumb.
I posted the comment about the Mississippi secession document, Corey -- and answered it. So it looks like the one being untruthful here is you.
Mr. Corey Meyer is insistent that the South was preserving slavery, and I'm sure the planter class of that era would have agreed with him, but the slavery issue was truly ancillary to the fundamental nature of the cause. If Corey is right, there is a suspicious lack of litigation against slavery, litigation in the form of Congressional Acts, even constitutional amendments, that would have sufficed to overrule the US Constitution and at the least mitigate, let alone overrule slavery's constitutional status. No, he protests too much. Southern states seceded, and the vast majority of non-slave-owning Southerners marched off to war not to preserve slavery but o defend their homelands against invasion from their own national government, a government which was pledged to further pillage the South through a predatory, confiscatory TARIFF in order to fund the railroads and other national projects from the major northern businesses.
ReplyDeleteAnd Corey Meyers must somehow reconcile the fact that President Lincoln made many deals with the slave owners of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware to keep those states in the Union. Seems President Lincoln, prior to the 1864 campaign, sought to preserve slavery himself.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the north and Lincoln was very willing for the South to preserve slavery. The South was not having it --
ReplyDeleteMarch 2, 1861
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
36th Congress 2nd Session
March 4, 1861
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment, however, I have not seen has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Abraham Lincoln - 1st inaugural speech
The Senate vote on the Corwin Amendment. Looks drastically northern --
ReplyDeleteMarch 2, 1861
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution
which will authorize or give to Congress the power
to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the
domestic institutions thereof, including that of
persons held to labor or service by the laws of
said State.
Nays
Solomon Foot - Vermont
Alfred Nicholson - Tennessee
George Pugh - Ohio
Yeas
Henry Anthony - Rhode Island
Edward Baker - Oregon
William Bigler - Pennsylvania
Kinsley Bingham - Michigan
Jesse D. Bright - Indiana
Zachariah Chandler - Michigan
Daniel Clark - New Hampshire
John J. Crittenden - Kentucky
James Dixon - Conneticut
James Doolittle - Wisconsin
Stephen Douglas - Illinois
Charles Durkee - Wisconsin
William Fessenden - Maine
Lafayette Foster - Connecticut
James Grimes - Iowa
James Harlan - Iowa
Robert M.T. Hunter - Virginia
R.W. Johnson - Arkansas
Andrew Johnson - Tennessee
Anthony Kennedy - Maryland
Preston King - New York
Milton Latham - California
James Mason - Virginia
Justin Morrill - Vermont
Trusten Polk - Missouri
Henry Rice - Minnesota
William sebastian - Arkansas
Charles Sumner - massachusetts
John Ten Eyck - New Jersy
Lyman Trumball - Illinois
Benjamin Wade - Ohio
Louis Wigfall - Texas
Morton Wilkinson - Minnesota
Henry Wilson - massachusetts
http://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/24/walter-e-williams-polishes-the-turd-on-tariffs/
ReplyDeletehttp://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/26/visualizing-tariff-revenues/
If you think the tariff was the cause you need to read the two articles above...
I can easily jive what Lincoln did with the slaveholders in the boarder states. It is quite simple really...Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union with or without slavery up until 1863, allowing the border states to keep their slaves would work to keep them in the Union or at least from joining the south. Lincoln's stance on the issue of slavery was never to destroy it but to keep it from expanding into the territories.
You two seem to forget that...more cherry picking to prove your point.
As for the Corwin Amend. it was protecting only slavery where it was...which was the platform of the Republicans from the start. It however did not address the expansion of slavery in the territories which was the rub between the two sections.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteWhat could be the reason for such a Northern vote on the Corwin Amendment?
Why such a norther vote? Because they did not give a rat's ass about the slaves. They were concerned about having the territories kept white. Pure racism!! One of your kindred blood Illinoisans speaking in Chicago -- "I want to have nothing to do either with the free negro or the slave negro. We, the Republican party, are the white man's party. [Great applause.]"
ReplyDeleteCorey, tariffs weren't "THE cause" any more than slavery was "THE cause." There was bad blood between north and South caused by many things, small and large. The emphasis you cherry pickers put on slavery to the exclusion of all other issues is simply par for the course with those whose greatest wish is to evilize white Southerners, and to sprinkle the perfume of fake "moral superiority" on the stench of the north's hypocrisy, greed and falsifying.
ReplyDeleteCorey persists in begging the question...
ReplyDeleteSo the north was more than willing to vilify the South for having slavery, even as Northern businesses (banks, shipping companies, e.g., slave traders) profited from the slave trade well into the 1860s. And Corey wishes to impugn the South for this further, that the South is a bad name because the region had slaves and fought to preserve it, and the north which had no slaves but profited from the trade and whose industries were often reliant upon slave-produced cotton, bears no guilt whatsoever....
No, the northern business campaign to vilify and impugn the South for purchasing slaves from them was all about who would control the cost of labor in the developing western territories. Yes, these business interests sought to confine slavery to the South, which these interests had no basic "right" per se to do outside of sheer political power, and to confine it to the South because they feared the economic power of the slave-holding class who could exploit the opportunities of the western territories with slave labor rather than with "free white labor" the mantra of western expansion. Senator DeWolf of Rhode Island, the nation's leading slave trader, and whose descendants currently publish (http://www.tracesofthetrade.org/) as their penance, voted against the inclusion of Missouri as a slave state into the union for precisely that reason, and that reason alone.
Regarding the tariff and its effect on secession. It was not so much the additional costs etc, it was seen as a further encroachment upon the Constitution. Tariffs, etc were supposed to be for government revenue only. The new tariffs were protectionist of northern industry --
ReplyDeleteSection 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The northern States just further trampled the Constitution. --
"These [northern] very States are among the loudest in their demands for unconditional submission on the part of the South to the election of Lincoln. The inviolability of the Union is the magic word with which they summon the South to submission. The South responds by holding up before them a Constitution basely broken—a compact wantonly violated. That broken Constitution and violated compact formed the only Union we ever recognized; and if you would still have us to love and preserve it. restore to it that vital spirit of which it has been robbed by your sacrilegious hands, and make it again what our fathers made it—a Union of good faith in the maintenance of constitutional obligations. Do this, and the Union will find in all this land no truer or more devoted supporters than the ever-loyal sons of the South." -- Robert Toombs
These tunnel vision / selective amnesia, attacks on the South will never stop.
ReplyDeleteSomehow they never mention “Black Codes” , Northern Slave Shippers, Northern Factory’s making huge profits off slave produced raw materials, the fact that slavery was still legal everyplace in the United States.
They never mention that slavery was an “add on” to the war, or that the Emancipation Proclamation was a tool of war that left slavery intact in areas that were controlled by Lincoln.
I guess it makes em sleep better at night !