How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery

[jmdrake]

That is referring to Territories under Confederation control NOT STATES.

Nice attempt at a dodge. But you missed this part too.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired.

So if you owned slaves in a confederate state and moved to any confederate state you could take your slaves with you, making any state in the confederacy a de facto slave state whether the state wished to continue to be a slave state or not.

[Swordsmyth]

Nice attempt at a dodge. But you missed this part too.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired.

So if you owned slaves in a confederate state and moved to any confederate state you could take your slaves with you, making any state in the confederacy a de facto slave state whether the state wished to continue to be a slave state or not.

That is about temporary transits or visits, it is an enshrinement of the Dred Scott decision, I am not here to defend slavery but you are wrong.

World history is composed almost entirely of grossly imperfect nations, all we can do is make relative judgements, in the "civil war" era the Confederates were better than the Union, a case could be made that they were better than modern America considering the millions of people our imperial actions have brought death and suffering to around the globe.

[jmdrake]

That is about temporary transits or visits, it is an enshrinement of the Dred Scott decision, I am not here to defend slavery but you are wrong.

World history is composed almost entirely of grossly imperfect nations, all we can do is make relative judgements, in the "civil war" era the Confederates were better than the Union, a case could be made that they were better than modern America considering the millions of people our imperial actions have brought death and suffering to around the globe.

Yes because instituting a draft and excepting people involved in the very institution the war was defending constitutes a high degree of morality. I suppose next time we go to war in the Middle East there should be a draft but the children of oil executives should be exempted. And Dred Scott itself was a violation of states rights. Should this country ever do the right thing and end the drug war but allow individual states to ban drugs, someone shouldn't be able to say "I know drugs are illegal in Tennessee but I'm just bringing my stash on vacation" and then pretend that's "states rights."

[1stvermont]

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not make it true. At the end of the day the states wanted "sovereignty" to keep slavery legal, but in the confederate constitution they abrogated states from having the "sovereignty" to end slavery.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not make it true. At the end of the day the states wanted "sovereignty" to keep the american republic/union alive. The csa Constitution upheld the sovereignty of the states but some chose to keep repeating the same nonsense claiming otherwise, see here.


Claim-Confederate Constitution Does not Allow States to Abolish Slavery

“It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party”
-Robert Divine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past and Present

Many say the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery because they falsely say the CSA constitution did not allow states to end slavery. However freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSA constitution. Article 1 section 9 clause 4 applies to congress, not to the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slave states to join the confederacy. Article 4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predicted future free states within the confederacy. As many in the confederacy including VP Stevens thought that the non slave holding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the tax and trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippi river to join the confederacy as non slave states.

“We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and,perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way.”
-Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21 1861

Confederate convention thought free states would join

https://books.google.com/books?id=zQ4wzvvk5dIC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=The+Conf ederate+Constitution+of+1861:+An+Inquiry+into+Amer ican+Constitutionalism+georgia+slave+only+states&s ource=bl&ots=88AqOaDyck&sig=mdQFt5U_usrc7So63Z8lsr ZhqPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1vve0mbXQAhUl7oMKHX_T BssQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=The%20Confederate%20Const itution%20of%201861%3A%20An%20Inquiry%20into%20Ame rican%20Constitutionalism%20georgia%20slave%20only %20states&f=false

During the constitutional convention Cobb of Georgia proposed that all states be required to be slave owning, yet this was rejected. The south wanted boarder states and the free midwest states to join.Senator Albert Brown of Mississippi stated in the CSA constitution“Each state is sovereign within its own limits, and that each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself.” So while slavery was a state option, states rights was applied in the CSA slave or free. The CSA constitution did protect slave owners individual property within the entire CSA regardless if the state was free or slave.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States


States Rights Were just to Protect Slavery

States rights were vital to our union and our whole political system.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war


“If their was not a slave from Aroostock to the sabine, the north and the south could never permanent agree”
-Richmond Daily Whig April 23, 1862

“It is evident that the three ruling branches of [the federal government] are in combination to stop their colleagues, the states authorities, of the powers reserved by them”
-Thomas Jefferson letter to William Giles 1825

“Sever ourselves from the union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness”
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1799

The CSA federal government could not end slavery in the confederacy constitutionally. Yet the confederacy still made a very strong states rights Constitution. If it was just to protect slavery than there would have been no need for stronger states rights than the American Constitution. During the confederacy when the federal overreached against the states, states nullified and fought back on non slave related issues and states like Georgia, threatened to secede.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/govbrown/brown.html
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/After Reconstruction and slavery, the south was still the strong states rights section of the country. The first states right advocates in the U.S were men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George mason, St George Tucker, John Randolph many of whom spoke out against slavery, yet were strong states rights proponents. States rights was used more by northern states before the civil war than southern. States rights were used against slavery and federal ruling like the fugitive slave laws. There were strong states rights men in the north [democrats] that were anti slavery. For example over national banking during the war, northern democrats objected because

“It utterly to destroy all the rights of the states. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national congress to destroy every institution of the states and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here” [D.C ]
-Kentucky democrat Lazarous Powell

States had pushed back against federal overreach no matter what the issue, the issue in 1860 was over tariffs and slavery. The first federal vs state issue arose over the alien and sedition acts later internal improvements, national banking, conscription, protective tariffs, land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of militia, fugitive slave laws etc. No matter what the issue states held firm to the union and fought against federal expansions. In the upper south slavery was better protected within their state than in the new confederacy. However states rights were better protected in the confederacy under its constitution. Many in the south such as Mary Chestnut wished slavery to be abolished in the confederacy as did others.

“Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it”
-The Jackson Mississippian 1864 quoted in McPherson's Battle cry of Freedom

General Patrick Claburne [and other generals] wanted to free all the slaves. Jeff Davis sent diplomats near the end of the war offering to end slavery if France/Britain would recognize them. Northern generals like general George Thomas of the union, were rich slave owners who fought for the north and said during the war “I am wholly sick of states rights.”

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War

If the south fought only for slavery,it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact, yet they chose to fight for another cause.

"The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.”
-Moses Jacob Ezekiel

Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ, Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.”


“The hour is coming or is rabidly approaching, when the states from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisianan, must confederate, and as one man say to the union we will no longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad men on the floor of congress. Our constitutional rights to the dark and strained contraction of design men upon judicial benches. That we detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission to the general [Federal] government....Let the North, then, form national roads for themselves. Let them guard with tariffs their own interests. Let them deepen their public debt until a high minded aristocracy shall rise out of it. We want none of all those blessings. But in the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we would still remain master and servant under our own vine and our own fig-tree, and confide for safety upon Him who of old time looked down upon this state of things without wrath.”
-1824 A Congressional committee

For why states rights was more important than slavery see under Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/States Rights and South Carolina secession document post.

“It is not slavery that [Thomas] Jefferson fears as “the death kneel of the union” it is antislavery, the notion that has been raised for the first time that congress could tamper with the institutions of new states as a condition for admission”
-Clyde Wilson from Union to Empire .

“Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.”
-South Carolina Senator John Calhoun 1831

[Identity]

What an awful thread, are you guys still really parading this "Civil War wasn't about slavery" nonsense? When I was younger I thought this was some smart little historical quip- "actually it was over states' rights and economic differences!" Then as I researched it further, spoke personally with historians knowledgeable on the period, and looked into it myself I realized, "oh yeah.... it was just about slavery." While there may have been other factors- those other factors were largely irrecoverably linked with slavery, hence the whole states rights/10th Amendment argument in the first place.

Look up the phrase "Lost Cause" and get some scholarly material on it before repeating talking points coming out of fringe areas of the web.

Nice attempt at a dodge. But you missed this part too.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired.

So if you owned slaves in a confederate state and moved to any confederate state you could take your slaves with you, making any state in the confederacy a de facto slave state whether the state wished to continue to be a slave state or not.

Exactly- also I don't see how a single state in the CSA would be able to outlaw slavery. From my understanding of the southern economy it was basically a slave market. You were either a slave holder or someone that indirectly worked for someone owning a slave- wasn't exactly an industrial revolution going on with a plethora of factory jobs for people to get into. Outlawing slavery would be like New England voluntarily outlawing factories- just wouldn't happen. Ultimately, the Federal Government had to forcefully end slavery due to abolitionist pressure.



"BadHistory" on Reddit goes into this issue a lot and it's worth reading if you guys are interested hearing from actual historians:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...t_cause_is_so/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...hat_discusses/


https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/..._on_the_civil/


[Note: The consensus opinion among historians is that the Civil War was mainly over slavery. There are probably more weirdo Christ-mythicists in academia than Lost Cause types]

[1stvermont]

What an awful thread, are you guys still really parading this "Civil War wasn't about slavery" nonsense? When I was younger I thought this was some smart little historical quip- "actually it was over states' rights and economic differences!" Then as I researched it further, spoke personally with historians knowledgeable on the period, and looked into it myself I realized, "oh yeah.... it was just about slavery." While there may have been other factors- those other factors were largely irrecoverably linked with slavery, hence the whole states rights/10th Amendment argument in the first place.

Look up the phrase "Lost Cause" and get some scholarly material on it before repeating talking points coming out of fringe areas of the web.




Exactly- also I don't see how a single state in the CSA would be able to outlaw slavery. From my understanding of the southern economy it was basically a slave market. You were either a slave holder or someone that indirectly worked for someone owning a slave- wasn't exactly an industrial revolution going on with a plethora of factory jobs for people to get into. Outlawing slavery would be like New England voluntarily outlawing factories- just wouldn't happen. Ultimately, the Federal Government had to forcefully end slavery due to abolitionist pressure.



"BadHistory" on Reddit goes into this issue a lot and it's worth reading if you guys are interested hearing from actual historians:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...t_cause_is_so/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...hat_discusses/


https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/..._on_the_civil/


[Note: The consensus opinion among historians is that the Civil War was mainly over slavery. There are probably more weirdo Christ-mythicists in academia than Lost Cause types]

the above post is what happened when the federal government is in control of education. For refutation see below.


http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...-Cotton-States

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...he-Upper-South

[Identity]

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START

by Alan Stang
February 1, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has "lost its way" and "gone wrong." It has "diverged" from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower's handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today's Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn't "go wrong," didn't "go left."

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.

Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom a small gang of wealthy Communists "the League of Just Men" hired for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims what the Communists would do.

But the Revolution of 1848 failed. The perpetrators escaped, just ahead of the police. And they went, of course, to the united States. In 1856, the Republican Party ran its first candidate for President. By that time, these Communists from Europe had thoroughly infiltrated this country, especially the North. Many became high ranking officers in the Union Army and top government officials.

Down through the decades, Americans have wondered about Yankee brutality in that war. Lee invaded the North, but that sublime Christian hero forbade any forays against civilians. Military genius Stonewall Jackson stood like a stone wall and routed the Yankees at Manassas, but when Barbara Frietchie insisted on flying the Yankee flag in Frederick, Maryland, rather than the Stars and Bars, that sublime Christian hero commanded, according to John Greenleaf Whittier, 'Who touches a hair of yon gray head/Dies like a dog! "March on" he said.'

But the Yankees, invading the South, were monsters, killing, raping and destroying civilian property. In one Georgia town, some 400 women were penned in the town square in the July heat for almost a week without access to female facilities. It got worse when the Yankee slime got into the liquor. Some two thousand Southern women and children were shipped north to labor as slaves. Didn't you learn that in school?

Sherman's scorched earth March to the Sea was a horror the later Nazis could not equal. Why? Because the Yankees hated Negro slavery so much? There can be no doubt that the already strong Communist influence in the North, combined with that of the maniacal abolitionists, was at least one of the main reasons. Slavery was a tardy excuse, an afterthought they introduced to gain propaganda traction.

In retrospect, it appears that because nothing like this had ever happened here, Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a "Civil" War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals. Instead they went home, in the mistaken belief that the defeated Yankees would leave them alone. Lee did come to understand -- too late. He said after the war that had he known at the beginning what he had since found out, he would have fought to the last man.

What was the South fighting? Alexander Hamilton was the nation�s first big government politician. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and a national bank. Vice President Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel. The problem was that Burr didn�t kill him soon enough. Henry Clay inherited and expanded Hamilton's ideas in something called the "American System," which advocated big government subsidies for favored industries and high, ruinous tariffs, what we today call "socialism for the rich." Clay inspired smooth talking railroad lawyer Abraham Lincoln, who inherited the Red escapees from the Revolution of 1848 and became our first Communist President.

All of this comes again to mind with the recent publication of Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln's Marxists (Universe, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007) by Southern historians Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. You must read this book, because it irrefutably nails down everything I have said above and then some. Let's browse through Red Republicans, and, as we do so, remember that the reason most Americans have never heard of all this is that the winner writes the history.

For instance, August Willich was a member of the London Communist League with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Needless to say, Willich became a major general in the Union Army. Robert Rosa belonged to the New York Communist Club and was a major in the 45th New York Infantry. Brigadier general Louis Blenker of New York was a "convinced Marxist." His 10,000 man division looted people in Virginia, inspiring the term "Blenkered." Many of his men were fresh from European prisons. Our first Communist President knew this, but turned them loose on the people of the South.

In Red Republicans we learn of nine European revolutionaries convicted of treason and banished to Australia. They escaped to the united States and Canada. Three or four of them, with no military experience, became Union generals, joining at least three other Marx confidants who already held that rank. "Every man of the nine became a member of the Canadian Parliament, a governor of a territory or state in the Union, party leader, prime minister or attorney general."

Many of these men, not all, were Germans, some four thousand of whom escaped to this country. Known as Forty-Eighters, they quickly added violent abolitionism and feminism to their Communist beliefs. In Missouri, Forty-Eighter Franz Sigel became a Union general and had uniforms made for his Third Infantry Regiment that closely resembled the uniforms worn by socialist revolutionaries in Germany in 1849.

Forty-Eighters who became high ranking Union commanders included Colonel Friedrich Salomon, Ninth Wisconsin, Colonel Fritz Anneke, Thirty Fourth Wisconsin and Colonel Konrad Krez, Twenty Seventh Wisconsin. Communist journalist Karl Heinzen wrote: "If you have to blow up half a continent and cause a bloodbath to destroy the party of barbarism, you should have no scruples of conscience. Anyone who would not joyously sacrifice his life for the satisfaction of exterminating a million barbarians is not a true republican." Heinzen came to this country and supported Lincoln.

Joseph Weydemeyer had to flee Germany when the Communist Revolution failed. In London he belonged to the Communist League and was a close friend of Marx and Engels. He came to this country in 1851, supported Lincoln, maintained his close friendship with Marx and became a Brigadier General in the Union Army.

Dedicated socialist Richard Hinton had to leave England. In this country he became a Union colonel, a Radical Republican and an associate of maniac John Brown's. So was Allan Pinkerton, who financed him. At one meeting with Brown, Pinkerton told his son: "Look well upon that man. He is greater than Napoleon and just as great as George Washington." Yes, Pinkerton was the great detective who founded the agency that bears his name. Why didn't you know that? In Kansas, mass murderer Brown enjoyed the support of wealthy Yankees (the Secret Six). August Bondi and Charles Kaiser, who worked with Brown there, were Forty Eighters.

What about Marx himself? Marx fled to England, where he is buried. He became the European correspondent for socialist Horace Greeley's New York Tribune, whose Managing Editor, Charles Dana, was a Communist. Dana hired Marx as a foreign correspondent. Marx wrote often of his kinship with the new Republican Party. Dana's generosity to Marx kept that scumbag alive.

Remember that Marx never worked a day to support his family, but did find time to impregnate their maid. Dana later became Assistant Secretary of War. All these people were in place when our first Communist President was elected on the Republican ticket in 1860 and provoked Lincoln�s Communist War to Destroy the Union.

The GOP Convention of 1860 took place in Chicago, a flaming center of German Communism. Many such Reds were delegates, including Johann Bernhard Stallo and Frederick Hassaurek from Ohio and Heinrich Bornstein from Missouri, a friend of Marx. Socialist Carl Schurz was a delegate from Wisconsin. To guarantee German support in Illinois, Lincoln secretly bought the Illinois Staats Anzieger. After the election he awarded the editor a consular post.

Socialist Friedrich Kapp was editor of the New Yorker-Abendzeitung. He wrote propaganda for the new Republican Party and helped mightily to deliver the German-American vote to Lincoln. With other Forty-Eighters, he was an elector for Lincoln in 1860. Remember, these are just a few examples. You really need to read the book. Call, toll-free 1 (800) 288-4677 to order.

Remember that slavery, for these Communists, was just an afterthought, a tool. Before the War for Independence, it was the Southern colonies that petitioned the King to stop importing slaves into the South. Did you know that Jefferson tried to include in the Declaration of Independence a complaint against the King because his government had forbidden the colonies to end the slave trade? Jefferson's language was deleted to avoid giving offense to New England, which was making buckets of money trading slaves.

Indeed, did you also know that if slavery was what the South fought to defend, all it had to do was stay in the Union? Lincoln made clear that he would defend slavery and would not free slaves owned by a man in a state within the Union: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation came well into the war. It was a propaganda stunt that freed only the slaves in areas controlled by the Confederacy; in other words, none. Meanwhile, prominent abolitionist Robert E. Lee, the first man Lincoln offered command of the Union Army, had freed his family's slaves long before the war. So, what were the Communists who came here after?

Republican Senator John Sherman, brother of the monster who Marched to the Sea, advised his fellow senators to "nationalize as much as possible [making] men love their country before their states. All private interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinate now to the interests of the Government."

Germany was a decentralized collection of independent states. The goal of the Forty Eighters there was a "united, indivisible republic," in which those states would be dissolved. Land and private industry would be confiscated. The government would be transformed into a Socialist dictatorship. These are the ideas the Forty Eighters came to implement here. By the way, that is what Hitler did in the 1930s. That is what the fleeing Communists found so attractive in Lincoln.

So, again, the Republican Party did not "go wrong." It was rotten from the start. It has never been anything else but red. The characterization of Republican states as �red states� is quite appropriate. What do these revelations mean to us? Again, Dr. Paul is an aberration. He is not a "traditional Republican." A "traditional Republican" stands for high taxes, imperial government and perpetual war.


Dr. Paul is much more a traditional Democrat. I refer of course to the Democrat Party before the Communist takeover, which began with the election of Woodrow Federal Reserve-Income Tax-World War I Wilson and was consummated with the election of liar, swindler, thief, traitor and mass murderer Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I am talking about the Democrat Party of Thomas Jefferson.
So of course the Republican Party will do everything it can to sandbag Dr. Paul. Expect that. It rightly considers him an interloper who doesn't belong there. Yes, because of decades of perversion of popular opinion about the Republican Party, he must run as a Republican. But no patriot loyalty, and certainly no trust, should be forthcoming, because the Party is a sidewinder that will betray him in a Ghouliani minute.


Dr. No is on one side. The Republicrat Party is on the other.

Honest to God.. that was probably the most insane article I've ever read. Wow......
The GOP had a terrific start- from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt it was an almost perfect Party. We started failing when the Conservatives took over and crashed the economy, then we went into a minority position for decades due to the forward-thinking New Deal coalition. Eisenhower (a Progressive mind you) helped bring the Party back to its respectable past. Reagan & his ideological successors have largely failed and seem to be on their way out due to the Trump hegemony.

However, the premise of the article is correct- Paul & the more "small government, free market" types would historically belong to the Democratic Party. There was a switch in the 20th century where Progressives moved to the DNC & Conservatives slowly migrated out of the Democratic Party. Even today we have Blue Dogs and moderates who are a remnant of a different era.

[jmdrake]

the above post is what happened when the federal government is in control of education. For refutation see below.


http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...-Cotton-States

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...he-Upper-South

Wrong. Speaking for myself I was educated in private schools K-12 and my high school history teacher was a southern apologist and a blooming idiot. I'm not calling him an idiot because he was a southern apologist. When we would get our tests back I would have a C...until we went through the answers and I showed him from the book over and over again where he was wrong and I would have an A. And no it wasn't a "liberal textbook." He just didn't have a basic grasp of historical facts.

And here is the fact of what we're talking about. You can couch it in "states rights" and "property rights" all you want to but at the end of the day the "property right" being argued about was human beings. Ask yourself this question. Why did the slave owning states demand a fugitive slave clause in the constitution in the first place? Seriously? I know the answer, but I wonder if you do. I doubt it.

[jmdrake]

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not make it true. At the end of the day the states wanted "sovereignty" to keep the american republic/union alive. The csa Constitution upheld the sovereignty of the states but some chose to keep repeating the same nonsense claiming otherwise, see here.

[SIZE=2]
Claim-Confederate Constitution Does not Allow States to Abolish Slavery

“It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party”
-Robert Divine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past and Present

Many say the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery because they falsely say the CSA constitution did not allow states to end slavery. However freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSA constitution. Article 1 section 9 clause 4 applies to congress, not to the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slave states to join the confederacy. Article 4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predicted future free states within the confederacy. As many in the confederacy including VP Stevens thought that the non slave holding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the tax and trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippi river to join the confederacy as non slave states.

LOL. You can't read except for copying and pasting articles that agree with you. Every new territory the confederacy was to acquire had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery. If a state "barred" slavery, it would have to allow slave owners to "sojourn" with their slaves. Put your brain in gear. I know you have one. In the 21st century we can't keep up with who is or is not "sojourning" in our nation. There was no way with 19th century technology to be able to keep track of who had permanently moved in with his slaves and who was just "sojourning."

[Swordsmyth]

Honest to God.. that was probably the most insane article I've ever read. Wow......
The GOP had a terrific start- from Axel Rose to Teddy Roosevelt it was an almost perfect Party. We started failing when the Conservatives took over and crashed the economy, then we went into a minority position for decades due to the forward-thinking New Deal coalition. Eisenhower (a Progressive mind you) helped bring the Party back to its respectable past. Reagan & his ideological successors have largely failed and seem to be on their way out due to the Trump hegemony.

However, the premise of the article is correct- Paul & the more "small government, free market" types would historically belong to the Democratic Party. There was a switch in the 20th century where Progressives moved to the DNC & Conservatives slowly migrated out of the Democratic Party. Even today we have Blue Dogs and moderates who are a remnant of a different era.

Sure Teddy the Bull Moose Socialist Imperialist was just great

Get lost.

[Identity]

Sure Teddy the Bull Moose Socialist Imperialist was just great

Get lost.

Roosevelt's environmental plans weren't bad- Conservatives probably could've gotten behind it as well. But I'm honestly curious- what do you guys think should happen to a State that is trying to leave the union but endorses something as bad as slavery? That's a huge moral crime we're dealing with..

[Swordsmyth]

Roosevelt's environmental plans weren't bad- Conservatives probably could've gotten behind it as well. But I'm honestly curious- what do you guys think should happen to a State that is trying to leave the union but endorses something as bad as slavery? That's a huge moral crime we're dealing with..

Let them be. Native citizens, individuals, or GOD will deal with them, we should no more meddle with them than we should go around the globe slaying monsters.

At most we might refuse to trade with them.

[Identity]

LOL. You can't read except for copying and pasting articles that agree with you. Every new territory the confederacy was to acquire had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery. If a state "barred" slavery, it would have to allow slave owners to "sojourn" with their slaves. Put your brain in gear. I know you have one. In the 21st century we can't keep up with who is or is not "sojourning" in our nation. There was no way with 19th century technology to be able to keep track of who had permanently moved in with his slaves and who was just "sojourning."

Well I didn't go through the article enough to respond but it listed the "agrarian South vs. industrial north" as the number 1 cause of the split. Uhh, what do people the South meant by identifying as 'agrarian?' Yes, it was agrarian and it was economically efficient to own & use slaves in the agrarian south than anything else- hence the split. It's like the people that use "State's rights" as an argument.. yeah it was over states' rights- the right for a state to allow slavery. Come on people..


I can respect the CSA for certain things and recognize the time period, I'll always think Robert E Lee was a principled, respected man. But this is just silly. Also am I mistaken to say the CSA was rather anti-liberal and anti-states rights itself? Their Constitution allowed a huge amount of leeway for their Feds to intervene when necessary.

[Identity]

Let them be. Native citizens, individuals, or GOD will deal with them, we should no more meddle with them than we should go around the globe slaying monsters.

At most we might refuse to trade with them.

My problem with that view is that we would've fragmented America into a million little pieces by now. The Founders always had a notion of a perpetual union one could correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that exact phrase was used in the Articles of Confederation. One could imagine a scenario where every piece of America splits once an unpopular President or law gets passed- I recall there were major pre-Civil War secessionist movements, one being centered in New England as a response to the Union growing and "old school Americans" feeling underrepresented.

[Swordsmyth]

My problem with that view is that we would've fragmented America into a million little pieces by now. The Founders always had a notion of a perpetual union one could correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that exact phrase was used in the Articles of Confederation. One could imagine a scenario where every piece of America splits once an unpopular President or law gets passed- I recall there were major pre-Civil War secessionist movements, one being centered in New England as a response to the Union growing and "old school Americans" feeling underrepresented.

What nonsense!

[Identity]

What nonsense!

How would America defend itself against the British Empire if literally every State pulled apart from the Federal gov almost instantly? That's one of my issues with Anarchists- you need a decent amount of centralization to keep things in order. Constitution was an improvement upon the Articles for that reason.

[1stvermont]

Wrong. Speaking for myself I was educated in private schools K-12 and my high school history teacher was a southern apologist and a blooming idiot. I'm not calling him an idiot because he was a southern apologist. When we would get our tests back I would have a C...until we went through the answers and I showed him from the book over and over again where he was wrong and I would have an A. And no it wasn't a "liberal textbook." He just didn't have a basic grasp of historical facts.

And here is the fact of what we're talking about. You can couch it in "states rights" and "property rights" all you want to but at the end of the day the "property right" being argued about was human beings. Ask yourself this question. Why did the slave owning states demand a fugitive slave clause in the constitution in the first place? Seriously? I know the answer, but I wonder if you do. I doubt it.

that is a great way of ignoring the causes of secession and responses contained within my post.

[Swordsmyth]

How would America defend itself against the British Empire if literally every State pulled apart from the Federal gov almost instantly? That's one of my issues with Anarchists- you need a decent amount of centralization to keep things in order. Constitution was an improvement upon the Articles for that reason.

An alliance does not require a union.

[1stvermont]

LOL. You can't read except for copying and pasting articles that agree with you. Every new territory the confederacy was to acquire had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery. If a state "barred" slavery, it would have to allow slave owners to "sojourn" with their slaves. Put your brain in gear. I know you have one. In the 21st century we can't keep up with who is or is not "sojourning" in our nation. There was no way with 19th century technology to be able to keep track of who had permanently moved in with his slaves and who was just "sojourning."

These "articles" are mine. And you are incorrect about the csa Constitution as i pointed out, just put your brain i gear and read it. They could not outlaw individuals there right to their own property anywhere in the csa. But it is clear you care not for facts and i cant make you learn, that is up to you.

[Identity]

that is a great way of ignoring the causes of secession.

I've heard the alternatives before and let's imagine a world where slavery didn't exist in America. Do you think tariffs, cultural issues, and some different economic structures would be enough for the South to randomly rise up and go, "alright we're done here" I really just don't buy it- I'm not saying you're wrong concerning there being other variables but the opinion of most historians is that slavery was the issue, everything else wasn't secession-worthy.

[Identity]

These "articles" are mine. And you are incorrect about the csa Constitution as i pointed out, just put your brain i gear and read it. They could not outlaw individuals there right to their own property anywhere in the csa. But it is clear you care not for facts and i cant make you learn, that is up to you.

Translation = unapologetic nation-wide slavery that can't be questioned. Great system..

[Swordsmyth]

I've heard the alternatives before and let's imagine a world where slavery didn't exist in America. Do you think tariffs, cultural issues, and some different economic structures would be enough for the South to randomly rise up and go, "alright we're done here" I really just don't buy it- I'm not saying you're wrong concerning there being other variables but the opinion of most historians is that slavery was the issue, everything else wasn't secession-worthy.

Everything else was enough, and if it wasn't it would have been very quickly.

[Identity]

Everything else was enough, and if it wasn't it would have been very quickly.

Yeah but my point is that everything else was tied into slavery at some point, no? Like the whole "State's rights" issue might have some legit points- but it was only brought up because slavery was becoming an increasingly bigger issue.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah but my point is that everything else was tied into slavery at some point, no? Like the whole "State's rights" issue might have some legit points- but it was only brought up because slavery was becoming an increasingly bigger issue.

No, the North wanted big government and to destroy the south's economy and the south objected to both, slavery was the coincidence not the other way around.

[1stvermont]

I've heard the alternatives before and let's imagine a world where slavery didn't exist in America. Do you think tariffs, cultural issues, and some different economic structures would be enough for the South to randomly rise up and go, "alright we're done here" I really just don't buy it- I'm not saying you're wrong concerning there being other variables but the opinion of most historians is that slavery was the issue, everything else wasn't secession-worthy.

No i think the issue was the issue they said it was, that of state sovereignty, have a look at me links. Or at least stop pretending to know what you are talking about.

[1stvermont]

Translation = unapologetic nation-wide slavery that can't be questioned. Great system..

once more a dodge of the issues at play.

[Superfluous Man]

I love Paul Craig Roberts but he is wrong as two left shoes on this. To fully understand the history of the civil war it is important not to just look at the motivations of the North but to look at the motivations of the South. The southern states stated in their declarations of secession that their main beef was protecting slavery. They wanted slavery to be allowed to expand to the new territories and the wanted the fugitive slave law enforced. In his first inaugural, Lincoln made it clear that he wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave law, nor allow slavery to expand further. The proposed constitutional amendment that Paul Craig Roberts was referencing did not address either of those issues. The other issue people cite as a cause for secession was tariffs. But tariffs were at an all time low when the South seceded. Had the southern states gone along with South Carolina and seceded when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president, then could have legitimately claimed their main beef was tariffs. Tariffs were high back then. Incidentally Andrew Jackson threatened to hang all secessionists and yet for some odd reason Andrew Jackson is still revered in the south. But after the nullification crisis, congress reduced tariffs to the lowest ever in the nation's history. After the southern senators resigned post secession, tariffs were raised. In other words all the South had to do to prevent tariffs from being raised was to NOT secede! Either southerners were the biggest group of stupid bumpkins in history, or the U.S. Civil War was not chiefly about tariffs.

It's really silly for libertarians to try to defend the South. You and everyone else should watch the movie "The Free State of Jones." It tells the true story of poor southern whites and escaped black slaves who seceded from Mississippi during the Civil War and created their truly libertarian state. People talk about wanting to create a libertarian state in New Hampshire? Well a libertarian state existed in Mississippi. There was no slavery and there were no taxes! And why were these poor whites willing to throw in their lot with escaped slaves? Because the Confederacy in effect was enslaving white people along with blacks! The Confederacy was the first side in the civil war to institute a draft. But after the emancipation proclamation, the confederacy exempted slave owners from the draft! For every 9 slaves you had, you got one exemption! Also Confederate "tax collectors" would conduct raids on the crops of poor white farmers to have food to feed an army fighting in a war that in no way benefited poor whites. Lincoln did a lot of things wrong too. But what rich whites were doing to poor whites during the Civil War was worthy of a counter civil war. Other areas of the South seceded from their states as well. That's how we have West Virginia. An area in North Alabama also seceded. Troops from this area were some of General Sherman's best fighters as he went "Marching through Georgia." Learn your history, all of it.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

I think there's a good case that the North was fighting for things other than ending slavery.

But as for the South, maintaining slavery may not have been the only reason it had, but it was clearly a big one. Clearly they did not interpret the Corwin Amendment mentioned in the OP as the gift of eternal slavery on a silver platter that Roberts insinuates.

[jmdrake]

No, the North wanted big government and to destroy the south's economy and the south objected to both, slavery was the coincidence not the other way around.

LOL. The north wanted to destroy the south's economy by forcing it into economic growth (industrialization)? That's really about the most retarded argument on the subject I've ever read.

[jmdrake]

No i think the issue was the issue they said it was, that of state sovereignty, have a look at me links. Or at least stop pretending to know what you are talking about.

The whole point of the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was to undermine state sovereignty. It was a reaction to the case Somerset v Stewart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart In that case a slave escaped from Virginia to England and the slave owner wanted the slave returned by the English judge refused. A sovereign state should have the right to decide what to do with a fugitive. Any law on repatriation of fugitives is, by definition, an abrogation of state sovereignty. We wouldn't turn a missionary over to Iran to be tried for evangelism for example.

[jmdrake]

These "articles" are mine. And you are incorrect about the csa Constitution as i pointed out, just put your brain i gear and read it. They could not outlaw individuals there right to their own property anywhere in the csa. But it is clear you care not for facts and i cant make you learn, that is up to you.

Ad hominems prove you have lost the argument. Again "Every new territory the confederacy was to acquired had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery."