Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 173

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

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I'm not your friend and I'm not misunderstanding states rights. I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano and Jack Hunter that the nullification of fugitive slave laws was a proper execution of states rights.
    Ordinarily I'd agree with you because you have expressed the more accurate version of events in my view. In this case, the issue is the Constitution does impose a requirement for a state to return a person bound to labor, and that is the difference in the nullification arguments. In the 1830s, the only argument SC had was a poor one - the tariff is too high and we object. That is not good enough as long as tariffs are uniform throughout the US.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    What most of this thread really demonstrates is that two issues are conflated in the usual view of the events of 1860 to 1865, in that the belief that secession = civil war. The refusal to accept secession was the cause of the war. The relationship between federal and state power over several issues, slavery, tariffs, and federal administrative law regarding territory not yet a state led to secession.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    What most of this thread really demonstrates is that two issues are conflated in the usual view of the events of 1860 to 1865, in that the belief that secession = civil war. The refusal to accept secession was the cause of the war. The relationship between federal and state power over several issues, slavery, tariffs, and federal administrative law regarding territory not yet a state led to secession.
    It's the toothier side of beloved democracy.
    2/3's being the magic number. Or fraction. It's what the south was bitching about. It's what Lincoln claimed prohibited disbanding the Union. Tyranny of the majority, aka freedom. Increasing the number of states antithetical to southern interests could only marginalize the south more. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about power...FEDERAL power. As long as slavery benefited the federal government, there was no problem. The four union slaver states are proof of that.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Ordinarily I'd agree with you because you have expressed the more accurate version of events in my view. In this case, the issue is the Constitution does impose a requirement for a state to return a person bound to labor, and that is the difference in the nullification arguments. In the 1830s, the only argument SC had was a poor one - the tariff is too high and we object. That is not good enough as long as tariffs are uniform throughout the US.
    Any reason a state has to want to leave is good enough.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #95
    I have yet to finish reading this thread but already, this is the most informative discussion I have ever seen on this subject.

    Respect to all ya's.
    >_<

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    What most of this thread really demonstrates is that two issues are conflated in the usual view of the events of 1860 to 1865, in that the belief that secession = civil war. The refusal to accept secession was the cause of the war. The relationship between federal and state power over several issues, slavery, tariffs, and federal administrative law regarding territory not yet a state led to secession.
    I think the list of supporters for expansion of slavery into new territories and states was going to be pretty short and that was more significant than many people realize towards secession.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    I have yet to finish reading this thread but already, this is the most informative discussion I have ever seen on this subject.

    Respect to all ya's.
    There was a pretty well established history prior to that time period of canadian , british and british colonies successfully ending slavery which usually revolved around compensation.

  10. #98
    I am reprinting something I read today on FB that I believe sums things up very nicely.

    "I don't have a lot of time this morning to debate this question, but let me offer a proposition or two. First, let's get this question of what the war DID out of the way, so we can move on to a more pertinent concern.

    "And.They.Lost." True enough, the southern states that had formally left the Union did, in fact, lose on the battlefield. Does that mean that the ideas - all of the ideas, not just one or two - that they fought for were all wrong? Their fight was, ultimately, for the right to secede, was it not? Regardless of how they felt about slavery or minorities or taxes and tariffs and northern infrastructure projects at southern expense or the ascendancy of the Republican Party with the election of Lincoln, had they never attempted to leave the Union Lincoln would not have commenced a war against them. He would never have called for North Carolina to provide troops to "put down the rebellion" if those states hadn't issued ordinances of secession. So the most immediate cause of the war was a dispute over the right of states to leave a federal union. This is a legal question, by its very nature. So allow me to ask, does the use of force settle legal questions? Or does reason and argument and sober judgment settle legal questions? In the Anglo-American legal system (no, that's not racist, it's just a fact) we have courts and counsel and juries for just this very reason, but that was not always the case. At one time, in early legal history, disputes were settled by the two parties fighting it out. Over time, we decided that wasn't conducive to a just outcome, however, so the King established courts of law and instituted juries, and the modern notion of a court proceeding was born. Strength of arms doesn't settle legal questions; reason does. So the assertion that the southern states "lost the war" may be true, but it's a moot point to the question of whether their issues (any of them) had merit - which is really the most pertinent question right now.

    I'm not going to detail an argument in favor of secession; history speaks for itself on that point. Every single state originally gained its independence from Britain by an act of secession; every single state, independently and of its own accord, broke from the Articles of Confederation by an act of secession, and the Constitution itself, in Article V, postulates this process as the only legitimate means of attaining the requisite consent of the states to make it a valid and legitimate federation. Secession was not only acceptable and proper from the very beginning of our American experiment, but it is an indispensable foundation of legitimate government by consent and self-determination. The legal question of whether states could secede was no question at all; Lincoln manufactured the debate through both fraud and force as a means to propagandize the war into existence. Why? Did he truly believe all people were equal and that the slaves should be freed?? Not at all. His own words belie the fact that he believed blacks were an inferior race and should not be allowed to participate in government, and he openly stated (leading up to and for at least the first two years of the war) that he had no intention of abolishing the institution of slavery where it presently existed. He was no abolitionist, even if the Republican Party had abolitionist members, and the war was not commenced as a crusade to free the slaves. So again, Why? The answer is, Money. Lincoln wanted to force the seceded states back into the Union for the same reason he had no intention of freeing their slaves: those states, precisely because of their agricultural productivity consequent upon the institution of slavery, were the richest states in the union, and were, precisely because of the inequitable federal tariffs and taxes, providing the largest part of the funding for those infrastructure projects that primarily benefitted the industrialized northern states. That's why Lincoln chose to wage an unconstitutional war to overthrow the very foundations of the American federal system of government and force 11 states to remain in a union which they desired to leave.

    So while there are many primary sources (countless, actually) to choose from in seeking an answer to this question - "Why was the war fought?" - and all of those sources provide important evidence, the story itself is the best explanation. Yes, slavery was AN issue, but it was one among many, and not the most fundamental disagreement which ultimately led to conflict. In a sense, you could say that the dispute over slavery was a symptom of the deeper dispute over federalism vs nationalism. Slavery is wrong; the logical culmination of Jefferson's eloquent prose in the Declaration of Independence clearly leads us to that conclusion and stands as a defense of ALL men (and women) to live in freedom and self-determination. Surely we can see the nuance and subtle details of the times then enough to realize that while the southern states were all slave states (though many northern states were too), and that factor was a part of the decision of many of them (but not of all of them) to leave the Union, they were, nonetheless, fighting ultimately for the right of self-determination of states - the right of individual bodies of people to pursue their own course according to their own will. This was absolutely in line with the Jeffersonian vision of the DoI, and it stood in stark contrast to the Lincolnian vision of an amalgamated nation of one, wherein the peoples of all the states were subordinated to the will of a singular central governmental power in Washington. What Lincoln sought, and what he won through battle, was the overthrow of the Constitution and the inversion of the American legal and political paradigm. The fact that slavery ended was merely incidental to this accomplishment, and only became a serious part of it when it became politically expedient for him to make it a goal of his war. He had no love for the slaves; he had a will to subordinate the south, and its wealth, to the interests of his party, which were entirely northern industrial and banking interests! So if you're looking for the root cause of the war, that's it.

    And in closing, let me add that if you want to tear down the statues of those who risked and gave their lives for the cause of the Constitution and federalism, then I offer that I am equally (perhaps more so) offended by the absurd monument to Mr. Lincoln that dominates Washington, D.C., and I might demand that we reduce that disgusting figure to a pile of indeterminate rubble, as well. Deal?

    To be fair, your suggestion was to remove the monuments and place them in museums... I don't know if Lincoln's monument will fit in any museum, but we could always build one to suit it, so long as the *true* story of his presidency and his war are told by way of explanation. But in truth, monuments to historical figures don't belong strictly in museums; they do belong in the world around us, in plain sight, where people will encounter them and be reminded of their part in building the world we live in every day. And like it or not, those southerners who fought and died weren't entirely wrong about everything that they stood for, and we would do well, today, to be fair in our remembrance of them. They weren't just fighting for the perpetuation of slavery; there was much more to their cause than that.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by 1stvermont View Post

    “When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government..her sovereignty the principles for the support of which Georgia entered into this revolution.
    -Georgia Governor Joseph E Brown 1862

    This governor was a major critic of Davis' big government policies during the war.
    The sinful slave owning south had to end. The north was also more influenced by the federalist party, with a more centralized view of government. The south who had first hand knowledge of American servitude saw the vast majority as being beneficial to the native African, elevating his position from slavery in Africa. They saw the slaves well treated and cared for. The majority did not see slavery as a great morale evil or a biblical sin. They viewed the northern abolitionist movement more from a political viewpoint.

    “ When abolition overthrow slavery in the south, it also would equally overthrow the constitution”
    -R.L Dabney 1867 A Defense of Virginia and the South
    So, secession was over states' rights to keep slaves? And honestly, I can't figure out what the Republicans were doing that was an attack on states' rights. Most of them, Lincoln included, weren't even planning on interfering with the institution in the states where it existed.

    What scared people about the Republicans is that they wanted to ban slavery from expanding, which would prevent the creation of new slave states. IIRC they also wanted to ban slavery in DC, which doesn't have the same rights as a state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Slavery would have lasted longer in the Union than it could have after Secession.
    The Tariff issue was coming to a head.
    The fundamental reason underlying all the symptoms like slavery and tariffs was that the North was abandoning the limits of the Constitution and actively targeting the South for economic destruction and subjugation by any means at hand, whether that means was violent abolition or tariffs or anything else they could think of, it all started when the southern states paid their own revolutionary war debts and the northern states used the Constitution to make the South help pay for theirs.
    Slavery would have lasted for a long time after secession. The Confederate Constitution explicitly prevented the abolition of slavery. And even though most Southerners didn't own slaves, the political class did (especially those who popularized secession). The Civil War was really a war of industrialists against planters.

    Slavery's days were numbered in the union. If Republicans continued to control the White House and Congress, the number of free states would increase and the number of slave states would remain stagnant. Eventually the Free states would have the necessary votes to end slavery.

    I see no evidence that the tariff issue was any more important in 1860 than it was before. It's not like Lincoln was the first President to support high tariffs anyway. The Whig Party supported higher tariffs and no one threatened to secede when Whigs were elected President.
    Stop believing stupid things

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    It's the toothier side of beloved democracy.
    2/3's being the magic number. Or fraction. It's what the south was bitching about. It's what Lincoln claimed prohibited disbanding the Union. Tyranny of the majority, aka freedom. Increasing the number of states antithetical to southern interests could only marginalize the south more. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about power...FEDERAL power. As long as slavery benefited the federal government, there was no problem. The four union slaver states are proof of that.
    Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. These are the states that had slavery but remained in the union.

    Kentucky had a sizable pro-Confederate minority, probably more than any other union state. But, slavery wasn't nearly as important to Kentucky as it was to the other slave states.

    Missouri had a strong pro-Confederate movement including IIRC the state government. However, Missouri had many anti-slavery residents as well, and even elected a Republican US Representative. In the end, popular sentiment was overwhelmingly pro-union.

    Maryland had its fair share of Confederate sympathizers. In fact, Lincoln was worried that Maryland, or at least parts of the state, might join the CSA.

    Delaware had very few slaves and was one vote away in the state legislature from abolishing slavery in 1847.

    New Jersey had somewhere around a dozen elderly slaves who were born before that state passed a free womb law in the first decade of the 19th century.
    Stop believing stupid things

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    This governor was a major critic of Davis' big government policies during the war.

    So, secession was over states' rights to keep slaves? And honestly, I can't figure out what the Republicans were doing that was an attack on states' rights. Most of them, Lincoln included, weren't even planning on interfering with the institution in the states where it existed.

    What scared people about the Republicans is that they wanted to ban slavery from expanding, which would prevent the creation of new slave states. IIRC they also wanted to ban slavery in DC, which doesn't have the same rights as a state.



    Slavery would have lasted for a long time after secession. The Confederate Constitution explicitly prevented the abolition of slavery. And even though most Southerners didn't own slaves, the political class did (especially those who popularized secession). The Civil War was really a war of industrialists against planters.

    Slavery's days were numbered in the union. If Republicans continued to control the White House and Congress, the number of free states would increase and the number of slave states would remain stagnant. Eventually the Free states would have the necessary votes to end slavery.

    I see no evidence that the tariff issue was any more important in 1860 than it was before. It's not like Lincoln was the first President to support high tariffs anyway. The Whig Party supported higher tariffs and no one threatened to secede when Whigs were elected President.
    Republicans passed an amendment to protect slavery, they also passed a huge tariff.

    Secession guaranteed that the south could not require the return of runaway slaves, there would also be no new slave states.

    The Confederate Constitution forbade the abolition of slavery only to the national government, it was to be a state issue.

    Lincoln and the Republicans were an issue where the Whigs were not because they openly declared their contempt for the Constitution.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Republicans passed an amendment to protect slavery, they also passed a huge tariff.
    They only passed that amendment to try to appease secessionists. And they hadn't even passed the tariff yet when the Deep South seceded.

    Secession guaranteed that the south could not require the return of runaway slaves, there would also be no new slave states.
    Remaining in the Union under Republican rule would lead to the same thing.

    The Confederate Constitution forbade the abolition of slavery only to the national government, it was to be a state issue.
    Regardless, the American Constitution never prohibited banning slavery at the national level.

    Lincoln and the Republicans were an issue where the Whigs were not because they openly declared their contempt for the Constitution.
    When? I've read all the platforms of the four candidates running in 1860. I can't find anything unconstitutional.
    Stop believing stupid things

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    They only passed that amendment to try to appease secessionists. And they hadn't even passed the tariff yet when the Deep South seceded.
    The appeasement didn't work because the other motives for secession were more important, and the tariff was working it's way through congress before secession.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Remaining in the Union under Republican rule would lead to the same thing.
    But not as quickly, in any case slavery was doomed one way or the other, so the other motives made the difference in whether or not to secede.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Regardless, the American Constitution never prohibited banning slavery at the national level.
    It never gave the federal government the power and it prohibited it any power it was not given.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    When? I've read all the platforms of the four candidates running in 1860. I can't find anything unconstitutional.
    Was Lincoln a Marxist?

    Quote Originally Posted by RonZeplin View Post
    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.


    I can't find any sources right now but the Republican party was full of politicians who supported all sorts of unconstitutional things, the kinds of things they set about enacting during and after the war.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    This governor was a major critic of Davis' big government policies during the war.

    So, secession was over states' rights to keep slaves? And honestly, I can't figure out what the Republicans were doing that was an attack on states' rights. Most of them, Lincoln included, weren't even planning on interfering with the institution in the states where it existed.

    What scared people about the Republicans is that they wanted to ban slavery from expanding, which would prevent the creation of new slave states. IIRC they also wanted to ban slavery in DC, which doesn't have the same rights as a state.
    .
    Please reread, secession of the upper south was to keep state sovereignty and preserving the union, it had nothing to do with slavery. What sacred people about the republicans was their ideas to transform america into a big government centralized nation.



    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Slavery would have lasted for a long time after secession. The Confederate Constitution explicitly prevented the abolition of slavery. And even though most Southerners didn't own slaves, the political class did (especially those who popularized secession). The Civil War was really a war of industrialists against planters.
    the csa Constitution outlawed federal abolition, not state, just as the us Constitution had. States could abolish slavery.

    Itwas clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goalof the new converts to secessionist was not to establish aslaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was tocreate the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republicanparty”
    -RobertDivine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past andPresent


    Manysay the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery, becausethey falsely say the CSA constitution did not allow states to endslavery. Freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSAconstitution article 1 section 9 clause 4 applies to congress notto the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slavestates to join the confederacy. Article4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predictedfuture free states within the confederacy. As many in theconfederacy including VP Stevens thought, that the non slaveholding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the taxand trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippiriver to join the confederacy as non slave states. TheCSA constitution did protect slave owners property within the entireCSA regardless if the state was free or slave. During theconstitutional convention Cobb of Georgia proposed that all states berequired to be slave owning, yet this was rejected. The south wantedboarder states and the free midwest states to join. Senator AlbertBrown of Mississippi stated in the CSA constitution “Each state issovereign within its own limits, and that each for itself can abolishor establish slavery for itself.” Sowhile slavery was a state option, states rights was applied in theCSA slave or free.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post

    Slavery's days were numbered in the union. If Republicans continued to control the White House and Congress, the number of free states would increase and the number of slave states would remain stagnant. Eventually the Free states would have the necessary votes to end slavery.
    something theyy said they would not do, nor had the constitutional powers to do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    I see no evidence that the tariff issue was any more important in 1860 than it was before. It's not like Lincoln was the first President to support high tariffs anyway. The Whig Party supported higher tariffs and no one threatened to secede when Whigs were elected President.

    The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition. With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff. Tariff was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and secede from the Union. The debate over tariffs and internal improvements was not just a debate over those items, but a debate over the nature of the federal government. Free trade was a vital aspect of southern agrarian interests.

    “The south was being asked to pay to strengthen northern industry...the tariff would directly damage southern pocketbooks. This conflict played a important role in the division north vs south”
    -Brevin Alexander Professor of History at Longwood University



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The appeasement didn't work because the other motives for secession were more important, and the tariff was working it's way through congress before secession.
    So why didn't they work to fight the tariff? At least try to filibuster in the Senate? Why is it that the Tariff of Abominations (which was higher IIRC) only led to talk of secession in a few states, while the mere threat of a tariff. The tariff, by the way, was signed into law during the lame-duck term of James Buchanan only after Southern Congressmen left. So to me it seems like a stretch to say that the tariff was the cause of secession. I'm sure that for some people it was a factor in why they supported secession, but I have a hard time believing it was the impetus behind secession. The Confederacy passed its own tariffs, too.

    But not as quickly, in any case slavery was doomed one way or the other, so the other motives made the difference in whether or not to secede.
    I've never bought the whole argument that slavery couldn't survive into the 20th century. It was still extremely profitable in 1860. Over one million slaves were imported to Brazil during the 19th century, even after their involvement in the trade became illegal.

    The CSA would get rid of slavery at some point, but there was hardly anyone in any position of power in the states that seceded who had the will to oppose the planters.

    It never gave the federal government the power and it prohibited it any power it was not given.
    Do you consider the 13th Amendment to be a violation of states' rights?

    I can't find any sources right now but the Republican party was full of politicians who supported all sorts of unconstitutional things, the kinds of things they set about enacting during and after the war.
    I won't deny that the Union did terrible things during the war, I have never denied this and I am not here to defend the union. But people would have no way of knowing what Lincoln was going to do as President beyond what his party was known for. Voters could probably expect two things from a Republican administration; protectionism and the containment of slavery.

    That source, while I'm sure is probably well-researched, has some problems. The author seems to have a hysterical hatred for northerners, maybe he's some reverse William Sherman? The Confederates were responsible for their own war crimes as well, including the execution of black union soldiers and the wretched treatment of POWs at Andersonville. Not every Rebel general was like Lee or Jackson.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1stvermont View Post
    Please reread, secession of the upper south was to keep state sovereignty and preserving the union, it had nothing to do with slavery. What sacred people about the republicans was their ideas to transform america into a big government centralized nation.
    I understand that states' rights was an issue, but the states' rights to do what? Everything I read says "slavery."

    the csa Constitution outlawed federal abolition, not state, just as the us Constitution had. States could abolish slavery.
    The US Constitution didn't outlaw federal abolition. And thus in 1865, slavery became illegal nationwide.

    Itwas clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goalof the new converts to secessionist was not to establish aslaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was tocreate the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republicanparty”
    -RobertDivine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past andPresent


    Manysay the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery, becausethey falsely say the CSA constitution did not allow states to endslavery. Freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSAconstitution article 1 section 9 clause 4 applies to congress notto the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slavestates to join the confederacy. Article4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predictedfuture free states within the confederacy. As many in theconfederacy including VP Stevens thought, that the non slaveholding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the taxand trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippiriver to join the confederacy as non slave states. TheCSA constitution did protect slave owners property within the entireCSA regardless if the state was free or slave. During theconstitutional convention Cobb of Georgia proposed that all states berequired to be slave owning, yet this was rejected. The south wantedboarder states and the free midwest states to join. Senator AlbertBrown of Mississippi stated in the CSA constitution “Each state issovereign within its own limits, and that each for itself can abolishor establish slavery for itself.” Sowhile slavery was a state option, states rights was applied in theCSA slave or free.
    Alexander Stephens was the guy who said the cornerstone of the CSA was slavery. He was a fire-eater.

    I've read the Confederate Constitution, but I don't remember the parts you are talking about, I'll look at it again, though.


    something theyy said they would not do, nor had the constitutional powers to do.
    The plan was to strangle slavery by preventing it from expanding. The end goal was to end slavery gradually.



    The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition. With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff. Tariff was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and secede from the Union. The debate over tariffs and internal improvements was not just a debate over those items, but a debate over the nature of the federal government. Free trade was a vital aspect of southern agrarian interests.
    “The south was being asked to pay to strengthen northern industry...the tariff would directly damage southern pocketbooks. This conflict played a important role in the division north vs south”
    -Brevin Alexander Professor of History at Longwood University
    Tariffs have fluctuated throughout America's history. Sometimes they are low, and sometimes they are high. I find it very hard to believe that the 11 states that made up the Confederacy were content to stay in the union through high tariffs with only South Carolina really even coming somewhat close to secession, but suddenly in 1860, the mere election of a pro-tariff President was enough to cause these states to leave the country.
    Stop believing stupid things

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    So why didn't they work to fight the tariff? At least try to filibuster in the Senate? Why is it that the Tariff of Abominations (which was higher IIRC) only led to talk of secession in a few states, while the mere threat of a tariff. The tariff, by the way, was signed into law during the lame-duck term of James Buchanan only after Southern Congressmen left. So to me it seems like a stretch to say that the tariff was the cause of secession. I'm sure that for some people it was a factor in why they supported secession, but I have a hard time believing it was the impetus behind secession. The Confederacy passed its own tariffs, too.
    Why stick around to delay what was inevitable? The tariff was only one piece of the complex of motives for leaving everything else political and cultural had gotten worse since the Tariff of Abominations, and of course the Confederacy had tariffs they just were much lower.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    I've never bought the whole argument that slavery couldn't survive into the 20th century. It was still extremely profitable in 1860. Over one million slaves were imported to Brazil during the 19th century, even after their involvement in the trade became illegal.

    The CSA would get rid of slavery at some point, but there was hardly anyone in any position of power in the states that seceded who had the will to oppose the planters.
    It was doomed by Secession, It was doomed in the Union.
    On the afternoon of February 28, 1861, President Davis sent his first veto message to the Confederate Congress. Congress had passed legislation enabling the constitutional ban and detailing punishment for those convicted. It spelled out the options for return of the Free Africans to Africa. Davis said he had carefully considered this bill “in relation to the slave trade and to punish persons offending therein”. He objected to the option that if the Free Africans could not be returned to Africa and all other options insuring their freedom could not be met, then these Free Africans could be sold on the internal Slave markets.

    Davis wrote, “This latter provision seems to me in opposition to the policy declared in the Constitution, the prohibition of African Negroes, and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of that object.” He, therefore, vetoed the legislation. There was no attempt to override.

    Establishing the Slave Trade would be a critical leg in upholding a Slave Republic. Instead, here was the first American Constitutional Mandate to end this noxious commerce that New England had begun and was still engaged in at this very time.

    1.9.2 (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.”

    There was no need for this in 1787. All the original States were involved with domestic slavery and New England was heavily into the Transatlantic Slave Trade. In 1861 this was a safeguard against Union slave states outlawing slavery and the owners “selling South”. At this time there were 7 Slave States in the Confederacy and 8 Slave States in the United States.

    “Selling South” happened whenever a Northern State outlawed slavery and did not require the masters to free their slaves within their State. The irrefutable truth about Northern abolition is that emancipation was not always required and slaves were often sold South. That brought double relief to the North: 1) their moral feelings felt cleansed, and 2) with fewer Black people about, White people could not be “corrupted”.

    1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”

    This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.

    While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.

    So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.

    The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.

    Antebellum Americans in the South, with few exceptions, held slavery a moral evil, an inherited struggle that was also a structural pillar of its culture and wealth. A monumental societal program of practical and civic education beyond the funds of individual States was needed so freed slaves could live successfully as Free people. So personal manumission remained the norm. Jefferson had planned the territories would be a place where free Blacks could go and set up new lives for themselves. But the North would tolerate no assimilation.

    Northern political and commercial houses knew slavery and the Slave Trade was a continuing basis of Northern wealth as well. But that truth never stopped them from espousing their vanity of self-elation. Their wealth and power class never proposed a program of emancipation and assimilation into American society with or without national funds. The cost and human endeavors of Black freedom would remain Southern issues.

    One Northern abolitionist, who understood this peculiar dilemma over the struggle for Black freedom, after visiting Georgia, Virginia and South Carolina in 1854, wrote the following:

    “What had the South done to injure us, except through our sensibilities on the subject of slavery? What have we done to her, but admonish, threaten, and indict her before God, excommunicate her, stir up insurrection among her slaves, endanger her homes, make her Christians and ministers odious in other lands? And now that she has availed herself of a northern measure (the Fugitive Slave laws) for her defense, we are ready to move the country from its foundations. We ought to reflect, whether we have not been enforcing our moral sentiments upon the South in offensive ways, so as to constitute that oppression which makes even a wise man mad.

    “All this time we have overlooked the intrinsic difficulties of the evil which the South has had to contend with; have disagreed among ourselves about sin per se, and about the question of immediate or gradual emancipation, and yet have expected the South to be clear on these points, and to act promptly. …. What has she ever done, except in self-defense, in our long quarrel, which, upon reconciliation, would rankle in our memory, and make it hard for us to forgive and forget? Positively, not one thing. We have been the assailants, she the mark; we the prosecutors, she the defendant; we the accusers, she the self-justifying respondent.

    “Unless we choose to live in perpetual war, we must prevent and punish all attempts to decoy slaves from their masters. Whatever our repugnance to slavery may be, there is a law of the land, a Constitution, to which we must submit, or employ suitable means to change. While it remains, all our appeals to a “higher law” are fanaticism.” Nehemiah Adams, D.D. “A Southside View of Slavery” pp.127-128.

    Rhett and his associates were not aiming to keep slaves in slavery. No one argued against State manumission laws. The hard truth is that the Gulf States had suffered more than their share of abolitionist wrath. The hounds of rabid abolitionism including clergy, urging slaves to revolt and murder for freedom never left Southern ears. Rhett and Cobb wanted to insure the hounds would not return with the admittance of Free States.

    Since the United States and the Confederacy were now separate governments, no fugitive slave laws would apply to both unless a treaty were signed between them. The chances that might happen were less than minimal. North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas would have no obligation to protect the CSA slave owner’s property rights or deliver the slave back.

    For this simple reason (among others) astute observers of the political scene such as Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, saw the Gulf States’ secession as the death-knell of slavery. He was more than likely correct. Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens agreed. Hardly assurance to those who insist the Gulf States seceded to create and expand a Slave Empire.

    Much more at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/r...-constitution/



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Do you consider the 13th Amendment to be a violation of states' rights?
    No, no more than the Bill of Rights. The Debate about the 13th has more to do with how it was passed than it's content, it was not part of the Constitution before the war and therefore the Federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    I won't deny that the Union did terrible things during the war, I have never denied this and I am not here to defend the union. But people would have no way of knowing what Lincoln was going to do as President beyond what his party was known for. Voters could probably expect two things from a Republican administration; protectionism and the containment of slavery.

    That source, while I'm sure is probably well-researched, has some problems. The author seems to have a hysterical hatred for northerners, maybe he's some reverse William Sherman? The Confederates were responsible for their own war crimes as well, including the execution of black union soldiers and the wretched treatment of POWs at Andersonville. Not every Rebel general was like Lee or Jackson.
    The Republicans if not Lincoln himself were vocal in their disdain for and willingness to violate the Constitution before the war:
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Why stick around to delay what was inevitable? The tariff was only one piece of the complex of motives for leaving everything else political and cultural had gotten worse since the Tariff of Abominations, and of course the Confederacy had tariffs they just were much lower.
    What exactly had gotten worse?

    It was doomed by Secession, It was doomed in the Union.
    On the afternoon of February 28, 1861, President Davis sent his first veto message to the Confederate Congress. Congress had passed legislation enabling the constitutional ban and detailing punishment for those convicted. It spelled out the options for return of the Free Africans to Africa. Davis said he had carefully considered this bill “in relation to the slave trade and to punish persons offending therein”. He objected to the option that if the Free Africans could not be returned to Africa and all other options insuring their freedom could not be met, then these Free Africans could be sold on the internal Slave markets.

    Davis wrote, “This latter provision seems to me in opposition to the policy declared in the Constitution, the prohibition of African Negroes, and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of that object.” He, therefore, vetoed the legislation. There was no attempt to override.

    Establishing the Slave Trade would be a critical leg in upholding a Slave Republic. Instead, here was the first American Constitutional Mandate to end this noxious commerce that New England had begun and was still engaged in at this very time.
    The fact that the only thing stopping the reopening of the slave trade was Davis' veto tells you something about the political leadership of the CSA. The trade was prohibited in the US in 1808.

    1.9.2 (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.”
    A lot of slaveholders opposed bringing new slaves in because too many slaves drives down the price of slaves and they were worried about a slave revolt if the slaves outnumbered the white population.

    There was no need for this in 1787. All the original States were involved with domestic slavery and New England was heavily into the Transatlantic Slave Trade. In 1861 this was a safeguard against Union slave states outlawing slavery and the owners “selling South”. At this time there were 7 Slave States in the Confederacy and 8 Slave States in the United States.
    Slavery used to be important in the North, but by 1861 this was no longer the case.

    “Selling South” happened whenever a Northern State outlawed slavery and did not require the masters to free their slaves within their State. The irrefutable truth about Northern abolition is that emancipation was not always required and slaves were often sold South. That brought double relief to the North: 1) their moral feelings felt cleansed, and 2) with fewer Black people about, White people could not be “corrupted”.
    The people who were behind Northern abolition were dead in 1861. New Jersey was the last Northern state to pass gradual abolition, and the only state to do so after 1800.

    1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”

    This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.
    But the US Constitution doesn't prohibit interference with slavery.

    While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.

    So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.

    The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.
    So I was mistaken when I thought that the CSA prohibited states from banning slavery, I stand corrected.

    Antebellum Americans in the South, with few exceptions, held slavery a moral evil, an inherited struggle that was also a structural pillar of its culture and wealth. A monumental societal program of practical and civic education beyond the funds of individual States was needed so freed slaves could live successfully as Free people. So personal manumission remained the norm. Jefferson had planned the territories would be a place where free Blacks could go and set up new lives for themselves. But the North would tolerate no assimilation.
    In the decades leading up to the Civil War, pro-slavery advocates argued that slavery was not evil, but a positive good. Slavery became even more deeply entrenched in Southern society. The political leadership of the South refused to even accept a moderate pro-slavery candidate at the 1860 Democratic convention.

    Northern political and commercial houses knew slavery and the Slave Trade was a continuing basis of Northern wealth as well. But that truth never stopped them from espousing their vanity of self-elation. Their wealth and power class never proposed a program of emancipation and assimilation into American society with or without national funds. The cost and human endeavors of Black freedom would remain Southern issues.
    Some Northerners made money off of slavery, particularly those involved in the New England textile industry. That's why some Massachusetts Whigs were against the abolitionist movement. But pro-slavery Northerners didn't vote Republican.

    Attempts to end slavery had been made in the South in the past, especially in Virginia. These attempts were all defeated. And, IIRC, many Southern states banned advocacy of abolitionism. The South was more pro-slavery in 1860 than it was in 1830.

    One Northern abolitionist, who understood this peculiar dilemma over the struggle for Black freedom, after visiting Georgia, Virginia and South Carolina in 1854, wrote the following:

    “What had the South done to injure us, except through our sensibilities on the subject of slavery? What have we done to her, but admonish, threaten, and indict her before God, excommunicate her, stir up insurrection among her slaves, endanger her homes, make her Christians and ministers odious in other lands? And now that she has availed herself of a northern measure (the Fugitive Slave laws) for her defense, we are ready to move the country from its foundations. We ought to reflect, whether we have not been enforcing our moral sentiments upon the South in offensive ways, so as to constitute that oppression which makes even a wise man mad.

    “All this time we have overlooked the intrinsic difficulties of the evil which the South has had to contend with; have disagreed among ourselves about sin per se, and about the question of immediate or gradual emancipation, and yet have expected the South to be clear on these points, and to act promptly. …. What has she ever done, except in self-defense, in our long quarrel, which, upon reconciliation, would rankle in our memory, and make it hard for us to forgive and forget? Positively, not one thing. We have been the assailants, she the mark; we the prosecutors, she the defendant; we the accusers, she the self-justifying respondent.

    “Unless we choose to live in perpetual war, we must prevent and punish all attempts to decoy slaves from their masters. Whatever our repugnance to slavery may be, there is a law of the land, a Constitution, to which we must submit, or employ suitable means to change. While it remains, all our appeals to a “higher law” are fanaticism.” Nehemiah Adams, D.D. “A Southside View of Slavery” pp.127-128.
    Imagine that you lived in Ohio in 1859. You find an escaped slave. Would you send the slave back to his master?

    Rhett and his associates were not aiming to keep slaves in slavery. No one argued against State manumission laws. The hard truth is that the Gulf States had suffered more than their share of abolitionist wrath. The hounds of rabid abolitionism including clergy, urging slaves to revolt and murder for freedom never left Southern ears. Rhett and Cobb wanted to insure the hounds would not return with the admittance of Free States.
    Rhett and his associates were radical pro-slavery extremists. They would make Jefferson Davis look like an abolitionist. They wanted to reopen the slave trade, annex Cuba, and force Kansas to accept slavery.

    Since the United States and the Confederacy were now separate governments, no fugitive slave laws would apply to both unless a treaty were signed between them. The chances that might happen were less than minimal. North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas would have no obligation to protect the CSA slave owner’s property rights or deliver the slave back.
    Do you really think those 4 slave states would allow for slaves to be free once they left the CSA?

    For this simple reason (among others) astute observers of the political scene such as Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, saw the Gulf States’ secession as the death-knell of slavery. He was more than likely correct. Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens agreed. Hardly assurance to those who insist the Gulf States seceded to create and expand a Slave Empire.

    Much more at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/r...-constitution/
    It was the death knell of slavery because it led to war.

    No, no more than the Bill of Rights. The Debate about the 13th has more to do with how it was passed than it's content, it was not part of the Constitution before the war and therefore the Federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery.
    But it had the power to pass an amendment.

    The Republicans if not Lincoln himself were vocal in their disdain for and willingness to violate the Constitution before the war:
    If the Communists were anything more than a small portion of Lincoln's support, why didn't the Confederates ever mention the influence of Marxists in American government?
    Stop believing stupid things

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    What exactly had gotten worse?
    The North was becoming ever more hostile and more and more politically dominant, they were embracing violent abolition and a disregard for the Constitution.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    The fact that the only thing stopping the reopening of the slave trade was Davis' veto tells you something about the political leadership of the CSA. The trade was prohibited in the US in 1808.
    The provision that Davis objected to did not "reopen the slave trade", it would have allowed slave holders to sell the slaves they had to foreigners like the Yankees had "sold south" when their states abolished slavery, it did not allow the importation of new slaves which was expressly prohibited in the new Constitution.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    A lot of slaveholders opposed bringing new slaves in because too many slaves drives down the price of slaves and they were worried about a slave revolt if the slaves outnumbered the white population.
    Many wanted a gradual end to slavery through manumission and attrition and perhaps eventual compensated abolition by the states.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    The people who were behind Northern abolition were dead in 1861. New Jersey was the last Northern state to pass gradual abolition, and the only state to do so after 1800.
    After the original secession the remaining slave states would not have had the power to resist the North, mandatory abolition was coming sooner or later.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    But the US Constitution doesn't prohibit interference with slavery.
    It did not grant the power, and it prohibits any power not granted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    In the decades leading up to the Civil War, pro-slavery advocates argued that slavery was not evil, but a positive good. Slavery became even more deeply entrenched in Southern society. The political leadership of the South refused to even accept a moderate pro-slavery candidate at the 1860 Democratic convention.
    There were multiple factions and shades of opinion and the John Brown incident had created a hysterical backlash against abolition but many in the south believed slavery to be wrong and wanted to end it in a gradual and controlled fashion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Some Northerners made money off of slavery, particularly those involved in the New England textile industry. That's why some Massachusetts Whigs were against the abolitionist movement. But pro-slavery Northerners didn't vote Republican.

    Attempts to end slavery had been made in the South in the past, especially in Virginia. These attempts were all defeated. And, IIRC, many Southern states banned advocacy of abolitionism. The South was more pro-slavery in 1860 than it was in 1830.
    Opposition to abolition and support for slavery were two different things, southerners had been driven to oppose abolition because the North wanted to collapse their economy with a sudden uncompensated freeing of slaves or to provoke violent revolt and the mass murder of whites. Those who opposed slavery wanted a gradual end to slavery so that the freed blacks could be assimilated into free society or sent to Liberia and the economy could adapt to free laborers.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Imagine that you lived in Ohio in 1859. You find an escaped slave. Would you send the slave back to his master?
    No, but the South saw things differently, the Constitution and Federal law had promised the return of fugitive slaves and it had been upheld by the Supreme Court and there was biblical precedent in Paul sending Onesimus back to his master. (one of the many things I disagree with Paul about)
    Secession was the only solution, the North would not cooperate with the fugitive slave laws for a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate reasons and the south was not yet able to end slavery and could not accept the North's refusal to abide by the Constitutional promise, the North and the South never should have been joined in the union, they should have been allied but separate after the Revolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Do you really think those 4 slave states would allow for slaves to be free once they left the CSA?
    They would have had no choice, the Union would never have allowed them to return them to the Confederacy.
    It would not have been long before they would have had abolition forced on them.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    But it had the power to pass an amendment.
    An amendment that could not pass as long as the seceding states were still part of the Union, thus the shenanigans used to pass it after the war.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    If the Communists were anything more than a small portion of Lincoln's support, why didn't the Confederates ever mention the influence of Marxists in American government?
    They complained of "Radicals" in the North, that was the term used at the time.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    If the Communists were anything more than a small portion of Lincoln's support, why didn't the Confederates ever mention the influence of Marxists in American government?
    Georgia’s Declaration, which reads:

    "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government..."
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The North was becoming ever more hostile and more and more politically dominant, they were embracing violent abolition and a disregard for the Constitution.
    So it all centers around slavery. And what did the North do that went against the Constitution?

    The provision that Davis objected to did not "reopen the slave trade", it would have allowed slave holders to sell the slaves they had to foreigners like the Yankees had "sold south" when their states abolished slavery, it did not allow the importation of new slaves which was expressly prohibited in the new Constitution.
    It had been pretty well established by 1860 that selling slaves across national borders and especially across water would not be allowed. The British were very adamant about enforcing that.

    Many wanted a gradual end to slavery through manumission and attrition and perhaps eventual compensated abolition by the states.
    Which leaders of the Confederacy wanted this?

    After the original secession the remaining slave states would not have had the power to resist the North, mandatory abolition was coming sooner or later.
    We can't really know for sure, because those states eventually joined the CSA.

    It did not grant the power, and it prohibits any power not granted.
    The Constitution is not a perfect document. And thus the founders allowed for amending it.

    There were multiple factions and shades of opinion and the John Brown incident had created a hysterical backlash against abolition but many in the south believed slavery to be wrong and wanted to end it in a gradual and controlled fashion.
    But none of the major Southern politicians in 1860 wanted that. Stephen Douglass, who said that the people of each state should decide to be a slave or free state, was considered an unacceptable nominee for Southern Democrats because he wasn't pro-slavery enough. He won zero electoral votes from the states that would become the CSA.

    Opposition to abolition and support for slavery were two different things, southerners had been driven to oppose abolition because the North wanted to collapse their economy with a sudden uncompensated freeing of slaves or to provoke violent revolt and the mass murder of whites. Those who opposed slavery wanted a gradual end to slavery so that the freed blacks could be assimilated into free society or sent to Liberia and the economy could adapt to free laborers.
    I'm not here to argue that the North was pure-hearted or anything. I'm just arguing that secession happened because the political and economic elite of 7 states couldn't handle the election of someone who was hostile to slavery.

    No, but the South saw things differently, the Constitution and Federal law had promised the return of fugitive slaves and it had been upheld by the Supreme Court and there was biblical precedent in Paul sending Onesimus back to his master. (one of the many things I disagree with Paul about)
    Secession was the only solution, the North would not cooperate with the fugitive slave laws for a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate reasons and the south was not yet able to end slavery and could not accept the North's refusal to abide by the Constitutional promise, the North and the South never should have been joined in the union, they should have been allied but separate after the Revolution.
    Sometimes it is morally necessary to disobey an unjust law. And slavery that happened during Paul's time was very different from 19th century slavery.

    They would have had no choice, the Union would never have allowed them to return them to the Confederacy.
    It would not have been long before they would have had abolition forced on them.
    Slavery would still be safer than it would be under a Republican-controlled government.

    An amendment that could not pass as long as the seceding states were still part of the Union, thus the shenanigans used to pass it after the war.
    And we should all be thankful they passed that amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Georgia’s Declaration, which reads:

    "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government..."
    While they could be talking about Communists, it looks like they are talking about protectionists.
    Stop believing stupid things

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    So it all centers around slavery. And what did the North do that went against the Constitution?
    Besides the fugitive slave law issue (which was a reason to secede whether the North was right to refuse or not), the Republican party had many politicians who rejected the constitution and advocated many unconstitutional policies, I don't have a list handy and it is hard to find information on the history of the era but I have read about it before, if I find specifics I will let you know.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Which leaders of the Confederacy wanted this?
    Lee did, I know he was not in the Confederate government but there were others like him, I am at a little bit of a disadvantage because I am not an expert and that kind of information is hard to find because the PC story is that all southerners were Simon Legree. (who was a Yankee who moved south to own slaves in the book)



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    We can't really know for sure, because those states eventually joined the CSA.
    Yes we can, without the original seceding states the remaining slave states had no chance to preserve slavery, the abolitionists would have passed the 13th amendment sooner or later with so few slave states to oppose it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    The Constitution is not a perfect document. And thus the founders allowed for amending it.
    That is not the point, I have said that I believed the 13th amendment should have been a time delayed clause in the original constitution but the point is that the North agreed to a deal then had second thoughts and broke the deal, then when the other party to the deal wanted out they attacked and murdered them.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    But none of the major Southern politicians in 1860 wanted that. Stephen Douglass, who said that the people of each state should decide to be a slave or free state, was considered an unacceptable nominee for Southern Democrats because he wasn't pro-slavery enough. He won zero electoral votes from the states that would become the CSA.
    The south had been driven slightly mad by repeated violent abolitionist attacks, if they had been left alone they would have moderated and returned to the path of slow controlled abolition. If they did not then they would have eventually been forced to by international pressure from their main trading partners.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    I'm not here to argue that the North was pure-hearted or anything. I'm just arguing that secession happened because the political and economic elite of 7 states couldn't handle the election of someone who was hostile to slavery.
    And I'm here to tell you that it was only one of many motivations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Sometimes it is morally necessary to disobey an unjust law.
    I don't disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    And slavery that happened during Paul's time was very different from 19th century slavery.
    Roman slave masters had as much or more power over their slaves as any southern planter



    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Slavery would still be safer than it would be under a Republican-controlled government.
    Perhaps or perhaps not, by seceding they gave up any influence or control over the Norths policy, in any case it was doomed one way or the other, therefore the only reason to secede was because the other issues were just as or more important.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    While they could be talking about Communists, it looks like they are talking about protectionists.
    They are talking about radicals and maniacs of all different kinds that the Republican party accepted and recruited in it's unprincipled drive for power.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    I understand that states' rights was an issue, but the states' rights to do what? Everything I read says "slavery."



    The US Constitution didn't outlaw federal abolition. And thus in 1865, slavery became illegal nationwide.



    Alexander Stephens was the guy who said the cornerstone of the CSA was slavery. He was a fire-eater.

    I've read the Confederate Constitution, but I don't remember the parts you are talking about, I'll look at it again, though.




    The plan was to strangle slavery by preventing it from expanding. The end goal was to end slavery gradually.



    [COLOR=#333333]

    Tariffs have fluctuated throughout America's history. Sometimes they are low, and sometimes they are high. I find it very hard to believe that the 11 states that made up the Confederacy were content to stay in the union through high tariffs with only South Carolina really even coming somewhat close to secession, but suddenly in 1860, the mere election of a pro-tariff President was enough to cause these states to leave the country.

    please reread. start here, nothing to do with slavery, everything to do with states sovereignty in the upper south.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South

    as for the cotton states i made clear slavery was the issue states rights was fought over, states rights was the key issue. see under

    Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/States Rightshttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512619-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Cotton-States


    but to add to it.


    Itis 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 inthe 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 p 833

    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.”


    “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

    “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....Letthe North, then, form national roads for themselves. Let them guardwith tariffs their own interests. Let them deepen their public debtuntil a high minded aristocracy shall rise out of it. We want none ofall those blessings. Butin the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we would stillre main 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 theOccasion/States Rights and South Carolina secession documen.

    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



    this is a false modern view of the Constitution. why did lincoln think he had no power to do so? the Constitution is delegated authority from the states, it has authority only where it has been delegated it.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war


    CSA Vice president Alexander Stevens corner stone speech African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy.”
    AlexanderH. Stephens Corner Stone Speech Savannah, Georgia March 21,1861
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

    Whenever a discussion is brought up on the causes of southern secession Stevens cornerstone speech that has a small section that some take as him saying slavery was the cause of secession will be brought up. I find it interesting that Stevens seems to have been granted the authority to speak for all the people, of all the sovereign states, that made up the confederacy. I think no one person or opinion should decide the matter. If any one person is granted that authority it should have been Jefferson Davis. I think too much priority is given to Stevens speech in his home state, and the deep south state of Georgia. But I think there are also other reasons to be cautious on the importance and understanding of the speech.

    1]It is not his actual words,not ranscript survived. The speech was done "Impromptu" and according to the newspaper reporter who transcribed it

    "Is not a perfect report, but only a sketch of the address of MR.Stevens"

    Therefore it is an interpreted and partial from his actual speech.

    2]Stevens said the speech was misinterpreted and misunderstood. He said he was merely restating what Baldwin of the US supreme court had said.Richard m Johnson in 1884 summed up Stevens speech by saying

    "On the subject of slavery there was no essential change in the new [C.S.A] Constitution from the old as Judge Baldwin [of Connecticut]of the US supreme court had announced from the bench several years before, that slavery was the corner-stone of the old Constitution[1781-89] so it is of the new" [1790]
    -Quotedin Lochlainn Seabrook Everything you Were taught About American Slavery is Wrong Sea raven Press 2014

    3] It is clear from the speech that Stevens is clarifying disputed subjects that are know clarified and beyond dispute in the CSA Constitution.Subjects like tariff, internal improvement and slavery etc.

    4] Later when Stevens could write what he thought secession was over he said

    “Not over slavery but centralization and local sovereign government going back 70 years to federalist and anti federalist...they[ The south]quit the union to save the principles of the constitution"
    -Alexander Stevens A Constitutional View of the late war Between the States 1870


    All these reasons make me think the speech should be used with caution and low importance to determining the southern causes of secession. I would also add most of his speech is on non slavery related disagreements between the cotton states and the north.

    Jefferson Davis President of the Confederate States of America

    Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States...The creature has been exalted above its creators;the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves.”
    -Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861


    farewell address tocongress
    https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=87
    Firstinaugural inMontgomery
    https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=88
    Richmondinaugural
    https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=107

    As I said above if anyone person has the authority to speak for southern secession it should be Davis. His three most important speeches his farewell to congress, first inaugural in Montgomery, and his inaugural in Richmond all speak to causes of secession. He mentions liberty, states rights, tariffs, the constitution and the founders were the main reason for states leaving the union. Davis mentioned slavery in two and only in passing in his three most important speeches not the main cause. The south was leaving because Davis said the north fell to simple majority [Democracy not constitutional republic] what Davis called the “Tyranny of unbridled majority.

    "I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it."
    -Jefferson Davis


    So why is it that Stevens speech given in his home deep south state,given far more weight in determining the causes of southern secession than Davis three speeches?




    Please support this was the republican goal. Because Lincoln said it was to keep the west white. and if you read my threads, his economical plan intact.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...iend-of-Blacks




    the south always voted against high tariffs. It was always a fight between north and south. But the south maintained power enough to have low tariffs when they started to lose power in 1860, the tariffs and Lincoln sought to raise them 3 fold.
    Last edited by 1stvermont; 09-02-2017 at 05:59 AM.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Ordinarily I'd agree with you because you have expressed the more accurate version of events in my view. In this case, the issue is the Constitution does impose a requirement for a state to return a person bound to labor, and that is the difference in the nullification arguments. In the 1830s, the only argument SC had was a poor one - the tariff is too high and we object. That is not good enough as long as tariffs are uniform throughout the US.
    If states have a sovereign right to secede then states have a sovereign right not to enforce fugitive slave laws. In the 1830s Southerner Andrew Jackson (who's almost worshiped by the liberty community because of his stand against the national banks), was totally against SC's "right" to secede or nullify or whatever.

    But here's the real elephant in the room. Slice and and dice it however you want. What is the "constitutional right" the southern states were trying to enforce? Why the right to own SLAVES of course. So it's still about what? Slavery. And if the southern states were angry at other states for not enforcing the fugitive slave laws, what exactly were they wanting the federal government to do about it? Invade the North and arrest northern governments for not doing enough to return southern slaves?

    And let's look at the clause of the constitution in question. That's what "existentialists" are supposed to do.

    No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due

    Note that it does not say who is supposed to enforce this nor how. Okay. If you had a slave who has escaped to the North and was in a Northern jail (for stealing for example) and a slave owner went to the North to pick up his property and the Northern state refused that would be one thing. But that wasn't what was happening! Remember Dred Scott? Even though his owner voluntarily took him to a free state the Supreme Court allowed his owner to recover his "property." (A vile and disgusting way to refer to a human being.) What the South was wanting was for the North to create goon squads to capture escaped slaves and shut down the underground railroad. But nothing in the constitution requires this. The only thing the constitution gave the federal government power to do is what it did, return a slave like Dread Scott. But that wasn't good enough for those who demanded the "right" to steal another man's labor in the form of making him and/or keeping him as a slave.

    And here is the crazy thing about all of this. We aren't living in the 1800s. We are in the 20th century. None of us have any common cause with those who owned slaves and/or protected slavery. From a libertarian point of view, slave holding states were illegitimate institutions. These people polluted the constitution by insisting on a fugitive slave clause in the first place. When they created their own constitution they went further by making it impossible for a confederate state to decide on its own it wanted to be a free state. They had no intention of ever ending slavery.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    What most of this thread really demonstrates is that two issues are conflated in the usual view of the events of 1860 to 1865, in that the belief that secession = civil war. The refusal to accept secession was the cause of the war. The relationship between federal and state power over several issues, slavery, tariffs, and federal administrative law regarding territory not yet a state led to secession.
    Well sure. The federal government could have allowed secession and not gone to war. But southerners didn't really believe in secession either, only in their right to secede. Please watch "The Free State of Jones" when you have time. Part of Mississippi seceded from Mississippi when Mississippi seceded from the Union. That was a true libertarian state. There was no slavery, no draft, and no taxation. The Southern States cared so little about states rights that they in their constitution barred states from exercising their right to abolish slavery. Really "states rights" is laughable on a forum that puts people down for being "statist." States rights can be helpful as a proxy for individual rights, but when states rights are used to suppress individual rights they are an abomination.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by 1stvermont View Post
    [SIZE=3][FONT=arial]
    please reread. start here, nothing to do with slavery, everything to do with states sovereignty in the upper south.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South
    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.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Well sure. The federal government could have allowed secession and not gone to war. But southerners didn't really believe in secession either, only in their right to secede. Please watch "The Free State of Jones" when you have time. Part of Mississippi seceded from Mississippi when Mississippi seceded from the Union. That was a true libertarian state. There was no slavery, no draft, and no taxation. The Southern States cared so little about states rights that they in their constitution barred states from exercising their right to abolish slavery. Really "states rights" is laughable on a forum that puts people down for being "statist." States rights can be helpful as a proxy for individual rights, but when states rights are used to suppress individual rights they are an abomination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    1) The Title – The Free State of Jones is a name that still resonates in the county with a great deal of pride. It can still be seen on car tags and county government seals. But the nickname is not about the Newt Knight saga. In fact at the time of this rebellion, it was referred to in a Natchez newspaper as the “Republic of Jones,” a name extensively used throughout the last 150 years, especially by historians writing on the subject. Other names for the Knight rebellion have also been used: the “Jones County Confederacy,” a “Confederacy within a Confederacy,” and even the “Kingdom of Jones,” which I had never heard until I watched the Ken Burns “Civil War” documentary.
    The name “Free State of Jones” can be traced back to the 1830s and 1840s. When new lands opened up in South Mississippi, thanks to the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830, Jones County, already sparsely populated, lost a sizable portion of its population, as people sought out more land and better opportunities. As that shift occurred, the civil government, in place since the county’s inception in 1826, essentially collapsed. With few slaves, not much government, and a small population, it was a very free place to live. In fact, the state legislature had to pass a law in 1843 to reorganize the non-existent county government. Many years after the war, the name “Free State of Jones” came to be associated with the Knight rebellion.
    2) Jones County Unionism – The essence of the film was that Jones County, as well as a few of the surrounding counties, was a hotbed of unionist, as well as anti-slavery, support since it was sparsely populated with slaves. In fact, there were just over 300 blacks in the whole county in 1860. The film makes it seem as though the majority unionist Jones Countians reacted against the plantation-slave-cotton economy of the South, every bit as much as the hated “Twenty Negro Law” and the Confederate “tax-in-kind” policy.
    And to build up this dramatic, anti-wealth narrative, what we see is a large-scale plantation right in the center of Ellisville, complete with a big house with a cruel and unjust master, named James Eakins, who raises a lot of cotton, enough to fill the cotton market in the small town. The set up seems to be taken right from Natchez and transplanted in the heart of Jones County. But it is complete fiction. Jones County had no major plantations and was comprised mainly of small yeoman farmers, who raised more cattle than cotton.
    In fact, aside from Eakins, there are many fictional characters in this film, nearly as many as authentic characters in the true story – Moses Washington, the main freed slave in the Knight Company who occupies much of the center stage throughout the film, and Daniel Knight, Newt Knight’s nephew killed at the Battle of Corinth at the start of the movie, are both completely fabricated.
    As for Confederate tax policy, the “tax-in-kind” that required farmers to give ten percent to the government, it was a tough tax in those farm-based areas and there were reports of rough tactics used to collect it. But the film essentially portrayed the Confederate army and tax collectors as barbarians. I was unsure if I was seeing the Confederate army or the first coming of Hitler’s Wehrmacht. One particularly nasty tax-collecting officer, a Lt. Barbour, was also a fictional character.
    But the film left out the fact that the Confederate Congress changed the tax several times, including a major change in February 1864 that exempted poor and needy families but also heavily taxed the rich and affluent. One political scientist from Yale wrote that the Confederate Congress, in this new change, “taxed all property including slaves at 5%; all gold, silver, and jewels were taxed at 10%; all shares or interest in banks, companies or businesses were taxed at 5%; monies in any form were taxed at 5%; and taxes on profits were increased to 10%, with companies that made more than a 25% profit taxed at 25%.”[4] And all because of the complaints of, and out of concern for, struggling farmers.
    And of course the film completely omits the fact that the Knight Company was burning homes and plundering farms of those who remained loyal to the Confederacy in a fashion much worse than actions undertaken by the Confederate army.
    In one letter from Captain W. Wirt Thompson to the Confederate Secretary of War, James Seddon, he recounts the carnage: “Several of the most prominent citizens have already been driven from their homes, and some have been slaughtered in their own homes because they refused to obey the mandates of the outlaws and abandon the country. Numbers have been ordered away and are now living under threats and in fear of their lives.”[5]
    Although there was a rebellion in Jones, the county was not nearly as unionist as it is portended to be. Jones raised eight companies of troops for the Confederate army, a sizeable number for a county of just 3323 white souls when the war started. Colonel John Marshall Stone, who commanded Mississippi troops in the war and later served 12 years as governor, wrote that Jones County “furnished perhaps as many soldiers to the army of the Confederacy as any other county of like population.”[6]
    Several of these units had very colorful names, indicating their loyalty and patriotism toward the Confederate cause: Ellisville Invincibles (Co. K, 8th Mississippi, in which my 4th great grandfather William Hugh Graham fought and died doing his part to stop Sherman’s rampage in Georgia), Jones County Rosin Heels (commanded by Amos McLemore, who was murdered by Knight), the Beauregard Defenders, and the Renovators.[7]
    3) The “Battle of Ellisville” and the Knight Company – The climatic battle scene, a full-pitched clash in the middle of town, is completely fabricated. The fights between the Knight Company and Confederate forces were more of a guerilla, hit-and-run nature, more akin to what you can see in the Mel Gibson film, “The Patriot.” Or as many a former Confederate said, “Just a bunch of deserters hidin’ out and bushwhackin’” Confederates.[8]
    But McConaughey’s “Newt Knight” boasts in the film that his company defeated an entire division of Confederate troops. The Knight Company, though, has been estimated by several sources to be around 125 men, so the very idea of his victory over a unit that would have consisted of 9,000 to 12,000 men is completely unrealistic and utterly false. The Confederate government did not send an entire division into Jones to defeat Knight. A much smaller force under Colonel Robert Lowry came in 1864 and scattered most of the outlaws.
    And even the Knight Company’s status in the Jones County rebellion is disputed. According to Rudy H. Leverett, author of The Legend of the Free State of Jones, there “never existed in Jones County a single, monolithic organization of deserters. Instead, some of the resident deserters were organized into networks or confederations of small, neighborhood squads, each with its own leader.” And only banded together, he writes, as “occasion demanded.”[9]
    The most serious engagement during the war years near Ellisville is known as the skirmish on Rocky Creek, in June 1863, where a Union cavalry unit from Illinois, sent to cut the railroad at Mobile, was ambushed and decisively defeated by Confederate troops from Tennessee, along with the formation of a “home guard” unit consisting of mainly older men and young boys, because most of the military aged men in the county were at the front. The skirmish did not concern the Knight Company, or any other deserter unit, and thus did not make it into the film.
    But the incident is telling. After the fight concluded, Lt. Wilson, commanding the 43rd Tennessee, wrote his report, from which we can gain a lot of understanding about the true nature of Jones County during the war, more evidence of an adherence to the Confederacy than in the control of a band of deserters.
    Writes Leverett: “From Wilson’s report of this truly remarkable achievement, we learn a number of relevant facts. We learn, for example, that the Union raiders received no assistance, either before or after their capture, from any indigenous partisan force; we learn that Piney Woodsmen who were too old or too young for regular military service were eager to fight for the Confederate cause, even to the extent of doing battle with an elite group of Union cavalry raiders; and we learn that even after the Union soldiers were captured, Wilson had his hands full in protecting them from the natives. Concerning the latter, Wilson wrote, ‘It was as much as I could possibly do to keep sufficient order to guard my prisoners.’ In other words, among the ordinary ‘Piney Woodsmen’ of Jones County, there was no disloyal sentiment apparent in the early summer of 1863.”[10]
    4) The Declaration of the Free State of Jones – Even though it might be a nice thought to consider the Free State of Jones to have existed in fact, and although Newt Knight was often said to have been the “Governor” or “President” of it, simply put there is no evidence that any official act, or any dramatic public declaration of the establishment of a “Free State of Jones,” as the movie portrays, ever took place.
    There are references, however, to some kind of declared independence in a Natchez newspaper and in one letter in General Sherman’s correspondence but because of a lack of evidence is most likely rumor and hearsay.
    The Natchez Courier newspaper wrote this in July 1864: “It may be interesting to many of our citizens to know that the county of Jones, State of Mississippi, has seceded from the State and formed a Government of their own, both military and civil. The Confederacy, after claiming the right of secession, not being willing to extend the same to the said Republic, has declared war against it and sent an army under Col. Mowry, of Mobile, to crush the rebellion.”[11]
    The letter from General Sherman in the Official Records: “I enclose herewith … a declaration of independence by certain people who are trying to avoid the Southern conscription, and lie out in the swamps. I promised them countenance, and encouraged them to organization for mutual defense.”[12] But what that declaration was has never been found.
    Even Newt Knight himself never claimed the county seceded. In the only interview Knight ever gave, in 1921 to Meigs O. Frost of the New Orleans Item, he disputed it: “There’s one story that after Jones County seceded from the Union she seceded from the Confederacy and started up a Free State of Jones. That ain’t so.”[13]
    Of course Knight’s reasoning was that since the county did not vote to secede, then it did not join the rest of the state in the Confederacy. By that twisted logic, the county had no need to secede because it was still with the Union. But counties are not sovereign, nor autonomous, and therefore could not separate itself from the state. The Constitution is very clear: A sovereign state cannot be divided without the state’s permission.
    Compounding the issue further is Knight’s service in the Confederate army, which was of his own accord until at least 1863, when he deserted for good. Yet in his later years, Knight tried to down play his service. In a petition to Mississippi governor Sharkey in the summer of 1865, Knight wrote, “We Stood firm to the union when secession swept as an avalanche over the state. For this cause alone we have been treated as savages instead of freeman by the rebel authorities.”[14] But his Confederate service disproves that entire petition.
    To get around that problem, as Knight told Meigs Frost, he only served because he was forced into service. Mississippi voted to secede from the Union, he said, then the “next thing we know they were conscripting us. The rebels passed a law conscripting everybody between 18 and 35. They just come around with a squad of soldiers ‘n’ took you.” But the conscription act did not pass until April of 1862, after Knight was already in the army, so he had, in fact, voluntarily joined, as did a great many members of his future Knight Company, including Jasper Collins.
    As the movie portrays, and as Knight told Frost, he refused to fight and worked as a nurse. “I didn’t want to fight. I told ‘em I’d help nurse sick soldiers if they wanted. They put me in the Seventh Mississippi Battalion as hospital orderly. I went around giving the sick soldiers blue mass and calomel and castor oil and quinine. That was about all the medicine we had then. It got shorter later.” But he is not listed on any muster rolls as a hospital orderly and eventually reached the rank of fourth sergeant during his time in the army. He just decided to desert and start a campaign of “bushwhackin’.”
    Despite the fantasy of Hollywood, there is no record of any official declaration, a vote on county secession, or a great flag-raising ceremony, as Knight and his merry band raise the US flag above the courthouse in Ellisville, an event that although the consultants say is documented, the only evidence of it is based on one letter that is itself based on second-hand information.[15]
    Colonel Robert Lowry, sent in to put down the rebellion, and who later served two terms as governor from 1882-1890, wrote of Jones: “The county furnished nearly and probably its entire quota of soldiers, many of whom did splendid service. No such effort as establishing a separate government was ever attempted. The story of withdrawal and establishing of a separate government is a pure fabrication – not a shadow of foundation for it.” Other Mississippi governors of the period said much the same thing.[16]
    Nor did the alleged “Free State of Jones” encompass as much territory as Knight proclaimed in the film. In his grand speech on the courthouse steps, under the fluttering Union flag, he claims it extended as far south as the Pascagoula swamps and over to the Alabama line, which would have covered most of southeast Mississippi. Yet in reality it would have extended no further than the 700 square miles of the county of Jones. Knight’s influence scarcely extended further.
    Writes Leverett: “That there did exist in Jones County in 1864 something called the Republic of Jones or the Jones County Confederacy, or perhaps both, is hard to doubt.” But taken with all the available evidence, including “the total absence in contemporary records of the area of anything even remotely suggesting the secession story,” the only conclusion is that the “Republic of Jones was a legendary, not a historical republic.”[17] In other words, it existed in myth or in name only, not legal fact.
    5) The Character of Newt Knight – The film attempts to portray Newt Knight as a great man, but aside from those in the Knight Company, most Jones Countians, then and now, had a low opinion of Knight. He’s well known, even today, as a murderer, thief, plunderer, bandit, outlaw, and an adulterer. One of his own neighbors called him “a mighty sorry man.”[18]
    Although a big part of the film centers on the relationship between Knight and the slave Rachel, who is portrayed as belonging to Eakins, the fictional planter in Ellisville, it does not represent it accurately. In the film, Rachel, with some obvious nursing skills, met Knight when she was sent to his house to help his sick son. In reality Rachel belonged to Newt’s grandfather, who apparently owed 22 slaves, making him one of the largest slaveholders in the area, so Knight had presumably known her all his life.
    As for Knight’s legal marriage to his white wife Serena, who he wed in 1849, the film shows but one child yet they had nine. While still married to Serena, Knight got together with Rachel, which the film depicts, and they eventually had five children, although only one is shown. Rachel also had three children prior to her relationship with Knight, which the film left out.
    Amazing as it sounds, when Rachel died in 1889, Knight actually took up with one of Rachel’s daughters, Georgeanne, and had two children with her, all while Serena lived in the same house. So the adultery charge, as well as the overall characterization of him as a moral degenerate, is very accurate. One old Confederate soldier, speaking of these things, said of Knight, “What he did after the war was worse than deserting.”[19]
    Newt Knight was also well known for his meanness, not the film depiction of a kinder, more thoughtful gentleman. In the 1921 Frost article, a Jones Countian told Frost to be careful when meeting Knight. “Watch out you don’t come back with a charge of birdshot in your legs,” he warned him. “If Uncle Newt ain’t feelin’ right…”
    Knight allegedly committed two cold-blooded murders before the war, one of which was a slave belonging to his grandfather, after which his mother falsified documents to show him to be a minor at the time of the killing, so as to shield him from the law. The other alleged homicide was his own brother in-law, who he supposedly gunned down in 1861. These facts are not portrayed or even mentioned in the film.
    And during his rebellion, Knight killed Confederate Major Amos McLemore in cold blood, which is the centerpiece of the whole affair. McLemore, a native of Jones, was sent by General Braxton Bragg to put down the rebellion and round up the deserters. He was staying in the Ellisville home of Amos Deason, a house that is still standing today and is the focus of the story. Knight and a cohort sneaked up to the house and shot McLemore late at night as the Major prepared for bed.
    One version of the incident holds that Knight shot him through the window, or, in another version, burst in the door and shot him. Either way, we do know that Knight shot McLemore in the back. Yet the film portrays this incident in a church, for some reason, with Knight strangling him with his belt, seemingly an attempt to make it a much more dramatic and a more chivalrous act, supposedly in defense of his county and people from the murderous hordes wearing the gray.
    6) Reconstruction – This film is one of the few to delve into the Reconstruction period, centering on Knight’s work on behalf of black voter registration, the Republican Party, and the Union League. In one gallant scene, Knight marches into downtown Ellisville, as Federal troops occupy the streets, leading a contingent of black and white Republicans to cast ballots in a state election. But again, there is no evidence that any Union troops were garrisoning Ellisville, or that Knight marched into town to demand the right to vote for everyone. Although Mississippi’s carpetbag governor, Adelbert Ames of Massachusetts, appointed him a colonel of a state infantry regiment in 1875, there is no evidence that Knight was in any Union League after the war.
    In fact, Newt Knight is never mentioned in any scholarly work on Reconstruction in Mississippi. And the historical consultant’s footnotes for this particular episode are three secondary books that simply mention the existence of such an organization and the number of black officeholders in the South during Reconstruction, but not Newt Knight specifically.

    More at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/r...-or-hollywood/
    ...
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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.
    No it only prohibited their federal government.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Well sure. The federal government could have allowed secession and not gone to war. But southerners didn't really believe in secession either, only in their right to secede. Please watch "The Free State of Jones" when you have time. Part of Mississippi seceded from Mississippi when Mississippi seceded from the Union. That was a true libertarian state. There was no slavery, no draft, and no taxation. The Southern States cared so little about states rights that they in their constitution barred states from exercising their right to abolish slavery. Really "states rights" is laughable on a forum that puts people down for being "statist." States rights can be helpful as a proxy for individual rights, but when states rights are used to suppress individual rights they are an abomination.

    We have a case of Constitutional =/= moral or ethical. Having to make a case on legal grounds when opposing natural law is a losing proposition, and the South lost.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No it only prohibited their federal government.
    Your lack of historical knowledge is showing again.

    The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Your lack of historical knowledge is showing again.

    The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
    That is referring to Territories under Confederation control NOT STATES.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-21-2013, 07:52 PM
  2. Other: For the newbies - Ron Paul on the Civil War and slavery
    By slamhead in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-11-2013, 08:24 PM
  3. Replies: 182
    Last Post: 08-07-2011, 09:04 PM
  4. The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery- Walter Williams
    By noztnac in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 08:39 AM
  5. How long would slavery have lasted without the civil war?
    By keh10 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-07-2010, 06:18 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •