I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States

[Ana the Ist]

I meant slavery within the states where it already existed and was it under threat politically? slavery and its value only increased the last few decades before the war with the cotton gin. Perhaps this would better fit on the thread on the impact slavery played on the cotton states secession. I argued on one of these threads [ i could find and copy paste] it was in no danger within the southern states. I would like your opinion on that if you have time.






I would like to clarify a common misconception about the PC version. The old south never viewed blacks as inferior races or lesser evolved animals. Evolution did not yet have a hold on higher education. They were viewed from the biblical viewpoint of all men being descended from Adam and eve. You will not be able to find anywhere the view of blacks as lesser evolved [lesser civilized yes] animals or sub human. That comes later with evolution.


But I agree northern abolition was increasing hostile to the south. But there was also increasing hostility towards abolitionism in the north, viewing them as union breakers and trouble. But even said i do see your point and think you are correct. Northern industrialist/capitalist were at war with the agrarian free trade south. But I will anyways post a section from my upper south post.

I am unsure if i understood correct so i am going to reply to what I think you might be saying here. That is that "states rights" really only started as a response to the federal governments intrusion on the rights of the states over the issue of slavery. Know this is often what we are told. But I have found, that is because we are taught american history from our modern post civil war nationalist outlook on the "union" rather than the antebellum american compact union view. When we are taught how states vs federal operated and our original union , it becomes very clear it was a vital aspect of our country/Constitution and political system. Slavery was just the issue of its day in a long line of states rights that we are not taught about. This link should do it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war


But specifically see here as well

States Rights Were just to Protect Slavery


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


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

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

The CSA federal government could not end slavery in the confederacy constitutionally. Yet the confederacy still made a very strong states rights Constitution. If it was just to protect slavery than there would have been no need for stronger states rights than the American Constitution. During the confederacy when the federal overreached against the states, states nullified and fought back on non slave related issues and states like Georgia, threatened to secede.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/govbrown/brown.html
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/

After Reconstruction and slavery, the south was still the strong states rights section of the country. The first states right advocates in the U.S were men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George mason, St George Tucker, John Randolph many of whom spoke out against slavery, yet were strong states rights proponents. States rights was used more by northern states before the civil war than southern. States rights were used against slavery and federal ruling like the fugitive slave laws. There were strong states rights men in the north [democrats] that were anti slavery. For example over national banking during the war, northern democrats objected because

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

States had pushed back against federal overreach no matter what the issue, the issue in 1860 was over tariffs and slavery. The first federal vs state issue arose over the alien and sedition acts later internal improvements, national banking, conscription, protective tariffs, land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of militia, fugitive slave laws etc. No matter what the issue states held firm to the union and fought against federal expansions.

In the upper south slavery was better protected within their state than in the new confederacy. However states rights were better protected in the confederacy under its constitution. Many in the south such as Mary Chestnut wished slavery to be abolished in the confederacy as did others.

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

You've been polite so far, so I'm not going to chide you for characterizing my statements as the "PC version" of the Southern view of blacks pre-Civil War. I've no doubt that you believe it honestly to be the case that southerners are mistakenly blamed as racists with some dehumanizing views of blacks. You are 100% wrong in this....and not only was the idea that black people were "sub human" the prevailing view in the south...but it was the prevailing view in the north as well. It may have been more deeply a part of the Southern perspective, as their views are tied to racism, but racist views of blacks as subhumans who were more closely related to apes than whites was common in the north as well. I'll gladly give you evidence of this, for your benefit, and show that it predates the theory of evolution by such a long time....one couldn't hope to realistically blame Darwin for it.

But first, I'll answer your question about whether or not the institution of slavery was "in danger" in the Southern states where it was legal....and the answer is "yes". Unequivocally, the institution of slavery was in danger.

You seem to be under the impression that the creation and changing of laws was wildly different in the Pre Civil War US (PCW) than it was after the war. You seem to be of the view that state's rights were unassailable....and that after the war, the increased power of the federal government had unjustly usurped the power of the states and henceforth corrupted the country.

I think that's a load of hogwash....not because power didn't transition from the states to the federal government (it certainly did) but because in a democracy, the ultimate authority is the people. I've already given you evidence that not only in PCW was the abolitionist movement growing....but it was growing in influence in Southern slave holding states. Do you think that if 65% of the people of those states eventually decided blacks should be free and slavery outlawed.....slavery would have remained? What if the abolitionists made up 75%? How about 85%?

There was a lot of room in the Constitution for any number of amendments which would have ended slavery....and slavery was being attacked in the courts all the time. Black slaves were being advocated for by abolitionist groups and individuals who had the means of paying for a trial. In short, the idea that blacks were humans who should be freed was finally gaining popularity to the point where it was rivaling the idea that blacks were inferior and meant to be slaves by the will of god (most of the original legal arguments for slavery were rooted in biblical teaching/authority and the status quo...which is a bit more complicated but I'll explain it if you'd like).

If you're looking for hard evidence though, you really only need to look at the Dred Scott case. If you already know all about the case, great. If you don't....please give it a quick review.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

I want you to focus on three things...

1. What a constant nightmare this must have been...even though the case doesn't detail any great mistreatment of Dred, to exist as someone's property sounds hellish. His owners didn't seem to have any real need for him, instead "leasing" him out as a laborer and keeping the fruits of his labor. He lacks any certainty, any real control of his future.

2. This case is a legal mess. He switches owners and homes multiple times. He's freed, he's enslaved, and over again....which states' laws take precedent. Judges say had he sued for his freedom at a different time and place... he would be free. It seems that time and place are the least important factors...and this is the problem inherent in the "states rights" argument.

3. President Buchanan decides to interfere. The case goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives hang in the balance....and the new president is basically concerned about not having to deal with this issue. He tells a justice something to the effect of....

"Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate."

If this isn't evidence that the institution of slavery was in danger everywhere in the US, then I don't know what is. Buchanan also convinces a justice from the north to side with the south so that it doesn't look like a straight north vs south decision.

The decision itself, states that blacks born into slavery cannot ever become US citizens...effectively undoing efforts to role back slavery in many states.

So this is not only evidence that the institution of slavery was in danger, but that the issue of state's rights regarding slavery wasn't the reason for secession. After all, the Dred Scott decision had effectively overturned laws in many northern states that allowed former slaves to become free citizens. Was the south upset about that encroachment of the federal government upon states' rights? Of course they weren't...they were celebrating it.

I'll address the racist views of the south, and north, in my next post.

Also, you don't need to keep posting the same material and quotes repeatedly...I read them the first time. If you want me to address anything specific, just ask me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would like to clarify a common misconception about the PC version. The old south never viewed blacks as inferior races or lesser evolved animals. Evolution did not yet have a hold on higher education. They were viewed from the biblical viewpoint of all men being descended from Adam and eve. You will not be able to find anywhere the view of blacks as lesser evolved [lesser civilized yes] animals or sub human. That comes later ....

Ok, let's start with the idea that blacks were less human or inferior didn't show up until Darwin.

The theory of evolution was published in the 1860s I believe. The idea that blacks were less human or inferior actually goes back pretty far.

Comparing black people to monkeys has a long, dark simian history

As you can see, the idea that blacks are the offspring of human sexual activity with apes...or otherwise the result of inappropriate behavior with animals...goes back to at least the mid 1500s.

"The history of a narrative by Antonio de Torquemada shows how in this process Africans became demonised and the demons racialised. In the story’s first version (1570), a Portuguese woman was exiled to Africa where she was raped by an ape and had his babies."

So blaming this on Darwin seems like a nonstarter. Darwin certainly didn't help, but he certainly didn't originate the idea.

Christian beliefs on the "order of nature" placed god at the top, man below, animals below man, plants below animals, and inert matter at the bottom. While no one knows exactly why Europeans began associating the darker races as closer to animals than man....the article linked presents 4 theories. I'm going to toss out the first, the idea of Africa having a larger number and variety of great apes...simply because this would have meant little to nothing to the average person and not much to even a biologist. The last, the enslavement of blacks and darker peoples was clearly part of what perpetuated the idea that blacks were lower/inferior/subhuman....but as the idea predates any large scale enslavement...it's not a good understanding of where the idea came from. That leaves numbers 2+3...

The obvious is the aesthetic differences between white European standards and those of Africans and native Americans. One who grows up now will take for granted that they've seen black people and other poc their entire lives...there is nothing novel or "unusual" about their appearance.

In the eyes of a white European who has never seen anyone other than others like himself his entire life....the differences in appearance must have been stark and immediately noticeable. As with all things, this would invite explanations, and inevitably...some of those involved animals (as stated above). Pretty racist stuff.

The other explanation is a bit less obvious. European nations traded with others for a long time, in fact it was trade with India and China which prompted investors to explore Africa and the Americas. Their expectations were of India and China....exotic, wealthy, and while certainly mysterious....also sophisticated, civilized, refined.

In fact, with Russia to the west and trade routes through the major cities of Arabia leading into India and then finally China....Europeans had an expectation that the whole world and whole of mankind was to some degree or another as advanced as these examples.

Upon learning they had found new lands in the Americas....these expectations were dashed over and over. There were repeated myths like El Dorado which many were convinced must have some real world correlation. The idea of a similarly advanced civilization persisted until it became apparent that it simply did not exist. What then explained why all these lands were populated by peoples who appeared to live in societies far more primitive than the rest of the "modern" world? Again, explanations took the form of darker skinned people were simply inferior in many ways....and could not create the advanced societies of Europe and the Orient.

There are modern day narratives that claim these ideas of racial inferiority were created for the purpose of enslaving blacks...but this is false. Europeans needed no justification for that purpose as they had practiced slavery in many forms for centuries. Slavery helped perpetuate these ideas...and the notion of racial superiority certainly eased the consciences of slave owners...but anyone claiming that racial superiority was invented for this reason is either mistaken or pushing an agenda.

The notion persisted though...even well after slavery ended and to a much smaller degree, even today.

Do you really need me to prove that southerners believed in racial superiority? I can pull quotes if need be...or link articles...but I'd rather not copy such ugly words unless you still doubt me.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is Sic Semper Tyrannis, I was banned and we have got things all figured out know so sorry for the delay.

You've been polite so far, so I'm not going to chide you for characterizing my statements as the "PC version" of the Southern view of blacks pre-Civil War.

I was simply saying that you stated the standard story as if true. Not saying you were trying to be pc. We are not given the other view of the war, that must be sought after.

I've no doubt that you believe it honestly to be the case that southerners are mistakenly blamed as racists with some dehumanizing views of blacks. You are 100% wrong in this....and not only was the idea that black people were "sub human" the prevailing view in the south...but it was the prevailing view in the north as well. It may have been more deeply a part of the Southern perspective, as their views are tied to racism, but racist views of blacks as subhumans who were more closely related to apes than whites was common in the north as well. I'll gladly give you evidence of this, for your benefit, and show that it predates the theory of evolution by such a long time....one couldn't hope to realistically blame Darwin for it.

I will be interested to see that.

But first, I'll answer your question about whether or not the institution of slavery was "in danger" in the Southern states where it was legal....and the answer is "yes". Unequivocally, the institution of slavery was in danger.

You seem to be under the impression that the creation and changing of laws was wildly different in the Pre Civil War US (PCW) than it was after the war. You seem to be of the view that state's rights were unassailable....and that after the war, the increased power of the federal government had unjustly usurped the power of the states and henceforth corrupted the country.

I think that's a load of hogwash....not because power didn't transition from the states to the federal government (it certainly did) but because in a democracy, the ultimate authority is the people.

Here we must disagree and this is so vital. I will be doing a thread on this very subject. We have not been told about this aspect of our history. I would say the government of the founders died during the civil war, and we have never been the same nor are we in charge anymore. We the people are no longer sovereign the government is. That fact you think we are a democracy shows this true and how far we have changed/fallen. I will do the thread soon keep an eye out. Here is an earlier version

From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war

I've already given you evidence that not only in PCW was the abolitionist movement growing....but it was growing in influence in Southern slave holding states. Do you think that if 65% of the people of those states eventually decided blacks should be free and slavery outlawed.....slavery would have remained? What if the abolitionists made up 75%? How about 85%?

of course not. and this is what the south argued from the first. Allow abolition to happen in the states as it always had and as it did in the north. But think of your argument/claim. If abolition was growing in the south, did the south seceded to keep itself from the south?

There was a lot of room in the Constitution for any number of amendments which would have ended slavery....and slavery was being attacked in the courts all the time. Black slaves were being advocated for by abolitionist groups and individuals who had the means of paying for a trial. In short, the idea that blacks were humans who should be freed was finally gaining popularity to the point where it was rivaling the idea that blacks were inferior and meant to be slaves by the will of god (most of the original legal arguments for slavery were rooted in biblical teaching/authority and the status quo...which is a bit more complicated but I'll explain it if you'd like).

Agreed. But I think you are wrong on the assumption that is where it was heading, because the oposite is true.

Lincoln and the north supported the Corwin amendment that would have protected slavery forever in the the U.S constitution and used it to try and stop secession.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof[ slavery], including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
-Corwin Amendment

The united states supreme court had ruled in favor of the fugitive slave laws and the use of federal agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. A confederacy would have no protection for runaways north. Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery.



As for southern arguments for slavery I have read them i assure you. Not once do they suggest blacks are sub human.

If you're looking for hard evidence though, you really only need to look at the Dred Scott case. If you already know all about the case, great. If you don't....please give it a quick review.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

I want you to focus on three things...

1. What a constant nightmare this must have been...even though the case doesn't detail any great mistreatment of Dred, to exist as someone's property sounds hellish. His owners didn't seem to have any real need for him, instead "leasing" him out as a laborer and keeping the fruits of his labor. He lacks any certainty, any real control of his future.

2. This case is a legal mess. He switches owners and homes multiple times. He's freed, he's enslaved, and over again....which states' laws take precedent. Judges say had he sued for his freedom at a different time and place... he would be free. It seems that time and place are the least important factors...and this is the problem inherent in the "states rights" argument.

3. President Buchanan decides to interfere. The case goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives hang in the balance....and the new president is basically concerned about not having to deal with this issue. He tells a justice something to the effect of....

"Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate."

If this isn't evidence that the institution of slavery was in danger everywhere in the US, then I don't know what is. Buchanan also convinces a justice from the north to side with the south so that it doesn't look like a straight north vs south decision.

The decision itself, states that blacks born into slavery cannot ever become US citizens...effectively undoing efforts to role back slavery in many states.

How do you conclude that is evidence? the supreme court gave the most favorable decision backed by Bucchaman in support of slavery. When had slavery ever been better protected in american history? Than the republicans try and go one even better for slave owners with the crowin amendment. This is evidence slavery was better supported than ever. It was slavery in the western territories that was disputed.

So this is not only evidence that the institution of slavery was in danger, but that the issue of state's rights regarding slavery wasn't the reason for secession. After all, the Dred Scott decision had effectively overturned laws in many northern states that allowed former slaves to become free citizens. Was the south upset about that encroachment of the federal government upon states' rights? Of course they weren't...they were celebrating it.

I'll address the racist views of the south, and north, in my next post.

Also, you don't need to keep posting the same material and quotes repeatedly...I read them the first time. If you want me to address anything specific, just ask me.

Once more I come to the opposite conclusion for the reasons given above.


This objection seems good on the surface, but stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states rights, and the union that was, see my earlier version [much improved know]

From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war

But even if we assume they are correct for the sake of the argument, at most it would prove the south did not care for the northern states, states rights, not their own. The south clearly spoke of states rights and violations by the north and federal as a cause of secession. It could hypothetically denounce northern states rights as well when the north violated their own states rights and still secede over southern states rights. Since these rights are in place to secure its own states citizens rights and not another, this would make sense. This is also the downside of having a union of self governing states if one side does not follow the compact or contract [constitution] and also why secession is vital to liberty.

Having said that a proper understanding of states rights is not lawlessness and states not following federal law or the constitution. In fact it is the opposite. States rights are in place to prevent the federal from violating the constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case the northern states were violating the constitution. The southern rights were already granted within the constitution that northern states were violating. Here is the USA and CSA “supremacy clause”

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [confederate version read confederate states]which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
The south were not second class citizens and their property was constitutionally to be treated as any other property. It would be the same as if a Vermonters horse wondered across the border to New York, only to have a resident of that state keep the horse and say we dont recognize your right to this property. That is not a protection of the individuals property as granted under the constitution and was a cause of secession.


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.
-Article 4 clause 3 us Constitution


“Any person held to service or labor in one state escaping into another should not, in consequence of any law or regulation theorf, be discharged from such service or labor, but should be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor might be due by laws of his state. Thus and thus only, by the reciprocal guarantee of all the rights of every state against interference on the part of another.”
-President Franklin Pierce 1856

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Ok, let's start with the idea that blacks were less human or inferior didn't show up until Darwin.

The theory of evolution was published in the 1860s I believe. The idea that blacks were less human or inferior actually goes back pretty far.

Comparing black people to monkeys has a long, dark simian history

Honestly that article seemed desperate indeed to find any comparison in history and a quick view i saw nothing. I did not see one reference to a southerner before the civil war saying blacks were sub human. I have read many pro slavery books/articles/speeches from the time from leading southerners, not one has said blacks were sub human. So once more can you provide even one instance where a southerner thought blacks sub human or lesser evolved.

As you can see, the idea that blacks are the offspring of human sexual activity with apes...or otherwise the result of inappropriate behavior with animals...goes back to at least the mid 1500s.

"The history of a narrative by Antonio de Torquemada shows how in this process Africans became demonised and the demons racialised. In the story’s first version (1570), a Portuguese woman was exiled to Africa where she was raped by an ape and had his babies."

So blaming this on Darwin seems like a nonstarter. Darwin certainly didn't help, but he certainly didn't originate the idea.

This would be another topic i think. Let me say you can find hundreds easy post evolution, you might be able to come up with one fairy tale from Portugal in the 1500's before darwin. But to this topic, what southerner thought blacks sub human?

Christian beliefs on the "order of nature" placed god at the top, man below, animals below man, plants below animals, and inert matter at the bottom. While no one knows exactly why Europeans began associating the darker races as closer to animals than man....the article linked presents 4 theories. I'm going to toss out the first, the idea of Africa having a larger number and variety of great apes...simply because this would have meant little to nothing to the average person and not much to even a biologist. The last, the enslavement of blacks and darker peoples was clearly part of what perpetuated the idea that blacks were lower/inferior/subhuman....but as the idea predates any large scale enslavement...it's not a good understanding of where the idea came from. That leaves numbers 2+3...

The obvious is the aesthetic differences between white European standards and those of Africans and native Americans. One who grows up now will take for granted that they've seen black people and other poc their entire lives...there is nothing novel or "unusual" about their appearance.

In the eyes of a white European who has never seen anyone other than others like himself his entire life....the differences in appearance must have been stark and immediately noticeable. As with all things, this would invite explanations, and inevitably...some of those involved animals (as stated above). Pretty racist stuff.

The other explanation is a bit less obvious. European nations traded with others for a long time, in fact it was trade with India and China which prompted investors to explore Africa and the Americas. Their expectations were of India and China....exotic, wealthy, and while certainly mysterious....also sophisticated, civilized, refined.

In fact, with Russia to the west and trade routes through the major cities of Arabia leading into India and then finally China....Europeans had an expectation that the whole world and whole of mankind was to some degree or another as advanced as these examples.

Upon learning they had found new lands in the Americas....these expectations were dashed over and over. There were repeated myths like El Dorado which many were convinced must have some real world correlation. The idea of a similarly advanced civilization persisted until it became apparent that it simply did not exist. What then explained why all these lands were populated by peoples who appeared to live in societies far more primitive than the rest of the "modern" world? Again, explanations took the form of darker skinned people were simply inferior in many ways....and could not create the advanced societies of Europe and the Orient.

allow liberals all the fairy tale imaginative theories they like, but factual history shows evolution. Once more that is another thread.

There are modern day narratives that claim these ideas of racial inferiority were created for the purpose of enslaving blacks...but this is false. Europeans needed no justification for that purpose as they had practiced slavery in many forms for centuries. Slavery helped perpetuate these ideas...and the notion of racial superiority certainly eased the consciences of slave owners...but anyone claiming that racial superiority was invented for this reason is either mistaken or pushing an agenda.

wow we agree. Slavery was financial not racists. when blacks enslaved blacks, whites etc it was not over slavery. When native americans enslaved blacks and whites and native Americans it was not racism, financial led to it always.

The notion persisted though...even well after slavery ended and to a much smaller degree, even today.

Do you really need me to prove that southerners believed in racial superiority? I can pull quotes if need be...or link articles...but I'd rather not copy such ugly words unless you still doubt me.

No, blacks, whites, native americans all saw their race/culture as the best. What I wanted you to support was your claim that stemmed from the pc version of history, that southern whites viewed blacks as sub human or lesser evolved.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is Sic Semper Tyrannis, I was banned and we have got things all figured out know so sorry for the delay.





I was simply saying that you stated the standard story as if true. Not saying you were trying to be pc. We are not given the other view of the war, that must be sought after.





I will be interested to see that.






Here we must disagree and this is so vital. I will be doing a thread on this very subject. We have not been told about this aspect of our history. I would say the government of the founders died during the civil war, and we have never been the same nor are we in charge anymore. We the people are no longer sovereign the government is. That fact you think we are a democracy shows this true and how far we have changed/fallen. I will do the thread soon keep an eye out. Here is an earlier version

From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war




of course not. and this is what the south argued from the first. Allow abolition to happen in the states as it always had and as it did in the north. But think of your argument/claim. If abolition was growing in the south, did the south seceded to keep itself from the south?




Agreed. But I think you are wrong on the assumption that is where it was heading, because the oposite is true.

Lincoln and the north supported the Corwin amendment that would have protected slavery forever in the the U.S constitution and used it to try and stop secession.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof[ slavery], including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
-Corwin Amendment

The united states supreme court had ruled in favor of the fugitive slave laws and the use of federal agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. A confederacy would have no protection for runaways north. Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery.



As for southern arguments for slavery I have read them i assure you. Not once do they suggest blacks are sub human.




How do you conclude that is evidence? the supreme court gave the most favorable decision backed by Bucchaman in support of slavery. When had slavery ever been better protected in american history? Than the republicans try and go one even better for slave owners with the crowin amendment. This is evidence slavery was better supported than ever. It was slavery in the western territories that was disputed.




Once more I come to the opposite conclusion for the reasons given above.


This objection seems good on the surface, but stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states rights, and the union that was, see my earlier version [much improved know]

From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war

But even if we assume they are correct for the sake of the argument, at most it would prove the south did not care for the northern states, states rights, not their own. The south clearly spoke of states rights and violations by the north and federal as a cause of secession. It could hypothetically denounce northern states rights as well when the north violated their own states rights and still secede over southern states rights. Since these rights are in place to secure its own states citizens rights and not another, this would make sense. This is also the downside of having a union of self governing states if one side does not follow the compact or contract [constitution] and also why secession is vital to liberty.

Having said that a proper understanding of states rights is not lawlessness and states not following federal law or the constitution. In fact it is the opposite. States rights are in place to prevent the federal from violating the constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case the northern states were violating the constitution. The southern rights were already granted within the constitution that northern states were violating. Here is the USA and CSA “supremacy clause”

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [confederate version read confederate states]which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
The south were not second class citizens and their property was constitutionally to be treated as any other property. It would be the same as if a Vermonters horse wondered across the border to New York, only to have a resident of that state keep the horse and say we dont recognize your right to this property. That is not a protection of the individuals property as granted under the constitution and was a cause of secession.

You keep insisting on the idea that slavery wasn't under attack nor was it the cause of the civil war and you're engaging in revisionism. Let's just look at the first proclamation of secession, shall we?

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

That's the full text. Now, as an olive branch, I'll admit that the legal reasons they give for seceding are in regards to state rights. However, they also seek to clarify the issue (the specific state right they seceding over) in this section....

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

The idea that the north has not only failed to protect slavery...but has actively sought to destroy it is a constant theme in the document.

Furthermore...

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government."

Did you catch that? They have viewed slavery as being under attack for 25 years, and now that it's under attack from the federal government...they decided to secede.

So let's be clear...no respectable scholar would claim that slavery was "secure" and not under attack. I'll give you the idea that certainly there were figures who felt the war was more about state's rights...but there were also many who saw it was about slavery. Moreover, even those who saw it as a state's rights issue were only interested in the right to own slaves....other state rights seemed to matter little.

These facts are evident in many documents and quotes from the time....but especially in the secession proclamations themselves. They are not up for dispute.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Honestly that article seemed desperate indeed to find any comparison in history and a quick view i saw nothing. I did not see one reference to a southerner before the civil war saying blacks were sub human. I have read many pro slavery books/articles/speeches from the time from leading southerners, not one has said blacks were sub human. So once more can you provide even one instance where a southerner thought blacks sub human or lesser evolved.







This would be another topic i think. Let me say you can find hundreds easy post evolution, you might be able to come up with one fairy tale from Portugal in the 1500's before darwin. But to this topic, what southerner thought blacks sub human?





allow liberals all the fairy tale imaginative theories they like, but factual history shows evolution. Once more that is another thread.





wow we agree. Slavery was financial not racists. when blacks enslaved blacks, whites etc it was not over slavery. When native americans enslaved blacks and whites and native Americans it was not racism, financial led to it always.




No, blacks, whites, native americans all saw their race/culture as the best. What I wanted you to support was your claim that stemmed from the pc version of history, that southern whites viewed blacks as sub human or lesser evolved.

Look...I don't like going to the kind of websites that have the kind of quotes you're looking for. There's plenty of evidence...that's why I gave you the Dred Scott case. Did you read the majority decision?

It states...

"Black Africans imported as slaves] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion."

Does that make it clear? Does that spell it out? Obviously, he can't speak for everyone...but you won't find any quotes disagreeing with the portions I've highlighted.

1. Everyone, north and south, treated blacks as inferior to whites...whether they stated they believed this or not, it was axiomatic and indisputable for over 100 years.

2. Blacks were so inferior that they had no rights that were considered "universal" to mankind. Slavery was seen an improvement over their "natural condition".

Does that spell it out? Or do you think a Supreme Court Justice who had tried many cases involving black slaves was so out of touch with the times?

As to Darwin...I merely wanted to give evidence that the idea that blacks were less than whites was common before the theory of evolution. There's plenty of evidence for this in the scientific community as well....

1770s-1850s: One race or several species?

"By the 19th century, the scientific debate focused on whether human biological difference was just a racial variation, or represented an entirely different species. The "species" theory, polygenism, held that human "races" were of different lineages and suggested a hierarchy outlined in the "Chain of Being" that positioned Africans between man and lower primates."

Get it now? The idea was there even in the scientific community. Nobody really gave any thought to the possibility that we were equals.

Now, if you want to claim otherwise...that the antebellum south had some enlightened views of blacks and non-whites in general...then it's going to be on you to prove it.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

You keep insisting on the idea that slavery wasn't under attack nor was it the cause of the civil war and you're engaging in revisionism. Let's just look at the first proclamation of secession, shall we?

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

That's the full text. Now, as an olive branch, I'll admit that the legal reasons they give for seceding are in regards to state rights. However, they also seek to clarify the issue (the specific state right they seceding over) in this section....

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

The idea that the north has not only failed to protect slavery...but has actively sought to destroy it is a constant theme in the document.

Furthermore...

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government."

Did you catch that? They have viewed slavery as being under attack for 25 years, and now that it's under attack from the federal government...they decided to secede.

So let's be clear...no respectable scholar would claim that slavery was "secure" and not under attack. I'll give you the idea that certainly there were figures who felt the war was more about state's rights...but there were also many who saw it was about slavery. Moreover, even those who saw it as a state's rights issue were only interested in the right to own slaves....other state rights seemed to matter little.

These facts are evident in many documents and quotes from the time....but especially in the secession proclamations themselves. They are not up for dispute.

A quick note, you are drawing all the wrong cnclusions based on your asumtions, not on what southerners said/thought or hsitorical data. Perhaps you have not read my threads than? I very much recommend my thread

Slavery's Impact On the Cotton States Causes of Secession
Slavery's Impact On the Cotton States Causes of Secession

I think that could clarify my position. Slavery did play a part. But for one to claim as you have it was the cause of secession of the south [or even the cotton states] would be to engage in revisionism and one would have to ignore a great deal of history and causes to do so.

I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Upper South- American Civil war
I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States


You have taken one section of one states causes and than falsely and deceptive tried to apply to all. I could find a dozen issues and claim secession was over them if we go by a small section of anyone state declaration.


Further you have misread the document despite the fact you admit it says states rights were the cause of secession. You have failed to show that slavery as a system in thew southern states was in any political trouble, the opposite is true. Some trying to incite violence does not change that fact. It is true that slave insurrection played a role rightfully so.

“They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.”
-Texas Causes of Secession

“A large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors.
-Florida Causes of Secession

With recent slave uprising in Hati as well as Nat Turners uprising and finally John browns raid caused the south concern similar events would take place brought on by northern abolitionist inciting violence and uprising throughout the south. The most concern was over the northern reaction to John Browns raid. R.L Dabney said the event would have been trivial if not for pulpits and newspapers praising Browns actions.

“thousands of men who a month ago scoffed at the idea of a dissolution of the union...now hold the opinion that its days were numbered”
- Richmond Enquirer

While the north celebrated Browns raid, Virginia and the south saw itself as invaded by a foreign enemy. Southerners were concerned that innocent woman and children were at danger and they should resists such violence on its people.





As for the South Carolina document

South Carolina Secession Document

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union


South Carolina was the first state to seceded from the union. If read in full it gives a good example of slavery as a states rights issue. Slavery was an occasion that states rights were fought over, not the sole cause. The cause of dissolving the union is given right off the bat “Declared that the frequent violations of the constitution by the united sates, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.” The document is a states rights succession document. The writers of the document wanted that to stand out, that is why the first thing noticed at a glance of the document you will see “FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES” capitalized three times in the document to stand out. South Carolina was also letting it be known in their declaration of Independence, that it was “FREE AND INDEPANDANT STATES” and state rights, that they were declaring independence. The document goes into the history of states rights in America mentions the failure of the federal government in upholding the constitution and its interfering with states rights. South Carolina said if they were to stay in the union the “constitution will then no longer exists, equal rights of the states will be lost” and that the federal government would become its enemy. While slavery is mentioned four or five times, states rights, independent state, and state sovereignty is mentioned sixteen times. States rights are mentioned not in connection with slavery, yet slavery is always mentioned in connection with states rights. Just as southern democrats had been saying for decades in there political party planks, an attack on slavery was an attack on states rights. Just as South Carolina when it first threatened to success was over states rights, that time [1830's] over tariffs, not slavery.


Perhaps my other thread on antebellum american politics should have been done first to see how vital states rights was and how much it was protected north and south whenever attacked that would help clarify the cause of sc to leave the union.

States Rights Were just to Protect Slavery

States rights were vital to our union and our whole political system.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war

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

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

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

The CSA federal government could not end slavery in the confederacy constitutionally. Yet the confederacy still made a very strong states rights Constitution. If it was just to protect slavery than there would have been no need for stronger states rights than the American Constitution. During the confederacy when the federal overreached against the states, states nullified and fought back on non slave related issues and states like Georgia, threatened to secede.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/govbrown/brown.html
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/

After Reconstruction and slavery, the south was still the strong states rights section of the country. The first states right advocates in the U.S were men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George mason, St George Tucker, John Randolph many of whom spoke out against slavery, yet were strong states rights proponents. States rights was used more by northern states before the civil war than southern. States rights were used against slavery and federal ruling like the fugitive slave laws. There were strong states rights men in the north [democrats] that were anti slavery. For example over national banking during the war, northern democrats objected because

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

States had pushed back against federal overreach no matter what the issue, the issue in 1860 was over tariffs and slavery. The first federal vs state issue arose over the alien and sedition acts later internal improvements, national banking, conscription, protective tariffs, land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of militia, fugitive slave laws etc. No matter what the issue states held firm to the union and fought against federal expansions.

In the upper south slavery was better protected within their state than in the new confederacy. However states rights were better protected in the confederacy under its constitution. Many in the south such as Mary Chestnut wished slavery to be abolished in the confederacy as did others.

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

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

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

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






1- not so. Blacks treated whites as inferior often to blacks, many whites south and north [including slave owners] did not treat them as inferior. But generally yes, americans saw western pagan tribal life and cultures as an inferior culture.


2. No rights in america. In pagan africa yes. Just as whites had no rights in africa. Just as the slaves that came to america as slaves had no rights in africa. Yes slavery was indeed an improvement for the life of the African slave, that is historical fact. of course blacks in some cases had full rights and even slaves had rights something they would not have had as slaves in africa.


I never said they thought them "less" or that blacks thought whites "less" or native americans thought blacks "less" etc I said they did not view them as lesser evolved animals. But of a cultural lesser than their own. Less civilized they often said or uncivilized. Look at western pagan africa, hard not to agree. You have claimed and cannot prove, the southernes viewed blacks as lesser evolved animals. That you must support.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A quick note, you are drawing all the wrong cnclusions based on your asumtions, not on what southerners said/thought or hsitorical data. Perhaps you have not read my threads than? I very much recommend my thread

Slavery's Impact On the Cotton States Causes of Secession
Slavery's Impact On the Cotton States Causes of Secession

I think that could clarify my position. Slavery did play a part. But for one to claim as you have it was the cause of secession of the south [or even the cotton states] would be to engage in revisionism and one would have to ignore a great deal of history and causes to do so.

I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Upper South- American Civil war
I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States


You have taken one section of one states causes and than falsely and deceptive tried to apply to all. I could find a dozen issues and claim secession was over them if we go by a small section of anyone state declaration.


Further you have misread the document despite the fact you admit it says states rights were the cause of secession. You have failed to show that slavery as a system in thew southern states was in any political trouble, the opposite is true. Some trying to incite violence does not change that fact. It is true that slave insurrection played a role rightfully so.

“They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.”
-Texas Causes of Secession

“A large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors.
-Florida Causes of Secession

With recent slave uprising in Hati as well as Nat Turners uprising and finally John browns raid caused the south concern similar events would take place brought on by northern abolitionist inciting violence and uprising throughout the south. The most concern was over the northern reaction to John Browns raid. R.L Dabney said the event would have been trivial if not for pulpits and newspapers praising Browns actions.

“thousands of men who a month ago scoffed at the idea of a dissolution of the union...now hold the opinion that its days were numbered”
- Richmond Enquirer

While the north celebrated Browns raid, Virginia and the south saw itself as invaded by a foreign enemy. Southerners were concerned that innocent woman and children were at danger and they should resists such violence on its people.





As for the South Carolina document

South Carolina Secession Document

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Ok...you're being dishonest. The document I linked to is about 2/3 slavery....maybe 1/3 state rights.

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

It's literally a list of how slavery is being attacked politically...not just by the common people.

1- not so. Blacks treated whites as inferior often to blacks, many whites south and north [including slave owners] did not treat them as inferior. But generally yes, americans saw western pagan tribal life and cultures as an inferior culture.

You're making empty claims here without any evidence. If it's a choice between believing you...or a Supreme Court Justice of the time, obviously I think the justice will be a better choice.

2. No rights in america. In pagan africa yes. Just as whites had no rights in africa. Just as the slaves that came to america as slaves had no rights in africa. Yes slavery was indeed an improvement for the life of the African slave, that is historical fact. of course blacks in some cases had full rights and even slaves had rights something they would not have had as slaves in africa.

That's not what they're saying. They aren't saying that white men don't have to give blacks any rights in the US. They're saying they don't have any rights at all...period. Not in Africa, nor anywhere else. You're kidding yourself here.

I never said they thought them "less" or that blacks thought whites "less" or native americans thought blacks "less" etc I said they did not view them as lesser evolved animals.

Well the theory of evolution wasn't invented yet....so you're moving the goalposts now.

But of a cultural lesser than their own. Less civilized they often said or uncivilized. Look at western pagan africa, hard not to agree. You have claimed and cannot prove, the southernes viewed blacks as lesser evolved animals. That you must support.

I have. Again...the Supreme Court Justice of the time mentions that everyone, north and south, views blacks as inferiors. I've shown that the scientists of the time viewed them as something between man and primate. I don't need to provide anything else.

If you have anything to show for your claims, now is the time. A few quotes from a few people about state's rights doesn't quite make your case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For that matter....almost the entire Mississippi secession declaration is about slavery. It's the first thing they mention.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

There you have it. They said in their own words....it's all about slavery.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Ok...you're being dishonest. The document I linked to is about 2/3 slavery....maybe 1/3 state rights.

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

It's literally a list of how slavery is being attacked politically...not just by the common people.




You're making empty claims here without any evidence. If it's a choice between believing you...or a Supreme Court Justice of the time, obviously I think the justice will be a better choice.



That's not what they're saying. They aren't saying that white men don't have to give blacks any rights in the US. They're saying they don't have any rights at all...period. Not in Africa, nor anywhere else. You're kidding yourself here.



Well the theory of evolution wasn't invented yet....so you're moving the goalposts now.



I have. Again...the Supreme Court Justice of the time mentions that everyone, north and south, views blacks as inferiors. I've shown that the scientists of the time viewed them as something between man and primate. I don't need to provide anything else.

If you have anything to show for your claims, now is the time. A few quotes from a few people about state's rights doesn't quite make your case.

And we see once more your dishonesty. You quote a small section that mentions northern states violation of the Constitution on the fugitive slave laws and than claim its all about slavery. While ignoring the rest of the document that speaks much more of states rights and more important, dozens of other historical documents and the context on top of that. Having said that yes the northernes violation of the Constitution regarding the fugitive slave laws was indeed a cause for south Carolina.


Northern Violation of Fugitive Slave Laws


“The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [editor's note: the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
-Texas causes of Southern secession


“They have disregarded the plain obligations of the Constitution of the United States, to deliver up fugitives bound to service, without which guarantee on their part, they know, that the Constitution would never have been formed; and by acts passed in their State Legislatures, they have practically nullified it.”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

The south from the creation of the union had constitutional protection of its property that included recognized slave property. The north by violating that right [and Dread Scott supreme court ruling/ fugitive slave laws] would not allow them their property and would in essence, steal it [by not working with federal workers]by not returning slaves. The south were not second class citizens and their property was constitutionally to be treated as any other property. It would be the same as if a Vermonters horse wondered across the border to New York, only to have a resident of that state keep the horse and say we dont recognize your right to this property. That is not a protection of the individuals property as granted under the constitution and was a cause of secession.

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.
-Article 4 clause 3 us Constitution

“Any person held to service or labor in one state escaping into another should not, in consequence of any law or regulation theorf, be discharged from such service or labor, but should be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor might be due by laws of his state. Thus and thus only, by the reciprocal guarantee of all the rights of every state against interference on the part of another.”
-President Franklin Pierce 1856




But once more politically, as in the right of a state to own slaves was never more protected than in 1861. The united states supreme court had ruled in favor of the fugitive slave laws and the use of federal agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. A southern confederacy would have no protection for runaways north.




1- well you made a baseless claim so lets see who can support there claim. What claim of mine are you rejecting to?


2 by all means support such a claim that blacks have no rights in africa. slaves of course have no rights in africa but some in america.





no evolution had been around long before darwin. he made it popular. I never moved the goal post, i have said from the first they did not view them as less than human or lesser evolved. This was your claim you could not support.



You have done nothing in regards to southerns views they believed them less evolved. I have no interest in showing southerns did not see their culture as better than pagan african slaves, they did. They did not as your inability to show proves, view them as lesser evolved animals.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

For that matter....almost the entire Mississippi secession declaration is about slavery. It's the first thing they mention.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

There you have it. They said in their own words....it's all about slavery.

“And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures... The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North. ”
-Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860

"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole"
-Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860

“The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government.”
-Florida causes of Secession


"The instant the Government was organized, at the very first Congress, the Northern States evinced a general desire and purpose to use it for their own benefit, and to pervert its powers for sectional advantage...until they have saddled the agricultural classes with a large portion of the legitimate expenses of their own business. We pay a million of dollars per annum for the lights which guide them into and out of your ports. We built and kept up, at the cost of at least another million a year, hospitals for their sick and disabled seamen when they wear them out and cast them ashore. We pay half a million per annum to support and bring home those they cast away in foreign lands. They demand, and have received, millions of the public money to increase the safety of harbors, and lessen the danger of navigating our rivers. All of which expenses legitimately fall upon their business, and should come out of their own pockets, instead of a common treasury...The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government”
-Robert Toomb's Speech before the Georgia Legislature, November 13 1860

“In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.”
-Georgia causes of secession

“The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other....abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South.... ”
-Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution

“It does not require extraordinary sagacity to precive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding states to the union”
-Boston Transcript March 18 1861

“The last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate... The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South.”
-Robert Toomb's Speech before the Georgia Legislature, November 13 1860

“The passage of an obscure, ill-considered, ill-digested, and unstatesman like high protectionist tariff act, commonly known as the‘ Morrill Tariff. The result was as inevitable as the laws of trade are inexorable. Trade and commerce . . . began to look South . . . .Threatened thus with the loss of both political power and wealth, or the repeal of the tariff, and, at last, of both, New England –and Pennsylvania . . . demanded, now coercion and civil war, with all its horrors . . .”
-Clement L. Vallandigham Congressman Ohio 1863

“An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade, which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union.”
-Jefferson Davis inaugural speech in Montgomery Alabama

“the agitation concerning African slavery in the South was commenced. This institution was purely sectional, belonging to the South. Antagonism to it in the North must also be sectional. The agitation would unite the South against the North, as much as it united the North against the South; but the North being the stronger section, would gain power by the agitation. Accordingly, after the overthrow of the tariff of 1828, by the resistance of South Carolina in 1833, the agitation concerning the institution of African slavery in the South was immediately commenced in the Congress of the United States. It was taken up by the Legislatures of the Northern States; and upon one pretext or another in and out of Congress, it has been pursued from that day to the fall of 1860, when it ended in the election of a President and Vice President of the United States, by a purely sectional support. The great end was at last obtained, of a united North to rule the South. The first fruit the sectional despotism thus elected produced, was the tariff lately passed by the Congress of the United States. By this tariff the protective policy is renewed in its most odious and oppressive forms, and the agricultural States are made tributaries to the manufacturing States. It has revived the system of specific duties, by which, the cheaper an article becomes, from the progress of art or the superior skill of foreign manufacturers — the higher is the relative tax it imposes. Specific duties, is the expedient of high taxation, to enforce its collection. This tariff illustrates the oppressive policy of the North towards the South, and abounds in high taxation by specific duties. It is a war on the foreign commerce of the country, in which the Southern people are chiefly interested. Exclusively an agricultural people, it is their policy, to purchase the manufactured commodities they need, in the cheapest markets. These are amongst the nations of Europe, who consume five-sixths of the agricultural productions of the South. The late tariff passed by the Congress of the United States, was designed to force the Southern people, by prohibitory duties to consume the dearer manufactured commodities of the North, instead of the cheaper commodities of European nations. What is this but robbery? Does it not take from one citizen or section and give to another? The foreign trade of the United States, has always been carried on, by our agricultural productions. Our exports, are the basis of the imports, of the United States. Upon what principle of justice or of the Constitution, have the people of the North intervened between us and our natural customers, and forced us by the use of the Federal Government — laying prohibitory duties on the production of foreign nations — to consume their productions?
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

“The majority, mean to plunder and wrong the minority. They mean to make the weaker section their tributaries. Between a representation incompetent to protect, and no representation, there is no difference, where there are conflicting interests in a legislative body. And in the election of a Chief Magistrate, of what use is the right of suffrage, when, if every man in the oppressed section should vote against the candidate of the stronger section, (as the Southern States did in the late Presidential election) they cannot prevent his election. …. By the forms of a free government therefore, a many-headed despotism may be established by a stronger section over a weaker section, far worse than the despotism of one man. One man may have a conscience; but men acting in masses, seldom exhibit conscientious scruples. Individuality and responsibility, are lost in numbers. That “a corporation has no soul,” is the proverbial aphorism of English law, indicating the unscrupulousness of men acting in masses. A single despot has no motive to oppress one portion of his people, more than another; but here, one half of a country rises up to plunder and oppress another half.”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

“The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead as it has done to a grinding and degrading despotism.”
-Florida Declaration of Causes of Secession

“The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.”
-Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860


“The real issue involved in the relations between the North and the South of the American States, is the great principle of self-government. Shall a dominant party of the North rule the South, or shall the people of the South rule themselves. This is the great matter in controversy.”
-Robert Barnwell Rhett Montgomery, Alabama, 1860

“The contest on the part of the north was for supreme control, especially in relation to the fiscal action of the government.. on the other hand southern states, struggling for equality, and seeking to maintain equilibrium in government”
-Rose Oneal Greehow My Improvement and the first year of Abolition rule in Washington 1863

“If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.”
- Alexander Stephens The Vice-President of the Confederacy

“”This result has been foreseen since the beginning of the week. As soon as it was known, that it was the intention of the northern president to usurp war making powers, and wage war against sovereign states of the confederacy [deep south] and that Virginia was called on to contribute men and money....no one doubted what her action would be...when the union became an engine for oppression...she could not hesitate to throw herself on the side of freedom.”
-Richmond Whig Editorial April 19,1861 Sic Semper Tyrannis State Independence

“”Let us consider for a moment the results of a consolidated government, resting on force, as proposed by the dominate party at the north....a consolidated despotism, upheld by the sword and cemented by fear....now it [the union ] has been seized upon by a sectional party, it is claimed that its powers are omnipotent, it s will absolute, and it must and will maintain its supremacy, in spite of states and people, at the point of the sword...it is organizing fleets and armies to wage war upon the authors of its being [the states].”
-Richmond Whig Editorial A Government of Force April 10 1861

“the Constitution of the United States has invested Congress with the sole power "to declare war," and until such declaration is made, the President has no authority to call for an extraordinary force to wage offensive war against any foreign Power: and whereas, on the 15th inst., the President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia; and subsequently the Convention now in session, representing the sovereignty of this State, has reaffirmed in substance the same policy... and it is believed that the influences which operate to produce this proclamation against the seceded States will be brought to bear upon this commonwealth, if she should exercise her undoubted right to resume the powers granted by her people, and it is due to the honor of Virginia that an improper exercise of force against her people should be repelled.”
-Governor of Virginia JOHN LETCHER”.
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/22/n...-secretary-cameron-state-affairs-norfolk.html

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

For that matter....almost the entire Mississippi secession declaration is about slavery. It's the first thing they mention.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

There you have it. They said in their own words....it's all about slavery.

Part 2

“This convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas”
-Arkansas causes of secession


“Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South, and for the violent subversion of the liberties of a free people.. whereas, this high-handed act of tyrannical outrage is not only in violation of all constitutional law, in utter disregard of every sentiment of humanity and Christian civilization, and conceived in a spirit of aggression unparalleled by any act of recorded history, but is a direct step towards the subjugation of the whole South, and the conversion of a free Republic, inherited from our fathers, into a military despotism, to be established by worse than foreign enemies on the ruins of our once glorious Constitution of Equal Rights. Now, therefore, I, John W. Ellis, Governor of the State of North-Carolina, for these extraordinary causes... in defense of the sovereignty of North-Carolina and of the rights of the South, becomes now the duty of all.the 17th Day of April, A. D., 1861, and in the eight-fifth year of our independence.
-JOHN W. ELLIS Governor north Carolina
LEARN NC has been archived


“Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore, .... because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war against the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore, .....have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties.”
-Declaration of causes of Secession Kentucky


“Has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof”
-Causes of Secession Missouri

The principle now in contest between north and south is simply that of state sovereignty”
-Richmond Examiner Sep 11 1862


“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


"Forced to take up arms to vindicate the political rights, the freedom, equality, and state sovereignty which were the heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires"
-Jefferson Davis 1863 quoted in Battle cry of freedom James McPherson Oxford U Press

We quit the Union, but not the Constitution—this we have preserved. Secession from the old Union on the part of the Confederate States was founded upon the conviction that the time-honored Constitution of our fathers was about to be utterly undermined and destroyed. and that if the present administration at Washington had been permitted to rule over us, in less than four years, perhaps, this inestimable inheritance of liberty, regulated and protected by fundamental law, would have been forever lost....We have rescued the Constitution from utter annihilation. This is our conviction, and we believe history will so record the fact ”
-Hon. Alexander H. Stephens Speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861


when the dogmas of a sectional party, substituted for the provisions of the constitutional compact, threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established.”
-Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address Richmond 1862


“We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
-CSA Constitution preamble


“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-Judge Robertson 1864 Confederate Virginia supreme Court Case Burroughs v Peyton

“If the Confederate States, ever had any doubt as to the necessity of a separation from the people of the North, that doubt would be removed by the recklessness with which they allow their own liberties to be trampled on. They appear to have no idea of free Government. Those necessary restraints on power — those nicely adjusted balances, by which justice and liberty are secured in a free government, are not understood.”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

“Montgomery [confederate constitution]...One leading idea runs through the whole—the preservation of that time-honored Constitutional liberty which they inherited from their fathers....the rights of the States and the sovereign equality of each is fully recognized—more fully than under the old Constitution...But all the changes—every one of them—are upon what is called the conservative side..take the Constitution and read it, and you will find that every change in it from the old Constitution is conservative. ..in it are settled many of the vexed questions which disturbed us in the old Confederacy. A few of these may be mentioned—such as that no money shall be appropriated from the common treasury for internal improvement; leaving all such matters for the local and State authorities. The tariff question is also settled. The presidential term is extended, and no re-election allowed. This will relieve the country of those periodical agitations from which sprang so much mischief in the old government. If history shall record the truth in reference to our past system of government, it will be written of us that one of the greatest evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices—connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely obviated under the Constitution which we have adopted...
-Hon. Alexander H. Stephens Speech of the to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in....the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice.”
--Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21 1861




There you have it, they said it in their own words, its all about tariffs, violation of the Constitution, state sovereignty, states rights, self government, centralization, to save the orginal american republic, to form a states rights document, Lincolns call for volunteers and a dozen other issues. These are just some of the documents you ignore in your intellectually dishonest post. Further you ignore what the issue over slavery really was as has been shown you multiple times that you are unable to respond to. The question was, is the federal government confined to the powers in the constitution, or was it allowed to step outside of its delegated powers by the states thus nullifying the constitution and transforming the republic, into a centralized nation.

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

“I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
– Thomas Jefferson, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank” [February 15, 1791]

“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. “
– John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774

 

[Ana the Ist]

1- well you made a baseless claim so lets see who can support there claim. What claim of mine are you rejecting to?


2 by all means support such a claim that blacks have no rights in africa. slaves of course have no rights in africa but some in america.





no evolution had been around long before darwin. he made it popular. I never moved the goal post, i have said from the first they did not view them as less than human or lesser evolved. This was your claim you could not support.



You have done nothing in regards to southerns views they believed them less evolved. I have no interest in showing southerns did not see their culture as better than pagan african slaves, they did. They did not as your inability to show proves, view them as lesser evolved animals.

You asked me this...

"What I wanted you to support was your claim that stemmed from the pc version of history, that southern whites viewed blacks as sub human or lesser evolved."

I've already given you that. It was the majority decision of the Supreme Court for Dred Scott.

"Black Africans imported as slaves] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order..."

And...

"This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race."

You understand English, don't you? That's the Supreme Court Justice of the day claiming everyone...north and south....viewed blacks as inferiors. He isn't speaking about culture, or the laws of the land, he's just comparing blacks and whites.

So what exactly are you claiming here? That you understand the views of the time better than the Supreme Court Justice of that particular era? Is that your position? That he had it all wrong?

If it's insufficient evidence for you...here's a full transcript of one of the works of Josiah Nott, a surgeon and "scientist" from South Carolina who wrote much on the difference between blacks and whites.

Nott Josiah Clark Two Lectures, On The Natural History Of The Caucasian And Negro Races : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Josiah Clark - Two Lectures, on the natural history of the Caucasian and Negro Races_djvu.txt

Do pay attention to the time this was written, as it was well before the theory of evolution.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There you have it, they said it in their own words, its all about tariffs, violation of the Constitution, state sovereignty, states rights, self government, centralization, to save the orginal american republic, to form a states rights document, Lincolns call for volunteers and a dozen other issues. These are just some of the documents you ignore in your intellectually dishonest post.

Lol I'm not ignoring any of them....and honestly it's not difficult to explain them either.

Most white southerners didn't own slaves...and could never hope to afford to. They were poor, because slave labor had reduced their wages and job opportunities to the point where they had little to no chance of improving their lives. By the time the Civil War rolled around, a great many were in favor of ending slavery entirely. Undoubtedly, more whites in the south wanted slavery gone than wanted it to remain.

So southern politicians had to convince people that secession wasn't about keep slavery alive....it was about their "rights". They wanted this poor, uneducated, underclass of white men to believe they were fighting against tyranny....which many could relate to as they had descended from many who fought in the American Revolution.

How are you going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when you flat out ignore every piece of evidence that I provide? I even gave you a link to the Mississippi secession declaration and it barely goes 3 sentences without mentioning slavery. How do you explain that?

More importantly, if it was really about state's rights....why did the south continually ignore the laws against importing slaves? They criticized northern states for ignoring fugitive slave laws....while ignoring laws against importing slaves the whole time!

The truth is they weren't concerned about state's rights at all.

If they were....why wouldn't they try to convince northern states to join them? You literally quoting from South Carolina's "Convention of Slaveholding States"....if the issue was states' rights and federal overreach, why not include northern states where slavery was outlawed?

Further you ignore what the issue over slavery really was as has been shown you multiple times that you are unable to respond to. The question was, is the federal government confined to the powers in the constitution, or was it allowed to step outside of its delegated powers by the states thus nullifying the constitution and transforming the republic, into a centralized nation.

I don't see that it has stepped outside the powers of the Constitution. Did you even read the minority opinion of the Dred Scott case?

It made the point that the Supreme Court cannot both declare slavery a state issue....then declare northern laws against slavery invalid. The southern states had no problems with federal overreach there.

The fact is, the south was only willing to break with the north over slavery.j

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

“I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
– Thomas Jefferson, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank” [February 15, 1791]

“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. “
– John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him. Our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude." -Jefferson Davis

The idea that you're going to quote this guy to support your completely false revisionist history is a joke.

"We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority." - Jefferson Davis


He's clearly a racist who views blacks as less than whites....and the idea this doesn't affect his political views is ridiculous.

What exactly is your goal here? I thought perhaps you wanted to explore conversation on the topic....but it seems like you just want to spread lies and live in denial.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

You asked me this...

"What I wanted you to support was your claim that stemmed from the pc version of history, that southern whites viewed blacks as sub human or lesser evolved."

I've already given you that. It was the majority decision of the Supreme Court for Dred Scott.

"Black Africans imported as slaves] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order..."

And...

"This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race."

You understand English, don't you? That's the Supreme Court Justice of the day claiming everyone...north and south....viewed blacks as inferiors. He isn't speaking about culture, or the laws of the land, he's just comparing blacks and whites.

What I asked for

"What I wanted you to support was your claim that stemmed from the pc version of history, that southern whites viewed blacks as sub human or lesser evolved."


SO as i said you could not prove, they never viewed them as lesser evolved animals. Lesser civilized, yes, as i said from the first. As a culture they were viewed as less civilized as i said all along. Not less human. Further you are quoting from Taney, a northerner from Maryland.



Witch does compare cultures. Just as they viewed lesser whites culture [Irish/catholic the south viwed the north as a lesser yankee culture and so did the north the south backward agrarians] the same way. So in the english language lesser human, lesser evolved, would refer to a belief that another group of people are in fact not fully human or less than human. While inferior refers to humans less civilized in this case. You can be less civilized and still human. I view early america as more civilized superior to us today, yet i dont think we are less human, just inferior as a culture.

So what exactly are you claiming here? That you understand the views of the time better than the Supreme Court Justice of that particular era? Is that your position? That he had it all wrong?

If it's insufficient evidence for you...here's a full transcript of one of the works of Josiah Nott, a surgeon and "scientist" from South Carolina who wrote much on the difference between blacks and whites.

Nott Josiah Clark Two Lectures, On The Natural History Of The Caucasian And Negro Races : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Josiah Clark - Two Lectures, on the natural history of the Caucasian and Negro Races_djvu.txt

Do pay attention to the time this was written, as it was well before the theory of evolution.

I understand southerns only because I have read many of their works from the time period. Not once, even from those who defend slavery, said blacks were lesser evolved.


If you could quote a section you think will match your claims i would be glad to hear it. If it is simply to prove that blacks and whites were viewed different [they are different or we would not know who is black or white] than ok, i can agree with that. That does not conclude one is lesser evolved. I am a biblical creationist, all mankind is fully mankind. Yet out of the original adam/eve and after babel, came the various people groups today. Different is a fact, just as scotch Irish are different than puritans, yet none are lesser evolved.




All this has shown after so many pages is your unwillingness to admit you were incorrect southerns did not view blacks as lesser evolved. And your various attempts to try and cover it and your inability to allow people of a previous day have viewpoints that differ from your modern perspective imprinted on them.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Lol I'm not ignoring any of them....and honestly it's not difficult to explain them either.

Most white southerners didn't own slaves...and could never hope to afford to. They were poor, because slave labor had reduced their wages and job opportunities to the point where they had little to no chance of improving their lives. By the time the Civil War rolled around, a great many were in favor of ending slavery entirely. Undoubtedly, more whites in the south wanted slavery gone than wanted it to remain.

So southern politicians had to convince people that secession wasn't about keep slavery alive....it was about their "rights". They wanted this poor, uneducated, underclass of white men to believe they were fighting against tyranny....which many could relate to as they had descended from many who fought in the American Revolution.

I love a good conspiracy theory. Any historical support? i would rather allow history decide my ideas and beliefs rather than allow my bias to run wild. Did you ever think historical events [as pointed out in my threads] led to southerners wanting disunion? great books that shows the general populace wanted secession for their own reasons see Gallagher and mcpherson.

How are you going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when you flat out ignore every piece of evidence that I provide? I even gave you a link to the Mississippi secession declaration and it barely goes 3 sentences without mentioning slavery. How do you explain that?

The same way I have a dozen times already. I show that over and over i post large section of material responding to you and putting it in context, that you are forced to ignore. And than claim I ignored you? I wrote a whole thread on the subject.

Slavery's Impact On the Cotton States Causes of Secession

Had you read it it would have showed i even talked of Mississippi declaration.


No question there were some in the south that were willing to leave the union simply to preserve slavery. The slave owner thought slavery was a constitutional, biblical, and state right. A southern slave owner would view a northern abolitionist as a foreigner who was violating their rights. In the cotton states they had more financial gain and loss riding on slavery and were more apt to maintain slavery and their economy. No better example than Mississippi. With 4 billion dollars worth of value and almost the whole economic system of the state dependent on slavery, they wished to defend their economic system that had brought them so much wealth. However even in Mississippi, slavery was not the sole cause.

“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

The south viewed slaves as any other legal property that the federal could not interfere with, if they tried to do so, it was tyrannical. Unlike today in antebellum America was at a time when the federal did not extend into the states domain and Southerners who were still of the Jeffersonian tradition well understood that if the federal was allowed to encroach on the states on the issue of slavery [or any other issue] it would continue to expand until it became a tyrannical body that no longer followed its limitations under the Constitution such as we have today.

“When all government domestic and forighn in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the source of all power. It will render powerless the checks provided of one government [states] on another, and will become as vegal and oppressive as the government which we have separated”
-Thomas Jefferson

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."
--Thomas Jefferson

“I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
– Thomas Jefferson, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank” [February 15, 1791]

“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. “
– John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774


“slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of strife...Rights of the states were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights”
-R.L Dabney A Defense Of Virginia And The South 1867

“If the government has the right to interfere in the private affairs of white men, it can do the same with Nige$s”.
-Mr. Etheridge of Tennessee 1860 quoted in NY Herald column on the debate in the senate on “the slavery question”

More importantly, if it was really about state's rights....why did the south continually ignore the laws against importing slaves? They criticized northern states for ignoring fugitive slave laws....while ignoring laws against importing slaves the whole time!

First this would have nothing to do with states rights showing once more that people who dont understand the antebellum america union might be more cautious when speaking on this subject. But given the slave trade was conducted 99.9% by northerners I am interested to see you support this. Or is it one more baseless claim of yours? It will also be hard to swing this argument given historical facts like Virginia being the fist state to abolish the trade.


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

The truth is they weren't concerned about state's rights at all.

I can go along with this so far as I cut the part of my brain out that knows about american history up to the civil war. Oh wait, a conspiracy. The south since the revolution were all in a conspiracy about states rights even when the majority of the time it was not about slavery, they just pretender so 80 years later we would all think it was states rights but really, you and i know, it was slavery. Those 4% of southern whites really did a good job of hiding the truth.

If they were....why wouldn't they try to convince northern states to join them? You literally quoting from South Carolina's "Convention of Slaveholding States"....if the issue was states' rights and federal overreach, why not include northern states where slavery was outlawed?

Once more the winner writes the history and you swallow and ask for more. I already showed the impact of slavery and states rights. I also showed [and you ignored] why the issue was the violation of the federal government on the reserved rights of the states- rather than states rights to protect slavery. You have ignored and were unable to respond thus conceding the point. So you resort to another PC claim. The south was for slave states because it was over slavery.


“ Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle. “
-Alexander Stevens “cornerstone speech”


“Abide in confidence that some of the great northwestern states, watered by the Mississippi will be drawn by the strong current of that mighty river by the laws of trade.”
-Robert H Smith


Confederate constitution thought future free states would join p71-71

The Confederate Constitution of 1861

The csa thought free north western states connected to the Mississippi would join due to the csa constitutions free trade policy. This was in fact anticipating non slave states to join the confederacy. Article 4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predicted future free states within the confederacy. NYC almost left the union, and a middle confederacy almost formed including Penn, NY,NJ,MD,and DE during the war and about a third of its supporters wanted to join the south. However the states strongest on states rights, did leave the union. When the confederacy first formed, more slave states where in the union, that is until Lincolns call for volunteers. Many volunteers fought for the south from the non slave state of California. New Jersey produced at least two confederate generals Gen. Samuel Gibbs French and Gen. Julius Adolph de Lagnel


“Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson thretned to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the democrats won in 1860 the northern states would have been the seceding states not the southern.”
-George Lunt of Massachusetts Origin of the Late war

I don't see that it has stepped outside the powers of the Constitution. Did you even read the minority opinion of the Dred Scott case?

I have not. I would be interested in hearing the arguments. I dont see how its not. Yet i love that the northern states did nullify the law.

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.
-Article 4 clause 3 us Constitution

It made the point that the Supreme Court cannot both declare slavery a state issue....then declare northern laws against slavery invalid. The southern states had no problems with federal overreach there.

The fact is, the south was only willing to break with the north over slavery.j

I fully agree with that. It is up to the states, however they cannot deny rightful property of a citizen.
The south were not second class citizens and their property was constitutionally to be treated as any other property. It would be the same as if a Vermonters horse wondered across the border to New York, only to have a resident of that state keep the horse and say we dont recognize your right to this property. That is not a protection of the individuals property as granted under the constitution. However those northern states have every right to abolish slavery themselves.


So no this was not federal overreach but the Constitution. But once more it shows a lack of knowledge of the union and states rights. Its no wonder you dont see it as an issue. It stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states rights, and the union that was, see

From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war

For the sake of the argument, at most it would prove the south did not care for the northern states, states rights, not their own. The south clearly spoke of states rights and violations by the north and federal as a cause of secession. It could hypothetically denounce northern states rights as well when the north violated their own states rights and still secede over southern states rights. Since these rights are in place to secure its own states citizens rights and not another, this would make sense. This is also the downside of having a union of self governing states if one side does not follow the compact or contract [constitution] and also why secession is vital to liberty.

Having said that a proper understanding of states rights is not lawlessness and states not following federal law or the constitution. In fact it is the opposite. States rights are in place to prevent the federal from violating the constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case the northern states were violating the constitution. The southern rights were already granted within the constitution that northern states were violating. Here is the USA and CSA “supremacy clause”

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [confederate version read confederate states]which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him. Our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude." -Jefferson Davis

The idea that you're going to quote this guy to support your completely false revisionist history is a joke.

"We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority." - Jefferson Davis


He's clearly a racist who views blacks as less than whites....and the idea this doesn't affect his political views is ridiculous.

What exactly is your goal here? I thought perhaps you wanted to explore conversation on the topic....but it seems like you just want to spread lies and live in denial.

? I never said Davis was anti slavery or did not hold racists views as 99% of blacks and whites around the world did at the time. Neither did i say his views would not effect his politics. I quoted him as the confederacies president when he spoke of what caused the south to leave the union, seemed a pretty damn good source to me. I quoted him many times but they can be summed up as

“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

“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

“when the dogmas of a sectional party, substituted for the provisions of the constitutional compact, threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established.”
-Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address Richmond 1862

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Ana. I was wondering if you through lincolns white supremacists views effected his politics?

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
-Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debate Charleston, Illinois

• 
  

“I agree with Judge Douglas he [African Americans] is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment.”
-Abraham Lincoln 1858 Response to Supreme court Dread Scott ruling

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence.... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."
-Abraham Lincoln, speech to a group of black freedmen in Washington D.C., August 1862

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I asked for

"What I wanted you to support was your claim that stemmed from the pc version of history, that southern whites viewed blacks as sub human or lesser evolved."

Obviously, I'm ignoring the part where you asked about blacks being viewed as "lesser evolved"....the theory of evolution hadn't even been invented yet.

As to subhuman....do you know what subhuman means?

Definition of SUBHUMAN

There's the definition in case you don't know what subhuman means. As you can see, this definition...

A. failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings

I've met that definition multiple times now. I've even given you quotes from southerners.

Are you denying they said these things?

What exactly is the problem with the multiple examples I've given you? They meet the definition of subhuman...so maybe you thought it meant something else. If not, I can only assume you're in denial.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I love a good conspiracy theory. Any historical support? i would rather allow history decide my ideas and beliefs rather than allow my bias to run wild. Did you ever think historical events [as pointed out in my threads] led to southerners wanting disunion? great books that shows the general populace wanted secession for their own reasons see Gallagher and mcpherson.

What conspiracy theory? What part are you disagreeing with?

Is it...

1. Most white people in the south were poor, couldn't afford slaves, and were kept out of work because of slavery....therefore they were against slavery continuing?

There's a ton of evidence for that.

2. That southern politicians were being disingenuous about why they were seceding? Is that the part you don't believe? That they were pretending it wasn't about slavery so they could get the support of poor whites?

There's also a ton of evidence for that...but it's less direct. Obviously they won't be admitting to their lies on official records. The other politicians of the day knew what the war was all about...

"You say you are fighting for liberty. Yes you are fighting for liberty: liberty to keep four millions of your fellow-beings in ignorance and degradation;–liberty to separate parents and children, husband and wife, brother and sister;–liberty to steal the products of their labor, exacted with many a cruel lash and bitter tear;–liberty to seduce their wives and daughters, and to sell your own children into bondage;–liberty to kill these children with impunity, when the murder cannot be proven by one of pure white blood. This is the kind of liberty–the liberty to do wrong–which Satan, Chief of the fallen Angels, was contending for when he was cast into Hell."

-David Hunter to Jefferson Davis in 1863.

So clearly, few believed that "states' rights" was the reason for secession.

The same way I have a dozen times already. I show that over and over i post large section of material responding to you and putting it in context, that you are forced to ignore. And than claim I ignored you? I wrote a whole thread on the subject.

Slavery's Impact On the Cotton States Causes of Secession

Had you read it it would have showed i even talked of Mississippi declaration.

Do you say anything about the repeated topic of slavery in the Mississippi declaration? Or do you just quote one tiny section that isn't about slavery?

You've been quote mining the entire time.

No question there were some in the south that were willing to leave the union simply to preserve slavery. The slave owner thought slavery was a constitutional, biblical, and state right. A southern slave owner would view a northern abolitionist as a foreigner who was violating their rights. In the cotton states they had more financial gain and loss riding on slavery and were more apt to maintain slavery and their economy. No better example than Mississippi. With 4 billion dollars worth of value and almost the whole economic system of the state dependent on slavery, they wished to defend their economic system that had brought them so much wealth. However even in Mississippi, slavery was not the sole cause.

“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

The south viewed slaves as any other legal property that the federal could not interfere with, if they tried to do so, it was tyrannical. Unlike today in antebellum America was at a time when the federal did not extend into the states domain and Southerners who were still of the Jeffersonian tradition well understood that if the federal was allowed to encroach on the states on the issue of slavery [or any other issue] it would continue to expand until it became a tyrannical body that no longer followed its limitations under the Constitution such as we have today.

“When all government domestic and forighn in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the source of all power. It will render powerless the checks provided of one government [states] on another, and will become as vegal and oppressive as the government which we have separated”
-Thomas Jefferson

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."
--Thomas Jefferson

“I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
– Thomas Jefferson, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank” [February 15, 1791]

“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. “
– John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774


“slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of strife...Rights of the states were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights”
-R.L Dabney A Defense Of Virginia And The South 1867

“If the government has the right to interfere in the private affairs of white men, it can do the same with Nige$s”.
-Mr. Etheridge of Tennessee 1860 quoted in NY Herald column on the debate in the senate on “the slavery question”

I haven't denied that slavery was ultimately about money, that the southern economy was entirely dependent upon it, or any of these points.

I'm not saying that the south just loved having slaves and that's why they fought a war. That's obviously not the case. The war was about slavery though...and it's continued legality which was under constant attack.

First this would have nothing to do with states rights showing once more that people who dont understand the antebellum america union might be more cautious when speaking on this subject. But given the slave trade was conducted 99.9% by northerners I am interested to see you support this. Or is it one more baseless claim of yours? It will also be hard to swing this argument given historical facts like Virginia being the fist state to abolish the trade.

Lol you're quoting the Confederate Constitution? How can you not know that importing slaves had already been banned since 1808???

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

What part of this are you denying? That the south was still defying this law after 1808?

There's tons of evidence for that as well.

I can go along with this so far as I cut the part of my brain out that knows about american history up to the civil war. Oh wait, a conspiracy. The south since the revolution were all in a conspiracy about states rights even when the majority of the time it was not about slavery, they just pretender so 80 years later we would all think it was states rights but really, you and i know, it was slavery. Those 4% of southern whites really did a good job of hiding the truth.

If the south was all about state's rights....how could they abide the Scott decision? It ignored the right of states to free slaves.

That would be like saying that "gun control" is a state's issue, then complaining when a state that prohibits open carry arrests you for carrying in the open. Just because the state you came from allows it doesn't mean the state you enter must allow it as well.

Either it's a state issue or not. The south didn't care at all when the federal government "overreached" on the rights of northern states...and I don't need any conspiracy theories for that. They celebrated the Scott decision.

Once more the winner writes the history and you swallow and ask for more. I already showed the impact of slavery and states rights. I also showed [and you ignored] why the issue was the violation of the federal government on the reserved rights of the states- rather than states rights to protect slavery. You have ignored and were unable to respond thus conceding the point. So you resort to another PC claim. The south was for slave states because it was over slavery.

Why didn't the southern states protest when the federal government nullified the laws of northern states that freed slaves?

Were they not concerned about "states' rights" at that time? Or did they only pretend to care about state's rights when the federal government interfered with slavery?

It's not exactly difficult to see the answer here. The south didn't care about state's rights as long as they got their slaves.

For the sake of the argument, at most it would prove the south did not care for the northern states, states rights, not their own.

Well that's my point. If it was an issue of state's rights...then they would have at least argued against federal overreach in the north...but they didn't. I'm not saying they would have gone to war over it, but they would have at least argued against it.

When the federal government ruled that if someone was once a slave, they were always a slave, the south was happy that the federal government was protecting their states' rights and nullifying the north's.

That was the entire reason that Lincoln's election had them so worried. They knew that if the federal government could nullify northern laws regarding slavery (which they were happy to have it do)....then logically, the federal government could also nullify southern laws regarding slavery.

That's what they were afraid of.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Obviously, I'm ignoring the part where you asked about blacks being viewed as "lesser evolved"....the theory of evolution hadn't even been invented yet.

As to subhuman....do you know what subhuman means?

Definition of SUBHUMAN

There's the definition in case you don't know what subhuman means. As you can see, this definition...

A. failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings

I've met that definition multiple times now. I've even given you quotes from southerners.

Are you denying they said these things?

What exactly is the problem with the multiple examples I've given you? They meet the definition of subhuman...so maybe you thought it meant something else. If not, I can only assume you're in denial.

post 21 you said the following

"as their views are tied to racism, but racist views of blacks as subhumans who were more closely related to apes than whites was common in the north as well. I'll gladly give you evidence of this, for your benefit, and show that it predates the theory of evolution by such a long time....one couldn't hope to realistically blame Darwin for it.



Here are the definitions.


Definition of subhuman
(Entry 1 of 2)

: less than human: such as

a : failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings

b : unsuitable to or unfit for human beingssubhuman living conditions

c : of or relating to a taxonomic group lower than that of humansthe subhuman primates



Clearly the third was your use in context. Know if all you are saying now, is that whites viewed blacks as less intelligent, than ok, i dont disagree. Blacks have lower I Q's just as asians have higher and were less educated so I would not deny that. Of course you never did say that.


As for supporting your claims that southerners viewed blacks as sub human or lesser evolved [evolution was around before darwin] has never been supported as we both know. That a northerner Taney on the supermen court thought them less intelligent, ok, so did lincoln and many southerners. If that is what you want to claim was meant by you saying "subhuman" and "more closely related to apes", than we can agree. But maybe to avoid the confusion next time you could just say they viewed them as less intelligent.