The Confederacy: America's worst idea

I like that video in your signature about the story of slavery, and I even watched the full 13.10 minutes which does not happen often to sit through such a show.

But trying to claim that the Southern Confederacy was some how to grant some new freedom or liberty to whites, and not more slavery to humanity is utterly ridiculous.

The rebel Constitution would have continued the Capitalist Plantation mentality of barbaric exploitation and inhumanity under their traitors' flag, and their rebel hierarchy would have trampled on the lower white population too, just as they sent white soldiers to die in a war for their racist cause.

Link = Confederate Constitution section 9.

And the US 14th Amendment is the only true weapon in the State Courts or the Federal Courts for any citizen of any race or color to seek any protection from the cruel overlords of today. I have been to Court quite a few times and if one wants to win then we have to claim our rights under the 14th for any "due process" or our "equal protection" because without the 14th Amendment we citizens have very little to hang onto.

 

He thinks he knows enough to hold a political office. Already got his butt kicked a couple of times!!!

Woogs ( interesting name) couple more things that proves the war was not over slavery is the Corwin or Ghost Admendment. Check it out.

You may or may not be aware of the Crittenden resolution. Note the date 1861 well before the EP. here is a brief----

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

FROM James D. Richardson; A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 6 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), p. 430.

Regards,
George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Exactly what is your point?

Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution states this ----

(1) 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.

It completely outlaws the African slave trade.

Lets look at Section 9 of the US Constitution which says ---

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

It is saying for less than ten bucks a Northern slavetrader can still chain a human in the bottom of a ships hold and import them into the United States!! That being said slavery did not end in the United States until 1865. Learn your history

See the best you have is your snide remarks, opinions and insults, which is typical of someone of your leaning.

Regards,
George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Hello everyone. I am George Purvis, I am new to this forum and still learning the ins and outs of posting here, but I am not new to War for Southern Independence research. I have made several posts today, but at this time they do not show up. I am all about facts and could not care less about opinions and insults. I am founder and VP of Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education (S.H.A.P.E.) homepage and main website at http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

Lots of good information posted in our forums.

At this time I am also developing a "Negros in Gray" as a sub site of SHAPE. This website’s intent is to list any and all Negros who supported the Confederate government. I am not nearly finished and at this time I have over 3,000 listings. Check us out, some interesting facts found here and new information being posted at least once a week.

Another website I have contributed information is the 7th Mississippi Infantry website. Several researchers and I have compiled information being turned into a book effort. Check out this website at http://www.7miss.org/

Hope everyone gets a chance to visit these websites and gets a chance to spend some time looking over them.

Have a Dixie Day,
George Purvis

 

What I (and Abe Lincoln) did say was that might ("the power") is required for rebellion and secession.

It is not truly a question of "right or wrong" when one side over-powers the other side.

This is not my own doctrine as I was innocently born into this violent world as was everyone else.

Today we see in the Country of Libya as the rebels there supported by the USA are still fighting without success because the Gaddafi government still has the superior might.

And governmental laws are another way of expressing superior power because the USA laws, as are all laws worldwide, are enforced by the military and by the local police.

The Southern rebellion was duly crushed under the orders of American law.

 

well that is not exactly how things came together

All this country did was severe "political" ties with britian.

The united states of america was formerly the united colonies of america under the king.

the 14th is not the only vehicle for due process, it was in the magna charta, the english bill of rights, and the first 10 amendments.

The south said hey feds you cannot legislate away our property rights and they were correct.

the 14th creates the commercial civil citizen with privileges and no unalienable rights.

when the slaves were emancipated they had no master and english law requires everyone to have a master.

That lead to the creation of the 14th which has been distorted to claim everyone under it within the boundaries of the US to be under its "sovereign" jurisdiction.

They realized that since the declaration of independence you now have a country where everyone is sovereign and equal power to the king and we cant have that.

Now instead of the person of the man as the sovereign they claimed the authority to create the state as sovereign and then claimed everyone under the sovereign.

That is precisely the way the king of england did it. Only they had more rights than we do here under the king.

The 14th claims everyone as a subject and the debt of the sovereign shall not be questioned.

that is a dictatorship or at minimum an oligarchy operating as monarchy under a democracy.

sux to be us.

In other words the 14th created the capitalist plantation by elimating unalaienable rights.

Next came eminent domain which cannot exist if we have unalienable rights.

we were fooled.

 

The answer is within your inaccuracy - because the Southern rebellion was NOT peaceful, and the rebel traitors opened fire onto US military sites with particular emphasis on Fort Sumter where the rebels fired the first shots and the rebels started their war.

The Mahatma Gandhi in India led a nonviolent revolution and very impressively too, but the rebel traitors of our US civil war used violence against their own people and against the US authorities and so the rebels got whooped down and rightly so.

There was no war when the Southern States claimed to have "seceded" because their secession claim meant nothing, but when the rebels started shooting at American Army soldiers then that is when they became traitors and rebel scum.

A simple yes or no to an idiotic pretense!

I say it would be wonderful if you or anyone could show some historical proof that Abe Lincoln purposely "provoked" the civil war because I say that would be giving Lincoln a far better tribute then he already deserves.

Lincoln being elected as the President of the USA is said to have been a provocation and Lincoln surely did do that on purpose, if that is what you are referring to?

 

It is true that the US gov did not fight the civil war over slavery because the Union fought based on them being attacked by Southern rebels.

The rebellion was NOT fought to free the slaves because it was the South who started their war, and the South started their war to preserve the slavery.

It was later that our great President Lincoln turned the ending of that rebellion into an end to the African slavery.

The South started their war based on their immorality, while the Union under President Lincoln ended their rebellion with a new and improved morality.

Thank God for giving Abe Lincoln to us all.

 

long before the rebels fored a shot the north was running raids and torching peoples houses etc to provoke war.

rebel scum?

their rights were infringed upon, they had a right to shoot.

 

the bonds came due and the feds not the union the feds went out for a land grab to put up as collateral for the debt.


its the feds vs the south not the union not the north not the northern states.

 

The following quotes speak for themselves. The Lincoln quote clearly shows his intent at Fort Sumter was to start a war.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." ~ Lincoln to Gustavus Fox, in a letter dated May 1 1865.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following quotes are from editorials in Northern newspapers and again, speak for themselves.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"If this result follows – and follow civil war it must – the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed." ~ The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861, the very day the South moved to reclaim Fort Sumter.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it. ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Foreign Commentary....

"Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms." ~ The London Times.

"With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

"The struggle of today is on the one side for empire and on the other for independence." ~ Wigan Examiner (UK) May, 1861.

"The Southerners are admired for everything but their slavery and that their independence may be speedily acknowledged by France and England is, we are convinced, the strong desire of the vast majority, not only in England but throughout Europe." ~ Liverpool Daily Post, 11 March 1862.

 

A good shot indeed!

 

It seems to me that South lacks many good and modern authors and literature as well as the relevant champions to reveal the truth about who fought for pure money and who stood up for their own right, dignity and ideas!

 

well I disagree with slavery and like everything the gubafia does there is the story and there is the cover story and under it all its always more power and control for them and less for us.

 

In this case I say that President Lincoln acted decisively and intelligently and the Southern rebels fell into a fool's trap which eventually brought on their own doom.

There are similar claims on World War II that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearle Harbor so they moved the US Aircraft Carriers out of the way and then let the Japanese have their symbolic victory while sealing their own doom.

The blame still goes to the South for starting their rebellion, and the credit for ending their war still goes to the Union Army, and the praise for ending the African slavery goes to our President Lincoln.

It is important to note that foreign Countries with in-particular Great Britain would not help the Southern rebel cause based on the ugly reality that their cause was the white racist slavery of the African people.

The Country of Britain at that time was a worldwide empire under Queen Victoria and they would have been happy to help divide the USA into two - but the British could not align itself with white racist slave holders.

 

I'll just say that these quotes, especially from the Northern papers, shows that the sentiment of the country was not for Lincoln. Many saw through what he was doing and saw that it wasn't good for the country. The entire country lost many liberties that we haven't yet recovered due to Abe Lincoln. In my mind, he was the original 'Big Brother'. The Union was formed from independent sovereign states and was their 'baby'. How could one, by any logic, assign a superior position to the creation rather than the creator? It makes no sense and turns the intent of the Founders on its head.

I think you have to acknowledge that these newspaper men of the day were more closely acquainted with the founding principles of our country than we are today. Their fathers or grandfathers were, in many cases, a part of the Revolution. You can have your own opinion, but it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss these men.

You are quite wrong when you say that England did not help the South. Though they did not officially recognize the Confederacy, many munitions and the commerce raiders the Confederacy sailed came from England. The CSS Alabama was being overhauled in Cherbourg, France when it engaged in battle with the USS Kearsarge. So, you see, there was help being provided not only by England, but by France.

What you mention about Pearl harbor is not credible to me. I've heard the theories, too. The US was outgunned by the Japanese Navy even before Pearl. It would be foolish to allow more ships to be sunk, leaving one at a further disadvantage, in order to provoke a war.

 

Referring to the Country's "sentiments" then we must include that Abe Lincoln won the Presidential election with the southern States participating in that legal and Constitutional democratic process.

Then again referring to "sentiment", President Lincoln won a second re-election to the office as commander-in-chief along with a majority vote coming from the Union Army soldiers.

In a democracy there are always citizens who dislike the outcome of every election, so there is always a disgruntled minority population.

I do accept what your sources said that Lincoln tricked or even provoked the rebels into their war and that is cool with me. But the traitors had already declared their so-called "secession" so all Lincoln did was provoke the hostilities to begin.

The fact that some newspaper men did not like what Lincoln did is utterly meaningless.

France and England have always been warmonger Countries, but their governments never took an official stance to help the southern rebels because of their white racist slavery of the African people.

It is also reported that the USA had a naval blockade of the southern ports and any shipments were done with high risk.

 

Your reply is exactly what I expected for some that is uneducated. Sure it was peaceful, you said so yourself. Anderson made the first aggressive move by moving his troops to Fort Sumter. This was clearly against an agreement between the Confederacy and Buchan. After Lincoln took office he completely ignored a peace delegation while he and Fox planned an invasion at Charleston or Pensacola. Don't believe me? Visit this National Park service website @

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/fosu/decision.pdf

This is more factual than the one you posted and read. I agree it is written so a 4th grader can understand it but the facts are still real and may not be over your head.

Right there was no war and slavery WAS NOT an issue. Fired the First shot??? Wrong again. Gee for someone living on the pubic dole and wanting more you don't know much, try this bit of fact on for size---

. an incident occurred, which I have never seen recorded, but which seems to me worthy of not. A vessel suddenly appeared through the mist from behind the Bar, a passenger steamer, which was made out to be the Nashville (New York to Charleston). She had no colors set, and as she approached the fleet she refused to show them. Captain Faunce ordered one of the guns manned, and as she came still nearer turned to the gunner. 'Stop her!' he said, and a shot went skipping across her bows. Immediately the United States ensign went to her gaff end, and she was allowed to proceed. The Harriet Lane had fired the first shotted gun from the Union side."
Civil War correspondent, G. S. Osbon

Gandhi hooo hum what does this have to do with anything?

Since you cannot prove secession was illegal, then you certainly cannot prove treason either

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason

trea•son   /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled[tree-zuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

None of the above applies to the Confederate government or any of the Confederate soldiers. I would suppose you win a lot of arguments with your insults; however I have faced much worse than you can dish out, your cheap shots roll off of me like water off a ducks back. You really should practice more; perhaps using profane language would help your cause??????

"A simple yes or no to an idiotic pretense!"
I am assuming that this response was to my question if you knew when secession was ruled illegal. If you have no answer just say so. For your benefit the year was 1869 (reconstruction) by a Supreme Court ruling of 5-3, Chief Justice S. P. Chase presiding. (http://www.princeton.edu/aci/cases-pdf/aci2.texas.pdf)

Now with S. P. Chase on the Supreme Court is like letting any criminal announce the verdict and sentence to his trial since Chase was part of Lincoln's cabinet. The results are what one would expect by a biased Chief Justice!!!!!

No that is not what I am referring to. Oh I am gonna prove Lincoln started the war. Just not right now. If doing so would pay such a tribute to Lincoln, why aren't you making that effort? Lack of knowledge???

Best Regards,

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Thank your sir. It is fact an I note that James P. Cusick had no reply to the truth.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

That is true, I am always looking for folks to help me build my websites, (I have 3 in the works now) if doing research interests you contact me from the link below. Being honest about the whole situation look at the build up the Northern authors get from the media, while the Southern historians hardly get a mention. Also if a Southern historian is to get any recognition from the media he must toe the line and shy away from the truth. Look at the recent movie "Gettysburg" on the history channel, every Confederate was portrayed as a slave holder or defined as a "rebel" while every Yankee was portrayed in the most glorious light as a patriot fighting for his home and freedom. Not one time was murder, rape, pillaging or burning of the South mentioned.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Woogs,

Will follow up with more information later on this "supply" mission, but for right now I just want to point out the fact that Anderson and his men were receiving supplies from the Confederates at Charleston. If you read the previous website I posted this fact is found there. Another reference is "Fighting for the Confederacy" by Gen. E. P. Porter page 29.

I ham off for the rest of the day.

Have a Dixie Day,
George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

You can say anything you want to, but as proven by most of your statements that doesn't make you right.

Thank you for admitting Lincoln provoked the war. You have saved me some time. Fools trap, not likely.

Lincoln did not end slavery, African or otherwise. He only ended slavery in the rebelling states, as if that meant something in another legally formed PEACEFUL country, and not territory controlled by the Union or loyal Union slaveholders.

Learn your history you will never get to be a senator by being ignorant.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

It is a FACT that Lincoln's name did not appear on the ballot in nine Southern states in 1860. Funny how now you want to mention a 'legal and Constitutional process' when Abe Lincoln is well known for trampling that process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Freedom from arbitrary arrest, guaranteed in the writ of habeas corpus, has long been a centerpiece of American civil liberties. During the Civil War, however, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested antiwar protesters to suppress dissent. Under presidential orders, the federal government required residents to carry passports, organized a secret service, and cooperated with local police to apprehend suspects. The government also circumvented the civil liberties of political prisoners. Although federal officials usually detained suspects for only short periods, they did so without any regular hearings.

Furthermore, the federal government sometimes used military commissions to try civilians for their crimes. Although the Supreme Court did not question the power of such commissions during the war, their use outside the war zone for the trial of civilians was declared unconstitutional after the war. High-ranking politicians were not immune from conviction; federal agents imprisoned several prominent politicians, including the mayors of Baltimore and Washington, D.C., Congressman Henry May, and former Kentucky governor Charles S. Morehead, as well as many Northern newspaper editors. Historians do not know exactly how many people the government arrested for antiwar protests during the Civil War, although estimates vary from just over 13,000 to as many as 38,000. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and other jurists questioned Lincoln's actions and held that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus. The president, however, defended his position in a series of open letters and continued to arrest antiwar protesters, even after 3 March 1863, when federal lawmakers required the government to release or subject political prisoners to regular judicial procedure."

From.....Dictionary of American History...2003 edition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The grandson of Francis Scott Key, Francis Key Howard, the editor of the Baltimore Exchange, was arrested as well as others who wrote against Lincoln. While he was imprisoned at Fort McHenry, he wrote the following words. The date was September 13, 1861...... 47 years to the day!

"When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day, forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr. F. S. Key, the prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Ft. McHenry. When on the following morning the hospital fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the Star Spangled Banner. As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed."

When he was finally released on November 27, 1862 he wrote:

"We came out of prison just as we had gone in, holding the same just scorn and detestation [for] the despotism under which the country was prostrate, and with a stronger resolution that ever to oppose it by every means to which, as American freemen, we had the right to resort."

From......"Fourteen Months In the American Bastiles" by Francis Key Howard

 

Correct!


In fact all he did was change the "face" of slavery from shackles and chains around the blacks ankles to commercial debt over everyone head.

Slavery is when you are born into a debt that you did not create.

When a child is born they have an immediate 40,000 dollar debt to pay off!

That people is slavery.