The Confederacy: America's worst idea

Grandpa says keep twisting yer tongue...

... Revive and resuscitate yer Confederate money boys and girls...

... the South shall rise again from the dust and ashes.

 

Feel free to provide evidence that the courts sided with the south. I'll be sure to hold my breath.

 

Dred Scott decision stated that the black man under slavery was private property of the owner, ie it effectively made slavery constitutional. You can't change history, it is what it is, even if it doesn't fit your theories of what things should be or what you want them be.

Civil War had everything to do with trade between States, the slavery issue was simply a ploy by Lincoln (smartly so) to keep England and France out of it because they would of sided with the South, they needed the cotton more then anything else at that time.

 

Those who keep harping on the slavery issue can save their breath now.

Imagine someone urging Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis to stop grabbing at each other's throat and he predicted the descendants of the slaves will rise to the top 150 years later, that wise guy will definitely be sent to a madhouse by the two historic foes.

 

England stayed out of the war because their financial and trade interests in the north were more important than the south's cotton. Because the southern planters were all in their debt the bankers in New York were more against the war than the merchants of London who were dependent on the manufactures and raw materials of the north and outnumbered the English cotton mill owners both in numbers and financial clout.

 

Constitution of 1787 Article 4 sec.2. " 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."

Compromise of 1850 Assurred continued slave trade in the South. Asked for more strickter fugitive slave laws due to the constant efforts of the North in helping runaway slaves.

Supreme Court decision over Dred Scott, 1857. Africans were not citizens of America, but were property. Southernors were free to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and the territories they wanted to. The line separtating slave and free states in the Missouri Compromise, was therefore, null and void.

Quantrill

 

Confederate VP Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Speech, 1861:

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

The Civil War was expressly fought by the Confederacy to preserve their white supremacist slave system; this is incontrovertible.

The federalism of the Constitution of 1789 supersedes all state matters.

Not quite... but the Constitution did possess this fundamental flaw: the inhumanity of slavery was fundamentally built into it. Good thing we crushed that nonsense during the war and brought freedom to millions of black Americans.

A murderous, traitorous thug... and you, his sympathizer. How sweet.

(*)(*)(*)(*)... Reconstruction should have gone on for a hundred more years, and built piles of traitor-bodies a mile high; the Confederacy should have been crushed to paste long ago, lest the cancer spring anew.

 

Stephens said that slavery was the 'immediate' cause of the secession. Meaning he knew there were other factors involved. And, here I would disagree that it was even the immediate cause. There was agitation surrounding it, but it was not the cause for secession. Because that slavery was protected.

If indeed it was protected, and it was, then for Stephens, it wasn't the lack of protections for slavery. It was the refusal of the North to honor the law at this point. Which they continually refused. In other words, slavery is not the cause for secession. The refusal of the North to obey the law concerning it would contribute to it. The refusal of the North, as Jeff Davis said, to recognize the South as equals under the constitution.

Yes, the Constitution of 1787 superceeds the Articles of Confederation. But it was under those Articles that the Union was declared 'perpetual'. Which got chunked out the window.

Oh. Not quite. You can pick and choose what part of the Constitution you want to obey. Thats handy. Slavery wasn't protected then because you and the other yankees wont obey the Constitution. Something the South understood all to well.

Traitor? Yet its you and the yankees that disregard the Constitution. Not us. Lets see, that makes you the traitor. And Quantrill the patriot. Sweet.

You lost the war of Reconstruction. Lets see, how do you yankees like to put it, " Get over it".

Quantrill

 

Stephen's extended justifications, in addition to the state's articles of secession make this out to be a bald-faced lie.

Which makes slavery the CAUSE of secession, not honor of the Constitution... which the South turned traitor to. Semantic games do not cover up this betrayal... prticularly when the South bolted before Lincoln's inauguration.

When it comes to the enslavement of millions of people, picking and choosing was more than handy... it was right. The Constitution isn't immutable scripture... it had built-in problems that were intractable without a significant overturning, an act whose justification pales the Confederacy's inhuman legacy.

Nahhh... I'll continue working with people of color to make white racist's lives a living hell.

No mercy.

 

Don't forget that the Union got about $173,000,000 in gold from the mines in California.

Wars cost money, and the Union had a huge advantage in cash-on-hand.

 

Then the states could be just as bad as what people say the federal government is.

 

No. It just means that Stephens saw the agitation of slavery as the immediate cause. Slavery was protected. The South didn't seceede to protect slavery. It seceeded because the North didn't honor their postiion under the Constitution. And, as I said before, the upper Southern states only seceeded because Lincoln wanted them to go to war against the lower Southern states.

The South was not traitor. The North was not giving the South the protections gauranteed by the Constitution. The North, as Jeff Davis said, did not view or treat the South as equals under the Constitution.

Fine, you dislike the Constitution and feel you don't have to obey it. The North in 1861 was doing the same. The South was protected by the Constitution. Your the traitor. Not the Southernor.

Quantrill

 

The South was a traitor because it seceded unilaterally, and attacked its own nation.

It might be more accurate to say that the Southerners themselves were the traitors, since "the south" was never an official independent entity anyway.

 

The South was not traitor because any state could seceede. The South did not attack the Nation. It simply wanted to leave. Something the North would did not want.

Sure it was. Each state seceeded and joined the Confederation.

Quantrill

 

According to who?

"The South" doesnt get to decide that...the supreme court does. When did the Supreme Court rule that states could unilaterally secede?

They could leave whenever they wanted. They just cant take our land with them.

You mean something the US did not allow...the "north" was the real US.

No one actually ever seceded...no one ever recognized any of the southern states as separate from the US.

 

Each state gets to decide. Supreme court had no ruling in the matter.

We didn't take your land. We run you off ours.

Something the 'northern' states did not want. Your the 'real' U.S.? Exactly right. The North was making that plain. That was what the South understood also.

Not true. Whether you recognized it or not doesn't matter. Your recognition is not needed. And, if you didn't recognize it why did you make our vote compulsary to enter back into the Union. Ummmm? This is the yankee way. You claim we were never out when you want to posture yourself as good for the Union and not recognizing secession. But when you want our vote you place us outside the Union until we vote your way. " O say can you see !"

 

Sometimes I wish the south would seceede again. The rest of the nation would be better off without them.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Certainly the Civil War was the most horrible and tragic event in the history of the USA. The Confederacy was the idea of a minority of Americans (although a large one). Sure the Civil War didn't kill as many people as WWII but you have to compare American's population in 1860 to that of all the nations involved in WWII in 1939 not just a total number killed.

Yes the blame was mostly on the South for breaking the Union and starting the war at Ft Sumpter. If the South had won you could be sure that America wouldn't be the world's most powerful nation. There would be two hostile nations facing each other across a very tense border.

 

Not purchasing the slaves, like the UK did, was the worst idea ever.

Provoking a Civil War, which killed millions, was the second worse idea ever.

Forming a Confederacy and expecting Lincoln to lie down, that were merely a blunder.

 

Look Sessesh..

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution makes secession illegal. The 14th Amendment is a promise from the Federal Government to the People, that directly bypasses State legislatures.

States are free to make their own laws, etc etc but they cannot make laws that violate the rights of citizens granted under the US Constitution and the Federal Government has a right to use military force within a State to protect citizen's rights, including the right to remain a US citizen.

Secession was questionable in 1861, was resolved by force of arms in 1865 and during reconstruction it's illegality was enshrined Constitutionally with the Reconstruction Amendments.

Secession is treason and it's illegal per our Constitution. If people don't like it, they are free to launch of a movement to repeal the 14th amendment. Ask Ron and Rand Paul about how popular that idea would be.

Consider yourself lucky. In 1865, Republicans wanted to strip all the Southern States of their Statehood and make them into Federally administered territories in perpetuity. You wouldn't even have had representation in Congress today if that had happened. You'd be a territorial with limited rights.

 

Pay attention to the time period we are discussing. The 14th ammendment was after 1861.

No, secession was perfectly legal then and was not treason. We just didn't want to be part of the Union.

Look at the making of the reconstruction ammendments if you want to see a joke. A real sham.

Oh, gee, thanks. No. You did nothing for us. We won the war of reconstruction, else we would proabably still be territories.

The yankee loves to talk about the Constitution now. But in 1861 they saw themselves coming under a higher law. Then after they conquer by the bayonet, rewrite the Constitution, then its obey, obey, obey.

Quantrill

 

The North provoked the war. Secession was a product of that.

Quantrill

 

The Confederacy was the result of Southern States that seceeded from the Union. Due to not being treated as equals by the Northern states. Due to not being afforded the protections under the Constitution.

Quantrill

 

Sorry. The U.S. likes other countries and states to secede and break off from a larger governing power. But it will never allow a state of its own to secede. Haven't you been listening? That would be treason.

Quantrill

 

Please man, read some real history rather than the stuff you find from "Confederate Heritage" websites who have an interest in revising the historical record to defend an indefensible rebellion.