Happy Birthday, Jefferson Davis

[geauxtohell]

Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.

"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis

Yes he believed in peace..... After the South fired on Sumter.
He believed in free trade secured by the labor of men and women in chains.
He believed in self governance by white men.

Fuck the south. Death to traitors.

The loser Davis is lucky that Lncoln was decent.

Jackson would have hung is sorry ass.

 

[geauxtohell]

The reasons for the Civil War was never a secret.

Speaking of ignorant......

 

[geauxtohell]

I can discuss the conflict in great detail. The problem is that you and your fellow southern apologists don't want to look like racist kooks, so you come up with moronic arguments for why the war was secretly about something else.

The reasons for the Civil War was never a secret.

The top five very unsecret reasons for the civil war.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

Three of five (The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents, Growth of the Abolition Movement, The election of Abraham Lincoln) directly relate to slavery, while the other two are really elements of the first one (Economic and social differences between the North and the South), which really isn't even a social difference. You may want to believe that slavery was not the cause of the war, but that requires believing disagreements over tariff rates is enough to spark a war. I'm highly skeptical of that claim, and so were people at the time.

"Cornerstone speech"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The reasons for the Civil War was never a secret.

The top five very unsecret reasons for the civil war.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

Three of five (The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents, Growth of the Abolition Movement, The election of Abraham Lincoln) directly relate to slavery, while the other two are really elements of the first one (Economic and social differences between the North and the South), which really isn't even a social difference. You may want to believe that slavery was not the cause of the war, but that requires believing disagreements over tariff rates is enough to spark a war. I'm highly skeptical of that claim, and so were people at the time.

"Cornerstone speech"

Jefferson Davis's inaugural address.

 

[Artevelde]

Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.

"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis

But....

Wasn't he a traitor? And specifically, a traitor who seceded from the United States of America because he and others like him did not want to give up their "right" to have have millions of Africans work unlimited hours, for free, for their own personal profit?

The secession led to a war that cost 600,000+ United States lives...

Why should I wish him happy birthday exactly?

Good post.

 

[KevinWestern]

He argued against secession as a Senator from Mississippi, but believed that the right to secession was natural and constitutional so he went along with his state. As to being a traitor, well, I suppose he was a traitor in the same sense that Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson were traitors to King George. As to the war leading to 600,000+ deaths, I suppose you should look at who actually wanted the war. That would be Lincoln, not Davis. Davis wanted to secede peacefully, whereas Lincoln was intent on forcing them back into the Union.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldn’t have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didn’t present a threat to their “right” to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.

I don’t know about you, but I simply can’t support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.

Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?

 

[Katzndogz]

Jefferson Davis was a traitor the same way George Washington was a traitor. The south lost the war. Had George Washington lost the war he would have been a traitor too.

 

[KevinWestern]

Jefferson Davis was a traitor the same way George Washington was a traitor. The south lost the war. Had George Washington lost the war he would have been a traitor too.

Obviously.

But the fact will always remain that the South seceded primarily because they didn’t want to give up their right to own slaves. If the north was slave-friendly, the Civil War would have not occurred. This core issue is the reason I will always side with the north and refuse to call any of the southern secessionists "heroes".

.

 

[Katzndogz]

He argued against secession as a Senator from Mississippi, but believed that the right to secession was natural and constitutional so he went along with his state. As to being a traitor, well, I suppose he was a traitor in the same sense that Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson were traitors to King George. As to the war leading to 600,000+ deaths, I suppose you should look at who actually wanted the war. That would be Lincoln, not Davis. Davis wanted to secede peacefully, whereas Lincoln was intent on forcing them back into the Union.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldn’t have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didn’t present a threat to their “right” to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.

I don’t know about you, but I simply can’t support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.

Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?

The reasons were primarily economic with the mills of the north price fixing the price of cotton and blockading the southern ports so they would not be able to sell to Europe.

Slavery was already on its way out. Slavery had already died in Europe, England no longer had slaves and didn't fight a war to do bring about the end of slavery. Lincoln knew this, which is why he said that the southern states could keep slavery but new states applying to the union had to be free states.

The Emancipation Proclimation did not end slavery. It was a punishment for states in rebellion. The loyal border states were still free to have, keep, buy and sell slaves. States that had already come under Union control were free to have, keep, buy and sell slaves.

Featured Document: The Emancipation Proclamation

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

At the time, it was already known that slavery was going to end. It was becoming too expensive to maintain slaves who could be replaced by machinery. The industrial revolution was bringing about an end to slavery. The vast plantations had already started freeing slaves and investing in machines.

The freed and abandoned slaves could not survive in the agricultural south and headed north to work in the mills. Where they promptly came under a different kind of slavery. The workhouse slavery. To stop the northward migration of ex-slaves, the North had to impose upon the south a means to keep the slaves there. Carpetbaggers bought up plantations lost to taxes and invented the concept of sharecropping. Free men would farm their own land, which they had an chance to buy. All they had to do was give a share of the crop to the new owner. A share which guaranteed a life of penury. Same shit, different master. The former slaves were now even worse off than ever. As "free" people, no master would feed them, clothe them, tend to illness or injury. Bad weather, pests, crop disease didn't matter, the share did not diminish. The cleverness of the North was brilliant. They maintained slaves, but called them free and thus had no responsibiliity to them at all. Slaves went from having some investment value on the block, to being completely worthless. What's more is that this has generally been accepted as an improvement.

It is a shame that the South did not win. The whole country would have been better off. Slavery would have died its natural death in a few years and we would not have had the burden of decades of affirmative action that has only infantilized what was once a proud people.

 

[KevinWestern]

It is a shame that the South did not win. The whole country would have been better off. Slavery would have died its natural death in a few years and we would not have had the burden of decades of affirmative action that has only infantilized what was once a proud people.

First of all, what makes you think that if the south were to win, and slavery were to die off slowly and “naturally” over the course of the coming years that the blacks would have been somehow “better off”? Personally, I don’t get where you’re coming from here. If the south won the war, slavery would have continued on for another 40-50 years perhaps. And you say that it's a shame - essentially - that this didn't happen? What's wrong with you?

I ask you; what good would this prolongation of slavery have done for the blacks exactly?

AND, you claim that affirmative action is what “infantilized” a “once proud people”? Really Katz? What about the 300+ years of slave trade and rigid social hierarchies put in place that essentially made blacks = sub humans under law; do you think that also might have perhaps played into the “infantilization” of the Africans?


.

 

[Katzndogz]

It is a shame that the South did not win. The whole country would have been better off. Slavery would have died its natural death in a few years and we would not have had the burden of decades of affirmative action that has only infantilized what was once a proud people.

First of all, what makes you think that if the south were to win, and slavery were to die off slowly and “naturally” over the course of the coming years that the blacks would have been somehow “better off”? Personally, I don’t get where you’re coming from here. If the south won the war, slavery would have continued on for another 40-50 years perhaps. And you say that it's a shame - essentially - that this didn't happen? What's wrong with you?

I ask you; what good would this prolongation of slavery have done for the blacks exactly?

AND, you claim that affirmative action is what “infantilized” a “once proud people”? Really Katz? What about the 300+ years of slave trade and rigid social hierarchies put in place that essentially made blacks = sub humans under law; do you think that also might have perhaps played into the “infantilization” of the Africans?


.

I can't educate you. I would hope that you might be interested enough to educate yourself.

There is not a country in the world that did not hold slaves. White slaves, black slaves, brown slaves. Slaves. Eveyone was both a slave and a slave holder at some point in history. It was the way anything got done. Earning a wage, working for pay was a concept very slow in coming. Every other country, slave holding or enslaved themselves ended slavery when slavery became too impractical to continue. Peoples who were former slaves matured out of slavery. Jews are no longer slaves to Egyptians. The British no longer feel enslaved to the Italians. Only in the United States have we paid black people to expect support for their lives because at some point their ancestors once slaves. They never matured as a people. They are still slaves! They still need to be taken care of, fed, clothed, housed, medicated. The only difference today is, no one can put them to work. We don't have forced labor, yet. Slavery is not an issue any other place in the world but here. Mentally, as a class, the Civil War could have ended yesterday. They are as unable to care for themselves today as they were when the Massa distributed their food. Now Massa is a welfare case worker.

Had the south won the war, slavery would have died a natural death. Black people would not have a sense of entitlement or be owed anything. They'd be like back people everywhere else in the world. They might have stayed in the South or emigrated north. Where they weren't exactly welcomed. There never would have been Jim Crow laws, the KKK would never have been born. Segregation would have been too cumbersome to continue on its own. Bull Connor would never have had firehoses to turn on school children. George Wallace would never have been elected governor. Martin Luther King would have died as a drunken Baptist peacher at a very old age. The South would not have been impoverished. Had the whole of the south not been impoverished, black people could have started to create their own wealth much earlier and liberals would be able to destroy only their own country.

 

[Katzndogz]

It is a shame that the South did not win. The whole country would have been better off. Slavery would have died its natural death in a few years and we would not have had the burden of decades of affirmative action that has only infantilized what was once a proud people.

First of all, what makes you think that if the south were to win, and slavery were to die off slowly and “naturally” over the course of the coming years that the blacks would have been somehow “better off”? Personally, I don’t get where you’re coming from here. If the south won the war, slavery would have continued on for another 40-50 years perhaps. And you say that it's a shame - essentially - that this didn't happen? What's wrong with you?

I ask you; what good would this prolongation of slavery have done for the blacks exactly?

AND, you claim that affirmative action is what “infantilized” a “once proud people”? Really Katz? What about the 300+ years of slave trade and rigid social hierarchies put in place that essentially made blacks = sub humans under law; do you think that also might have perhaps played into the “infantilization” of the Africans?


.

You don't understand one thing. At the time of the civil war, slavery was already on its way out. A hundred slaves was necessary to do in one day what the cotton gin could do in a matter of hours. Once James Watt invented the steam engine one steam driven cotton gin could do in a matter of minutes what a hundred slaves could do in a day. Day by day the Industrial Revolution was burying the idea of slavery and holding slaves was becoming far too expensive. The bottom had already fallen out of the slave trade. They were becoming worthless to sell and too expensive to keep. Thousands of them were repatriated to Africa to eventually form the nation of Liberia. Plantation owners were already investing in machinery that didn't have to be fed, didn't get sick and didn't complain. That was one of the reasons for the Northern Mills to fix prices for southern cotton and prevent the South from selling directly to Europe. Had slavery and it's attendant expenses not been an already dying institution, there would never have been a Civil War. The dying end of slavery is what made the Civil War an economic necessity. Without the responsibility of so many slaves to support, the south was becoming very very rich and a direct threat to the mill owners of the north. The disaster, the death knell, would have been for the south to use european profits to start building mills of their own. Follow the north's template, pay the freed slaves to be trained to work in the mills, at less than what it cost to support a slave. Already, at that time, Europe would not buy goods made, manufactured, by slaves.

It came down to being all about money. Which is exactly what history says. Slavery is a bigger excuse today than it was at the time Lincoln was president.

 

[Polk]

Let's put it this way, Lincoln knew what the consequences of attempting to resupply Fort Sumter would be as it had already been attempted, yet he still went ahead with it. Why? He clearly wasn't interested in avoiding war, whereas Davis sent a delegation to Washington to try to purchase all federal property that remained in the Confederacy. Why? Obviously he was interested in avoiding a war.

We obviously disagree about who was in the right, but can we at least agree that these events clearly show Davis trying to avoid a war, whereas Lincoln was, at the least, not interested in avoiding a war?

No, I won't agree to that. The rebels didn't have the right to steal property then trying to whitewash it by offering to pay for what they stole.

They tried to pay before the incident at Fort Sumter.

They were already seizing forts and armories all across the region before Fort Sumter.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He argued against secession as a Senator from Mississippi, but believed that the right to secession was natural and constitutional so he went along with his state. As to being a traitor, well, I suppose he was a traitor in the same sense that Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson were traitors to King George. As to the war leading to 600,000+ deaths, I suppose you should look at who actually wanted the war. That would be Lincoln, not Davis. Davis wanted to secede peacefully, whereas Lincoln was intent on forcing them back into the Union.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldn’t have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didn’t present a threat to their “right” to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.

I don’t know about you, but I simply can’t support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.

Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?

Two reasons. For starters, as I've already stated in this thread, there were slave states that remained in the Union. So I suppose I can turn your question around on you: Where do you find justification for supporting the northern cause, given that they also practiced slavery? I give neither the side the moral high ground on this issue, and condemn them both. The second reason is that I believe in the right to self-government as put forth by our Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that if you condemn the Confederates then you must also logically condemn the colonists who seceded from the British Empire. The colonists practiced slavery at the time of their independence, and yet people seem far more willing to forgive them than they are the Confederates. It's hypocrisy, as far as I can tell.

As for what they would have done had things been different, you can only speculate. In reality, the north, generally speaking, was quite content with southern slavery. They didn't want those slaves freed and then emigrating north, which is why some northern states, such as Illinois, had laws against the emigration of blacks into the state. The abolitionists would, of course, have highly favored southern secession, as many had advocated the north seceding from the south. If there was no more political connection between the two regions then the abolitionists would no longer be bound by the the Fugitive Slave clause of the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Jefferson Davis was a traitor the same way George Washington was a traitor. The south lost the war. Had George Washington lost the war he would have been a traitor too.

You can be right and lose a war, just as you can be wrong and win a war. You're either a traitor or you're not. Winning and losing have nothing to do with it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is a shame that the South did not win. The whole country would have been better off. Slavery would have died its natural death in a few years and we would not have had the burden of decades of affirmative action that has only infantilized what was once a proud people.

First of all, what makes you think that if the south were to win, and slavery were to die off slowly and “naturally” over the course of the coming years that the blacks would have been somehow “better off”? Personally, I don’t get where you’re coming from here. If the south won the war, slavery would have continued on for another 40-50 years perhaps. And you say that it's a shame - essentially - that this didn't happen? What's wrong with you?

I ask you; what good would this prolongation of slavery have done for the blacks exactly?

AND, you claim that affirmative action is what “infantilized” a “once proud people”? Really Katz? What about the 300+ years of slave trade and rigid social hierarchies put in place that essentially made blacks = sub humans under law; do you think that also might have perhaps played into the “infantilization” of the Africans?


.

I don't know that I would say that slavery lasting longer than it did would have been good for black people, but if slavery had ended peacefully and naturally then it's possible that the racial strife that marred the south in the post Reconstruction period could have been averted.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I won't agree to that. The rebels didn't have the right to steal property then trying to whitewash it by offering to pay for what they stole.

They tried to pay before the incident at Fort Sumter.

They were already seizing forts and armories all across the region before Fort Sumter.

Yes, they did. They became more aggressive when it became clear that Lincoln was unwilling to resolve the dispute diplomatically. If he wasn't going to let them buy the federal property, then they decided to seize it. You can disagree with these actions if you want, but you can't deny that they originally tried to handle it peacefully.

 

[Polk]

They tried to pay before the incident at Fort Sumter.

They were already seizing forts and armories all across the region before Fort Sumter.

Yes, they did. They became more aggressive when it became clear that Lincoln was unwilling to resolve the dispute diplomatically. If he wasn't going to let them buy the federal property, then they decided to seize it. You can disagree with these actions if you want, but you can't deny that they originally tried to handle it peacefully.

I can agree that they saw their actions as peaceful, but I don't think there is a peaceful way to demand someone else's property.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They were already seizing forts and armories all across the region before Fort Sumter.

Yes, they did. They became more aggressive when it became clear that Lincoln was unwilling to resolve the dispute diplomatically. If he wasn't going to let them buy the federal property, then they decided to seize it. You can disagree with these actions if you want, but you can't deny that they originally tried to handle it peacefully.

I can agree that they saw their actions as peaceful, but I don't think there is a peaceful way to demand someone else's property.

Offering to not only pay for that property, but also your fair share of the national debt, is not demanding someone else's property. It's attempting to negotiate for said property. When Lincoln refused to negotiate they did what they felt they had to do, as they weren't going to allow Union soldiers and forts to remain within their borders. Not wanting a foreign government to have a military presence within your borders doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

[Polk]

But that all comes back to the idea that they have a legal right to break off in the first place.