The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Equat]

Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.

How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Samuel Johnson

"Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson

You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject. If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British. You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make? The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time. He does, however, mention tariffs. The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy. If you condemn one you must condemn the other.

I'm not saying that the Confederacy has no right to self-government. I'm stating that the means by which it seceded for self-government were illegal and the reasons as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession were morally hypocrital and immoral. Anyone can claim a right. I don't deny the claim of a right. I deny the righteousness of Confederate hypocrisy. I don't have to condemn that US for reasons you mention because the US made no Federal government under a Constitution with England, although I do believe that the US was unjustified and immoral in its rebelling. Although my ancestors were Revolutionary rebels as Scots (which rebelled because of their centuries-old grudges against Englishmen) and not Tories, I condemn the US's act of rebelling, even of the US against England. Notwithstanding, the US it its rebellion wasn't as hypocritical as the Confederacy in their Declaration of Causes of Secession which explicitly and universally states that it seceded over the central issue of slavery.

Incidentally, my wife's great-great grandather was Confederate Captain Cook. She agrees with me.

The existence of more than one reason for an action doesn't negate the central issue for that action. Because the US idicted Afganastan for its opium trade doesn't mean that it didn't war against the Taliban over the primary reason of terrorism against the West. Every war has multiple reasons. A minor reason or that shared by a few doesn't mean that all share the same minor reason. The US didn't secede from racist slave-practicing England over racist slavery as the Confedracy did against non-slave practicing "free states" which it indicted (to the absence of the three border slave states that weren't gluttons for punishment) in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.

Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.

 

[Equat]

If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.

False conclusion. Because someone doesn't want to be punished by joining a gang of rebels that share similar interests doesn't mean that the gang doesn't rebel for the shared reasons.

You ignored all the evidence above.

First of all, as Polk pointed out Missouri & Kentucky were prevented from seceding my military occupation.

The others non-seceding rebels weren't gluttons for punishment like those that seceded and those that joined the Confederacy and who believed that the US should allow its military installations to be overrun by rebels.

Since Lincoln had no problem with militarily forcing states to remain in the Union then why didn't he militarily force those states to end slavery? I mean if his goal was to end slavery then why didn't he do it in the states he could have easily achieved that goal in?

KK: I keep repeating my words in response to your repitition. Lincoln was a politition who, like all polititians compromised and employed incrementalism. That's part of the answer. Lincoln didn't military force states to end slavery partly because he was assassinated before his slow and steady incrementalism could take effect. Those states weren't foolish enough to require the military to end slavery. They were submissive to the Federal government and wise. Lincoln's foremost objective wasn't to end slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. Slavery was only one goal, secondary to the preservation of the Union. If Lincoln thought that could have preserved the Union by preserving slavery, then he likely would have done so as evidenced in the fact that he didn't abolish slavery except in the rebellious states and counties years after the war began. If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery first and foremost, then he would have done so at the outset of the war. He hoped to win back the rebs by going easy on them. They didn't get atom bombs on them like the Japs, nor did they have their women and children killed like the Germans who suffered from allied bomb raids upon their civilians. Sherman, villanized by the rebs, was a pussycat to the Confederates compared to how he dealt with the Indians and compared with how the US dealt with the Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, et. al.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Samuel Johnson

"Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson

You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject. If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British. You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make? The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time. He does, however, mention tariffs. The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy. If you condemn one you must condemn the other.

I'm not saying that the Confederacy has no right to self-government. I'm stating that the means by which it seceded for self-government were illegal and the reasons as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession were morally hypocrital and immoral. Anyone can claim a right. I don't deny the claim of a right. I deny the righteousness of Confederate hypocrisy. I don't have to condemn that US for reasons you mention because the US made no Federal government under a Constitution with England, although I do believe that the US was unjustified and immoral in its rebelling. Although my ancestors were Revolutionary rebels as Scots (which rebelled because of their centuries-old grudges against Englishmen) and not Tories, I condemn the US's act of rebelling, even of the US against England. Notwithstanding, the US it its rebellion wasn't as hypocritical as the Confederacy in their Declaration of Causes of Secession which explicitly and universally states that it seceded over the central issue of slavery.

Incidentally, my wife's great-great grandather was Confederate Captain Cook. She agrees with me.

The existence of more than one reason for an action doesn't negate the central issue for that action. Because the US idicted Afganastan for its opium trade doesn't mean that it didn't war against the Taliban over the primary reason of terrorism against the West. Every war has multiple reasons. A minor reason or that shared by a few doesn't mean that all share the same minor reason. The US didn't secede from racist slave-practicing England over racist slavery as the Confedracy did against non-slave practicing "free states" which it indicted (to the absence of the three border slave states that weren't gluttons for punishment) in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.

Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.

You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states. Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding? You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole. In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.

Talk about straw man.
The "No one has the right to secede" crowd insists they are not tyrants.
Yet they absolutely DENY anyone the right to not take part in their pillaging of workers productivity to pay for lazy socialists.

ONE MORE
Just because someone else voted for something in the past does not mean that I should be forced to vote for the same thing.
The people who freely voted to join the US are long dead - it is not a free vote when your choice is only "Join or remain a territorial possession of the US"
Thus the claim that people chose is a MAJOR straw man because the PEOPLE to whom you are no referring DID NOT MAKE THAT CHOICE.
They were given NO CHOICE
People with no choice is the hallmark of tyranny.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False conclusion. Because someone doesn't want to be punished by joining a gang of rebels that share similar interests doesn't mean that the gang doesn't rebel for the shared reasons.

You ignored all the evidence above.

First of all, as Polk pointed out Missouri & Kentucky were prevented from seceding my military occupation.

The others non-seceding rebels weren't gluttons for punishment like those that seceded and those that joined the Confederacy and who believed that the US should allow its military installations to be overrun by rebels.

Since Lincoln had no problem with militarily forcing states to remain in the Union then why didn't he militarily force those states to end slavery? I mean if his goal was to end slavery then why didn't he do it in the states he could have easily achieved that goal in?

KK: I keep repeating my words in response to your repitition. Lincoln was a politition who, like all polititians compromised and employed incrementalism. That's part of the answer. Lincoln didn't military force states to end slavery partly because he was assassinated before his slow and steady incrementalism could take effect. Those states weren't foolish enough to require the military to end slavery. They were submissive to the Federal government and wise. Lincoln's foremost objective wasn't to end slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. Slavery was only one goal, secondary to the preservation of the Union. If Lincoln thought that could have preserved the Union by preserving slavery, then he likely would have done so as evidenced in the fact that he didn't abolish slavery except in the rebellious states and counties years after the war began. If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery first and foremost, then he would have done so at the outset of the war. He hoped to win back the rebs by going easy on them. They didn't get atom bombs on them like the Japs, nor did they have their women and children killed like the Germans who suffered from allied bomb raids upon their civilians. Sherman, villanized by the rebs, was a pussycat to the Confederates compared to how he dealt with the Indians and compared with how the US dealt with the Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, et. al.

The claim, and it wasn't your claim to be fair, was that Lincoln's goal was to end slavery. His actions prove otherwise.

 

[Equat]

I would then suggest removing slavery from the topic. See where you can go with that. Read a bit about the times and read the link I boldfaced. Politics is always balance, Lincoln's actions like every political act since is a balancing act.

The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?

You can parrot this talking point if you like, but it's not going to make it true.

I'm only parrotting to your parrotting and your refusal to answer questions.

 

[Equat]

Since Lincoln had no problem with militarily forcing states to remain in the Union then why didn't he militarily force those states to end slavery? I mean if his goal was to end slavery then why didn't he do it in the states he could have easily achieved that goal in?

KK: I keep repeating my words in response to your repitition. Lincoln was a politition who, like all polititians compromised and employed incrementalism. That's part of the answer. Lincoln didn't military force states to end slavery partly because he was assassinated before his slow and steady incrementalism could take effect. Those states weren't foolish enough to require the military to end slavery. They were submissive to the Federal government and wise. Lincoln's foremost objective wasn't to end slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. Slavery was only one goal, secondary to the preservation of the Union. If Lincoln thought that could have preserved the Union by preserving slavery, then he likely would have done so as evidenced in the fact that he didn't abolish slavery except in the rebellious states and counties years after the war began. If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery first and foremost, then he would have done so at the outset of the war. He hoped to win back the rebs by going easy on them. They didn't get atom bombs on them like the Japs, nor did they have their women and children killed like the Germans who suffered from allied bomb raids upon their civilians. Sherman, villanized by the rebs, was a pussycat to the Confederates compared to how he dealt with the Indians and compared with how the US dealt with the Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, et. al.

The claim, and it wasn't your claim to be fair, was that Lincoln's goal was to end slavery. His actions prove otherwise.

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?

You can parrot this talking point if you like, but it's not going to make it true.

I'm only parrotting to your parrotting and your refusal to answer questions.

I wasn't aware I was asked any questions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK: I keep repeating my words in response to your repitition. Lincoln was a politition who, like all polititians compromised and employed incrementalism. That's part of the answer. Lincoln didn't military force states to end slavery partly because he was assassinated before his slow and steady incrementalism could take effect. Those states weren't foolish enough to require the military to end slavery. They were submissive to the Federal government and wise. Lincoln's foremost objective wasn't to end slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. Slavery was only one goal, secondary to the preservation of the Union. If Lincoln thought that could have preserved the Union by preserving slavery, then he likely would have done so as evidenced in the fact that he didn't abolish slavery except in the rebellious states and counties years after the war began. If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery first and foremost, then he would have done so at the outset of the war. He hoped to win back the rebs by going easy on them. They didn't get atom bombs on them like the Japs, nor did they have their women and children killed like the Germans who suffered from allied bomb raids upon their civilians. Sherman, villanized by the rebs, was a pussycat to the Confederates compared to how he dealt with the Indians and compared with how the US dealt with the Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, et. al.

The claim, and it wasn't your claim to be fair, was that Lincoln's goal was to end slavery. His actions prove otherwise.

I don't understand what you are saying.

Someone else in this thread claimed the Civil War was fought to end slavery. You responded to my response to that post. It doesn't make sense for us to argue the point if you don't think the Civil War was fought to end slavery.

 

[Equat]

You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject. If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British. You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make? The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time. He does, however, mention tariffs. The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy. If you condemn one you must condemn the other.

I'm not saying that the Confederacy has no right to self-government. I'm stating that the means by which it seceded for self-government were illegal and the reasons as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession were morally hypocrital and immoral. Anyone can claim a right. I don't deny the claim of a right. I deny the righteousness of Confederate hypocrisy. I don't have to condemn that US for reasons you mention because the US made no Federal government under a Constitution with England, although I do believe that the US was unjustified and immoral in its rebelling. Although my ancestors were Revolutionary rebels as Scots (which rebelled because of their centuries-old grudges against Englishmen) and not Tories, I condemn the US's act of rebelling, even of the US against England. Notwithstanding, the US it its rebellion wasn't as hypocritical as the Confederacy in their Declaration of Causes of Secession which explicitly and universally states that it seceded over the central issue of slavery.

Incidentally, my wife's great-great grandather was Confederate Captain Cook. She agrees with me.

The existence of more than one reason for an action doesn't negate the central issue for that action. Because the US idicted Afganastan for its opium trade doesn't mean that it didn't war against the Taliban over the primary reason of terrorism against the West. Every war has multiple reasons. A minor reason or that shared by a few doesn't mean that all share the same minor reason. The US didn't secede from racist slave-practicing England over racist slavery as the Confedracy did against non-slave practicing "free states" which it indicted (to the absence of the three border slave states that weren't gluttons for punishment) in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.

Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.

You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states. Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding? You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole. In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.

The reasons that I mention the four states is because only they provided a Declaration. The others didn't. I ask you, where is the other state's Declaration of secession? If none, then how can I mention something that doesn't exist?

Absence of reasons for secession in a president's innagural address doesn't mean anything when the president was elected after secession and the Declaration of Causes of Secession predates the president. Did Washington rehash the reasons for the revolution in his innaugural address? Davis didn't need to rehash.

 

[Equat]

The claim, and it wasn't your claim to be fair, was that Lincoln's goal was to end slavery. His actions prove otherwise.

I don't understand what you are saying.

Someone else in this thread claimed the Civil War was fought to end slavery. You responded to my response to that post. It doesn't make sense for us to argue the point if you don't think the Civil War was fought to end slavery.

Why should I speak on behalf of "someone"? I don't. I speak for myself. I'm not a card-carrying anything. I have a brain. I disagree with what you alledge this "someone" said.

 

[Equat]

You can parrot this talking point if you like, but it's not going to make it true.

I'm only parrotting to your parrotting and your refusal to answer questions.

I wasn't aware I was asked any questions.

Reading enhances awareness. Read all the words preceeded by a "?" in my posts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not saying that the Confederacy has no right to self-government. I'm stating that the means by which it seceded for self-government were illegal and the reasons as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession were morally hypocrital and immoral. Anyone can claim a right. I don't deny the claim of a right. I deny the righteousness of Confederate hypocrisy. I don't have to condemn that US for reasons you mention because the US made no Federal government under a Constitution with England, although I do believe that the US was unjustified and immoral in its rebelling. Although my ancestors were Revolutionary rebels as Scots (which rebelled because of their centuries-old grudges against Englishmen) and not Tories, I condemn the US's act of rebelling, even of the US against England. Notwithstanding, the US it its rebellion wasn't as hypocritical as the Confederacy in their Declaration of Causes of Secession which explicitly and universally states that it seceded over the central issue of slavery.

Incidentally, my wife's great-great grandather was Confederate Captain Cook. She agrees with me.

The existence of more than one reason for an action doesn't negate the central issue for that action. Because the US idicted Afganastan for its opium trade doesn't mean that it didn't war against the Taliban over the primary reason of terrorism against the West. Every war has multiple reasons. A minor reason or that shared by a few doesn't mean that all share the same minor reason. The US didn't secede from racist slave-practicing England over racist slavery as the Confedracy did against non-slave practicing "free states" which it indicted (to the absence of the three border slave states that weren't gluttons for punishment) in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.

Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.

You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states. Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding? You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole. In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.

The reasons that I mention the four states is because only they provided a Declaration. The others didn't. I ask you, where is the other state's Declaration of secession? If none, then how can I mention something that doesn't exist?

Absence of reasons for secession in a president's innagural address doesn't mean anything when the president was elected after secession and the Declaration of Causes of Secession predates the president. Did Washington rehash the reasons for the revolution in his innaugural address? Davis didn't need to rehash.

But you're trying to say that the Declarations from four states speak for the whole. That's ridiculous.

He specifically mentions tariffs, however. Why mention what is, in your opinion, a side issue but not the central issue? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't understand what you are saying.

Someone else in this thread claimed the Civil War was fought to end slavery. You responded to my response to that post. It doesn't make sense for us to argue the point if you don't think the Civil War was fought to end slavery.

Why should I speak on behalf of "someone"? I don't. I speak for myself. I'm not a card-carrying anything. I have a brain. I disagree with what you alledge this "someone" said.

I didn't say you were speaking on behalf of somebody else. I said you responded to one of my posts that was in response to somebody else. I don't believe that your position is the same as his, so it makes no sense to argue a point you don't believe.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm only parrotting to your parrotting and your refusal to answer questions.

I wasn't aware I was asked any questions.

Reading enhances awareness. Read all the words preceeded by a "?" in my posts.

Well I'm not going to go back through all your posts looking for questions, so if you have a question you'd like me to address then re-post it.

 

[Equat]

Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.

How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Samuel Johnson

"Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson

You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject. If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British. You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make? The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time. He does, however, mention tariffs. The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy. If you condemn one you must condemn the other.

I don't give the US a pass on that subject. I merely know that the US wasn't as blatantly hypociritical visa-vis the Confederacy. The US is hypocritical and has been since its inception and aforetime. One's hypocrisy doesn't excuse another's evil. However, the righteousness of one's cause is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Societies (e.g. the Confederacy) are no different. For answers to your other questions, read my previous posts.

 

[Equat]

Someone else in this thread claimed the Civil War was fought to end slavery. You responded to my response to that post. It doesn't make sense for us to argue the point if you don't think the Civil War was fought to end slavery.

Why should I speak on behalf of "someone"? I don't. I speak for myself. I'm not a card-carrying anything. I have a brain. I disagree with what you alledge this "someone" said.

I didn't say you were speaking on behalf of somebody else. I said you responded to one of my posts that was in response to somebody else. I don't believe that your position is the same as his, so it makes no sense to argue a point you don't believe.

Why are we discussing this? I still don't understand.

 

[Annie]

I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.

I'd never go for that.

However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.

I'd never go for that.

However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.

States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however. For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.

 

[Equat]

I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.

I'd never go for that.

However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.

You are free to wrest as you wish within certain legal limitations. I agree that the Fed abuses power. All governments do. It is the nature of those in power to abuse it. If wresting involves armed revolution, then let me know so that I can get out of the way. I may have some investments (e.g. gold and real estate) to buy or sell in such case. I'm not a military revolutionary. Nor do I agree with those that rationalize such actions.