Respect for the Confederacy?

As I said... the 1917 "Russian" marxist bolshevik revolution included a cultural revolution that overturned ALL Tsarist Christian laws and legalized evil perverted antichrist abominations like abortion and homosexuality. The bolshevik cultural marxists wanted to destroy ALL the foundations of Russian Christian society - Christ, church, marriage, family -- and they worked overtime promoting anything and everything that would destroy traditional Christianity, the traditional family and moral family values. Cultural marxists destroyed marriage and family by promoting divorce, radical women's lib, free sex, abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, women in factories, women in combat, children raised by the state, etc...

Russians fought a four year civil war against the evil antichrist marxist bolsheviks. But most Americans could not care less and even the ones who do are afraid to utter a peep against the evil perverted cultural marxists!

.

 

Regarding the Bolshevik revolution in Russia:
The Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated to start a big European war. Secret agents in both Russia and Germany set up the beginning of the conflict. Germany offered all the hostile parties to stop the war and everyone go back to the borders they had before the war. The UK refused this treaty, and the Edomite Jews offered to get the USA into the war if, the Balfour declaration was made.
USA's entrance to the war made it last much longer, and opened the way for the Bolshevik revolution. USA even invaded Russia to make sure the Bolsheviks won.
After the war, USA & UK starved Germany for over a year, causing much harm.
Later Hitler reorganized Germany and sought to free Russia from the Murderous Bolsheviks. USA & UK immediately went to war to murder as many of their Germanic relatives as possible. The firebombing of most German cities was a true Holocaust, as the Biblical definition is a burnt offering of your own sheep. (Leviticus 1 Duoay version)

 

The only historical revisionists that can give Lost Causers a run for their money are WWII revisionists.

 

You mention a lot of facts I haven't typically considered, but do not reproduce the actual quotes, or give reference links for the points, on which your argument is based.

Let me tell you my impressions, & if you would be so kind, see what specific authoritative material you can cite which might alter my current view.

While it seems superfluous to state this, of course slavery was wrong. But, other than the Abolitionists, most Northerners were NOT willing to go to war in order to end slavery. It seems a valid analogy to compare the South Carolinians' firing on Fort Sumter to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: the motivator was patriotism, for most in the North, evoked & defined as preserving the Union. I think that most of the Confederate soldiers, as @Tipper101 said, fought for their own home states, and sense of their own rights, and impression of another force trying to deprive them of these rights; in other words, were also motivated by sentiments that were, in essence, patriotic, in their own minds.

I am not aware of anything in the Constitution which specifically restricts a state's right to leave the Union, though this would, naturally, require negotiations. All disputes between states ARE, however, designated to be the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Constitutionally speaking, it seems THAT is where the North-South disputes should have been resolved, not on the battlefield. This includes judgements related to any state's desires to secede. (Any dispute against the government of the United States, is also named as an issue to be decided by the Judicial branch.)

Had this occurred, considering that there were, no doubt, numerous members on that SCOTUS from the states wishing to secede, & nothing (as far as I am aware) strictly prohibiting a state from seceeding, in the Constitution, it seems probable that, eventually, a formula would have been accepted & approved by the Court for that to occur.

Again, I come to this conclusion not because I am pro-slavery, but because, by my reading of the Constitution, this is what logic dictates. Let us first try to resolve this point between ourselves-- what the Constitution prescribes as the way this national crisis SHOULD have been handled-- before delving any more than necessary into the gritty details of what DID happen, instead.

 

Regarding what is eroneously called a civil war in North America: It was really a Communist revolution initiated by Lincoln, Karl Marx and the Richman et. al. Lincoln's first attempt to start it was an invasion of Florida, but the commandant of the flotilla refused to carry out the invasion of Florida. Lincoln then played his Fort Sumpter game with help from agent provocateurs among the Southern forces. One cannon started the rest of them, and Lincoln had his excuse for a war. Lincoln brought Communists who had escaped the failed 1849 revolution in Germany/Europe and staffed what was no longer These United States, but a corporate entity called The United States.
Karl Marx advised Lincoln during the war. Much of this is from Horace Greely's THE AMERICAN CONFLICT; A HISTORY OF THE GREAT REBELLION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1860--'64 vol. 1. Published by O.D. CASE & COMPANY. Chicago; Geo. & C.W. Sherwood. 1864

As for the excuse of slavery, Biblically slavery is lawful. And, escape from a cruel master is also lawful. Most if not all Christian slave owners treated their slaves well. After the war these competent skilled workmen were in demand in many places in the North.
But talmudist corporate slave owners worked their slaves to death. And in the North, many lesser skilled workmen, Black or White were low paid, and if unable to work, could be cast off to starve to death. And this attitude continued throughout the rest of the 19th Century for the most part.

 

Yardmeat mentioned, "Constitutionally speaking, it seems THAT is where the North-South disputes should have been resolved, not on the battlefield." One aspect of this statement reveals 2 significant events after 1860:
1. When the Cherokee won a lawsuit against Georgia, many in Georgia swore that they would rather have their State burned down than yield to the Surpeme Court case.
2, Sherman's March to the Sea, did burn down much of Georgia during Lincoln's Communist revolution 1860-1864.

 

Cultural marxists hate Hitler because Hitler was the only leader with the will, ability and courage... to save Germany from the bolshevik cultural marxists who were taking over the weak Weimar Republic... to dare to liberate Russia from the vile bolshevik cultural marxist vipers' nest !!

.

 

My girlfriend asked me to help her with some posts back in the day. Calm down Francis.

You used a fine source document. The problem is your application of math and logic.

 

Your other post had nothing in it worth responding to other than the census numbers you claim were false which I already have shown is true in another post. So I’ll just start here.

It’s absolutely and wholly deceitful because you’re impugning the entire household for the actions of ONE person. Something you do with literally NO other activity. Name another activity where you determine the guilt or innocence of an entire household of people based upon the actions of one person within the household. That doesn’t exist because it’s HIGHLY dishonest and deceitful and is ONLY done in an effort to inflate the numbers.

They certainly didn’t but you and your side have no problem impugning them as evil slaveowners do you?

That’s true and if you’d like to discuss all who benefitted from slavery then we can certainly do that but the issue was slave OWNERS. But I ASSURE you that a discussion about who benefited from slavery is not a discussion you want to have.

Ive already sourced my numbers. But good try.

Except the VAST majority of letters back home from confederate soldiers never speak to their compulsion to serve but rather their desire to serve to defend their homes and people.

Well given my post was to the OP that’s not surprising.

Except the south had already won the expansion of slavery westward battle in the SCOTUS. IN 1859 the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to demand that a territory be non-slaveholding as a prerequisite of entry to the union.
But thank you for providing the evidence that the north not only violated the constitution (and was ordered to cease by the SCOTUS on two separate occasions... but the newly incoming president they elected EXPLICITLY stated he was going against the SCOTUS decision from 1859 and would still try to require territories be non-slaveholding as a prerequisite of entry.

Said right was already declared by the SCOTUS and enumerated in the constitution. Furthermore, whether the northern states or Lincoln liked it or not they had a constitutional obligation to assist with or at least provide no hindrance against those who were attempting to catch escaped slaves within their territory. A responsibility which the SCOTUS further emphasized in their rulings.

 

False again. The south wanted one of two things. Either they wanted the constitution followed or a PEACEFUL secession. The north and their proxy would not allow either. They had a standing army in southern territory and sent another to reinforce it. The reinforcing army invaded southern territory before any shots were fired. A declaration of war by ANY historical measure of the term.

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. This is the text of the Corwin amendment:

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

Please explain to me in what way that does not guarantee slavery as an inalienable constitutional right.

Every single declaration of secession declares the cause of secession to be the repeated and unrelenting violations of the constitution by the northern states and their proxy the federal government. To provide EVIDENCE of this claim they then reference slavery. Slavery was the catalyst, it was not the cause. There is a difference.

You’re wrong as evidenced by your abject denial with nothing to back it up. Was slavery an important issue? Of course it was. Was slavery a primary cause for war? Absolutely not because nobody is going to risk EVERYTHING when they can risk nothing to accomplish the same goal. There is not a gambler in the history of the world who would take that bet. There certainly are zero intelligent people, some of the greatest generals the world has ever seen who would choose to do so.

No they said the seceded over the repeated violations of the constitution, then provided evidence of those claims in regards to slavery. Slavery was an easy issue to resolve with the Corwin amendment. The north’s repeated and willful violations of the constitution AND the SCOTUS was not. What good is an amendment if the other side refuses to follow the constitution? And for that matter what good is the constitution if one side can just refuse to follow the parts it doesn’t like?

As for the Constitution, sure, they appealed to it whenever they thought it was supporting slavery, but if all they wanted to do was defend the Constitution, then they would have kept the Constitution. They kept large parts of it, sure, but they felt the need to add extra protections to their own Constitution for slavery, and even publicly complained that the original Constitution not only didn't do enough to preserve slavery, but had set the country on the course for abolition before they left (see the Cornerstone Speech)

Again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
https://www.sciway.net/hist/csacons.html

“On March 11,1861, the Confederate Constitution was adopted unanimously by the Congress of the Confederate States. It is almost identical to the United States constitution, with a few differences:

• In the preamble, it omits the general welfare clause, and adds that each ratifying state is acting "in its sovereign and independent character."
  
  
• It explicitly guarantees slavery in both states and territories but bans the international slave trade.
  
  
• It prohibits protective tariffs and Congressional appropriations for internal improvements.
  
  
• The Confederate constitution limits the president to one six-year term, but it gives him a line item veto.”

The confederates did keep the constitution with the exception of ensuring stronger state authority over a centralized government.

For the record Stephens was misquoted in the cornerstone speech and the author refused to allow him to make corrections. So he made his own corrections in an essay.

By the way, the confederate constitution allowed for confederate states to ban slavery within its territories for its own citizens.

The confederates were ahead for much of the war because they were much better fighters and survivalists than their northern counterparts. But that doesn’t change the fact they were outsupplied, outgunned, had little to no infrastructure and were outnumbered 3:1.

Not to mention the south didn’t have entire platoons of black people that they could use as human meat shields like the north did. The north used their black soldiers as cannon fodder. The black soldiers in the civil war had such a grossly high casualty rate because the northern commanders didn’t care about them so they put them in the most dangerous spots where they knew they would take the most casualties in formations and locations they would have NEVER put a platoon of white soldiers which also gave them an advantage.

As the London Spectator noted:
“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”

Your claims are wholly false and nothing more than specious propaganda. The south went to war to defend the constitution.

In the immortal words of General John Gordon:
“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”
Confederate General John B. Gordon

 

It is interesting to read threads like this and see who is and is not in love with the Confederate States of America.

 

Well then you obviously have no respect for the Early Democrats.
Southern Democrats were the Party of the Confederacy.
Just like many of Joe's Democrat buddies were Southern Democrat\
Segregationist.Old Joe even managed to laud The Biggest Southern bigot
in memory { George Wallace }.
How do you square all that.
Bill Clinton's Mentor was Democrat Segregationist J.William Fulbright.

 

The same pack of hypocrites who helped originate the KKK and
authored Jim Crow laws.It might seem funny,now,But I assure it's
s'not.Like the Rag.

 

Um ... Francis was The Talking Mule.Pretty smart cookie,that Mule.
Has Biden beat by 10,ooo %

 

Nathan Bedford Forest founded the KKK and it had nothing to do with attacking black people. When he lost control of the organization and they DID begin attacking black people Forrest quit the organization and several years later wrote a letter to the governor telling him he would be happy to get a group together and hunt down the kkk members responsible for the attack and mete out justice.

 

He died in 1877, lol. Democrats kept it alive for more than another century.

 

The 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire. The CSA seceded from the USA. The parallel is exact.

The War of Northern Aggression was morally wrong.

 

Seceding over slavery was morally wrong, and the South initiated the aggression.

 

The CSA didn't think so. The USA forcing its morality on a independent people is, at least I hope you would think so.

 

That's the second grade version, of course.
We should all aim higher when analyzing such a historic and tragic time in our country.

 

A couple of points:
1) It was me, DEFinning, who wrote what you kind of quoted (my quote's meaning is a little bit vague, w/o the preceeding part about the SCOTUS being specified in the Constitution for resolving legal disputes between the states, of which, secession, certainly was one). I had written it in REPLY to yardmeat, who I quoted. So you are really going to have to focus more on distinguishing between the quote & the reply, if you want to get the hang of this.
2) If you want the person you are talking about to know you are talking about their post, which is typically at least the polite thing to do, what you should do is hit, "reply," to that post or, highlight the applicable section of the post & hit quote.
3) When you just mention another poster, if you might be interested in any kind of response, you must put an, "@," sign in front of their name, like, @yardmeat , in order for the member to be sent an alert.
4) As to your points, the 2nd is easily dismissible-- no disrespect to Georgia-- because it occurred during a state of war, & had nothing whatsoever to do with the
Supreme Court.

In the Cherokee case, how did that play out (was that when Jackson was President)? Our country is one founded on laws; but that does not mean that there has never been an instance when those laws were not broken, without the proper repercussions. When the Judicial branch makes a ruling, it is the responsibility of the Executive branch, headed by the President, to enforce that ruling, just as it enforces laws passed by the Legislative branch.

I do remember hearing of something like you mention happening when Jackson was president. The U.S. govt. had signed a treaty, relegating some tribe to land we didn't consider of much value. Then silver, or something, was discovered there, & Americans overran the area, shooting the Native Americans, who were the rightful owners of the land. But the blowout in the system came not really from the citizens who weren't respecting the law but because, when the Supreme Court ruled that the President needed to intercede, to stop these citizens who were breaking our legal treaty, Jackson wouldn't do it. What was supposed to happen, if a president ever failed to fulfill his duty to enforce & comply with the laws, was that the Congress was to exercise their power of impeachment. Instead, for defying the Supreme Court's authority & betraying his oath, he got his face on the $20 bill. Sickeningly hypocritical as that is,
the honest truth of it is that the rights of native peoples have never been a high concern of our government, or America's general population.

But this sad story is not in any way applicable to the idea that the Court decisions do not carry the weight of law. If they had judged the states had the right to secede, Lincoln would have needed to comply with that ruling, as his initiating hostilities against the Southern states, in direct contradiction of a Supreme Court ruling, is not the kind of thing that legislators would turn a blind eye to, or that the population would get behind. If the Court had ruled secession was illegal, however, I admit there is the chance the Confederate states might have tried to secede anyway; which, then, would have made them clearly traitors, in violation of U.S. law, by virtue of ignoring the Supreme Court. If that would have ever come about-- which I explained in my post I thought was unlikely-- we'll never know, for sure.

 

I guarantee I've reviewed more primary sources from the South at the time period than any of the Lost Causers have.

 

So you say. Bravo, internet warrior! Now, use that knowledge and make a salient point with it.

 

I have. Several times. Feel free to read the thread.

 

I see roughly 27 posts by you in this thread with no supporting evidence for your claims.