Defending Dixie's Land Now on Sale

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,405
Reaction score
3,042
you really should think about divide et impera if you want to get your lands back - the more those illegal aliens fight each other the better for you
Yes, that was a familiar concept wrapped in a very different package - who expected real blood-curdling wars and all around mayhem?
 

Bilbobaggins

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
39
Are you talking about this? I like to point out that in parts they are complaining about Slavery not being protected by the federal government...

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
That is the one! That is why I focus on it and antebellum American politics. See, in its day, this was seen as a self-evident states rights document; today, it is viewed as a self-evident slavery document, so what changed? Was it us? Was it how we understand the Constitution and the Union? I agree that is precisely why.
 

Bilbobaggins

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
39
May I ask for clarification on a crucial point before I continue: Does your first paragraph say prior to 1860 (or the formation of the Confederate States of America), Americans were not Americans, or did not consider themselves so? Many did refer to their home states as their identity rather than the United States - but it was a bit of a 'family' idiom. To the rest of the world, Americans were Americans - not Virginians or New Yorkers.

I can't say Lincoln had much to do with the altering of the Constitution, which was handled by teams of Trumbull and Stevens. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was to insure the 13th Amendment was not circumvented, and many other supplementary legislations had to be enacted so that former rebel states did not vote for the amendments to regain Union status only to do a sneak-around in their legislatures to circumvent the Constitution. This was amazingly successful for nearly 100 years while the Federal government looked the other way. Had Lincoln had a second term, judging by his notes and statements, these maneuvers would largely have been exposed for what they were and nipped. Instead, Andrew Johnson preferred to let the South go on its way, which appeared to be back to perdition for a large number of Southerners - black ones.

Oh, I see you've added a post. Well, I don't mind states breaking off from other states and reforming as new ones but what you suggest is indeed off the wall. I don't see the advantage of forming separatist enclaves rather than working through differences to a common goal. Very few have reason to complain in the US that they cannot be themselves as long as they do not violate the law. Nothing's perfect, of course, but it still works better than what you suggest.

As to removing others' ways of life - 1860-1865 - I just can't help but smile! Sometimes others' way of life involves removing liberty, political power, culture, etc from somebody else. Kind of goes against the 'old' Constitution's guarantees!
We were not members of an American "Nation" as we understand it today. That evolved during and after the war. Only partially implemented for decades after.

I would say Lincoln, the Republicans, and the war all played a role in not just altering but transforming the Constitution (not by written word but by how it was "interpreted" and how we view it) Had it been otherwise, the war would never have occurred, nor reconstruction and similar events enacted after.

The advantage is called self-government. It is unknown since the Civil War, which is why you don't mind missing it. It was something generations of men worldwide deemed worthy of preserving and dying for. Modern centralized states teach the population blind obedience, patriotism, and democracy to ensure they lose touch with self-government. The fact you find nothing to complain about in modern America shows how slavish the entire population has become; both North and South in 1860 would have seceded from modern America.

Only in a centralized system, my friend! And if you think it is wrong to destroy the liberty of others, you must endorse my ideas!
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,405
Reaction score
3,042
Ah, the twisted logic! I think it is wrong to destroy the liberty of others but I definitely do not endorse your ideas. You have based them on a distorted view (and it must be deliberately distorted in order to make your ideas work) of the Constitution and how it is interpreted and how it was intended to be interpreted. I do not see how Lincoln's view of the Constitution brought on the war, but rather the misinterpretation by the Southern fire eaters and secessionists of that same Constitution, notably Calhoun. The Confederacy must have agreed with almost all of it as they adopted it nearly unchanged as their own - the change revolving around slavery. They altered the Constitution to fit their own needs and provided a false narrative of 'look over there!' to accommodate this glaring change. They also usurped power from the people at Montgomery by turning themselves into a government/congress. They had been voted in as delegates to a conference to discuss secession and the various alternatives - instead they staged a coup and installed an unelected president and formed a government without the consent of the people. Bait and switch is not a good way to start! Neither is suppression of the free press. Anybody who printed anything against them was liable to be tied to his own printing press and dumped into the Mississippi. Lincoln could not share his speeches and messages with the people of the South because of this - a great many of them did not even know he was running for president - oddly, this suppression of freedom resulted in Lincoln's election. Quite ironic how that worked out! I simply cannot see where freedom in the Confederacy meant anything but suppression and oppression for everybody but the minority wealthy slave-owning aristocracy. Their culture and society was the one that you refer to as being incompatible with the rest of the country.
 

Bilbobaggins

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
39
Ah, the twisted logic! I think it is wrong to destroy the liberty of others but I definitely do not endorse your ideas. You have based them on a distorted view (and it must be deliberately distorted in order to make your ideas work) of the Constitution and how it is interpreted and how it was intended to be interpreted. I do not see how Lincoln's view of the Constitution brought on the war, but rather the misinterpretation by the Southern fire eaters and secessionists of that same Constitution, notably Calhoun. The Confederacy must have agreed with almost all of it as they adopted it nearly unchanged as their own - the change revolving around slavery. They altered the Constitution to fit their own needs and provided a false narrative of 'look over there!' to accommodate this glaring change. They also usurped power from the people at Montgomery by turning themselves into a government/congress. They had been voted in as delegates to a conference to discuss secession and the various alternatives - instead they staged a coup and installed an unelected president and formed a government without the consent of the people. Bait and switch is not a good way to start! Neither is suppression of the free press. Anybody who printed anything against them was liable to be tied to his own printing press and dumped into the Mississippi. Lincoln could not share his speeches and messages with the people of the South because of this - a great many of them did not even know he was running for president - oddly, this suppression of freedom resulted in Lincoln's election. Quite ironic how that worked out! I simply cannot see where freedom in the Confederacy meant anything but suppression and oppression for everybody but the minority wealthy slave-owning aristocracy. Their culture and society was the one that you refer to as being incompatible with the rest of the country.
We are speaking on different levels, my friend. America destroys the liberty of all in part because of the Constitution!! No one in America enjoys the self-government that free men have enjoyed historically. My ideas are not my own; they have been shared to humanity for thousands of years before the rise of the modern centralized state! The Confederacy is not my ideal! Far from it. Just less evil than the North.

As for the Confederacy, almost everything you have stated is false and addressed in my book! You don't see "I do not see how Lincoln's view of the Constitution brought on the war" because you have not read my book, and history is taught from post-Lincoln looking back. The South (and almost universally, pre 1850 America, north and South) viewed it this way, but they are not allowed to be heard, which is why I wrote the book! America changed dramatically in the 1850's, and the Republican party was its political party. The South refused to change.

All documented.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
4,531
That is the one!
Have you read the South Carolina? Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union...

South Carolina never makes a list of grievances against the Federal government. The only concern they have is with slavery and complaining about the actions of other states. I want to point out that in our Declaration of Independence, we gave the English a list of grievances to justify our ending our ties with them. South Carolina offers nothing in the way of grievances.

Have you ever read the full title of the Articles of Confederation? I will give it to you... The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. I believe you understand what the word perpetual means... Our Constitution is an administrative document organizing our government so the Perpetual Union carries over...


The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 states of the United States, formerly the Thirteen Colonies, that served as the nation's first frame of government. It was debated by the Second Continental Congress at Independence Hall in Philadelphia between July 1776 and November 1777, and finalized by the Congress on November 15, 1777. It came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 colonial states.

This became the Constitutional Convention. Delegates quickly agreed that the defects of the frame of government could not be remedied by altering the Articles, and so went beyond their mandate by replacing it with a new constitution. On March 4, 1789, the government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government by establishing a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The document also stipulates that its provisions "shall be inviolably observed by every state" and that "the Union shall be perpetual".


Abraham Lincoln stated:
The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.
The purpose of the former document was not only to define the relationship among the new states but also to stipulate the permanent nature of the new union. Accordingly, Article XIII states that the Union "shall be perpetual". While the process to ratify the Articles began in 1777, the Union only became a legal entity in 1781 when all states had ratified the agreement. The Second Continental Congress approved the Articles for ratification by the sovereign States on November 15, 1777, which occurred during the period from July 1778 to March 1781.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw ... is a conditional ratification … Compacts must be reciprocal … The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. — James Madison,, letter to Alexander Hamilton (July 20, 1788), emphasis added.[5]
[6]

In his first inaugural address, George Washington referred to an "indissoluble union", and in his farewell address to the country, telling Americans that they should maintain "the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness."[9] In his farewell address, Washington stated that the union of states was "your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual", and in urging Americans to maintain it, stated that "you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness."[10] Patrick Henry, shortly before his death, urged Americans not to "split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."[11]

There is hope for you... Some states included language to leave but South Carolina was not one of them...

During the ratification of the Constitution, ratifications by New York, Virginia and Rhode Island included language that reserved the right of those states to exit the U.S. federal system if they felt "harmed" by the arrangement. In Virginia's ratification the reservation is stated thus; "…the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression …"
 

Bilbobaggins

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
39
Have you read the South Carolina? Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union...

South Carolina never makes a list of grievances against the Federal government. The only concern they have is with slavery and complaining about the actions of other states. I want to point out that in our Declaration of Independence, we gave the English a list of grievances to justify our ending our ties with them. South Carolina offers nothing in the way of grievances.

Have you ever read the full title of the Articles of Confederation? I will give it to you... The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. I believe you understand what the word perpetual means... Our Constitution is an administrative document organizing our government so the Perpetual Union carries over...


The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 states of the United States, formerly the Thirteen Colonies, that served as the nation's first frame of government. It was debated by the Second Continental Congress at Independence Hall in Philadelphia between July 1776 and November 1777, and finalized by the Congress on November 15, 1777. It came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 colonial states.

This became the Constitutional Convention. Delegates quickly agreed that the defects of the frame of government could not be remedied by altering the Articles, and so went beyond their mandate by replacing it with a new constitution. On March 4, 1789, the government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government by establishing a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The document also stipulates that its provisions "shall be inviolably observed by every state" and that "the Union shall be perpetual".


Abraham Lincoln stated:


The purpose of the former document was not only to define the relationship among the new states but also to stipulate the permanent nature of the new union. Accordingly, Article XIII states that the Union "shall be perpetual". While the process to ratify the Articles began in 1777, the Union only became a legal entity in 1781 when all states had ratified the agreement. The Second Continental Congress approved the Articles for ratification by the sovereign States on November 15, 1777, which occurred during the period from July 1778 to March 1781.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw ... is a conditional ratification … Compacts must be reciprocal … The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. — James Madison,, letter to Alexander Hamilton (July 20, 1788), emphasis added.[5]
[6]

In his first inaugural address, George Washington referred to an "indissoluble union", and in his farewell address to the country, telling Americans that they should maintain "the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness."[9] In his farewell address, Washington stated that the union of states was "your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual", and in urging Americans to maintain it, stated that "you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness."[10] Patrick Henry, shortly before his death, urged Americans not to "split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."[11]

There is hope for you... Some states included language to leave but South Carolina was not one of them...

During the ratification of the Constitution, ratifications by New York, Virginia and Rhode Island included language that reserved the right of those states to exit the U.S. federal system if they felt "harmed" by the arrangement. In Virginia's ratification the reservation is stated thus; "…the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression …"
Thank you for the post but it is a bit hard to read. My book is available free to read on kindle I would like you to read the section on the SC secession document and the Union. If you read my section on the Confederate Constitution and secession I think that will address your other concerns. More vitally, the chapter on how our understanding of the Constitution (how you look at it today) changed from how it was viewed in 1860.

When I get home I can provide you with the specific page numbers.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
4,531
We are speaking on different levels, my friend.
WE ARE! Here is the convention to found the Confederacy and their Constitution is similar to the original Constitution. It was all about slavery form the Southern view point...


Montgomery, chosen for the convention because of its geographically central location, became the first capital of the Confederacy. The delegates began drafting a constitution closely modeled on that of the United States, yet unlike it in one key respect: it explicitly mentioned slavery and provided for the internal trade of slaves (while prohibiting their importation from other nations).

In addition to the statements made in the secession declarations, other compelling evidence that the Civil War was fought entirely over slavery can be found in the letters and speeches of the secession “commissioners” sent out from the states that first seceded to those southern states hesitating to do so.
 

Bilbobaggins

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
39
WE ARE! Here is the convention to found the Confederacy and their Constitution is similar to the original Constitution. It was all about slavery form the Southern view point...


Montgomery, chosen for the convention because of its geographically central location, became the first capital of the Confederacy. The delegates began drafting a constitution closely modeled on that of the United States, yet unlike it in one key respect: it explicitly mentioned slavery and provided for the internal trade of slaves (while prohibiting their importation from other nations).

In addition to the statements made in the secession declarations, other compelling evidence that the Civil War was fought entirely over slavery can be found in the letters and speeches of the secession “commissioners” sent out from the states that first seceded to those southern states hesitating to do so.
I meant I was not even referring to the Confederacy! But once more, read my section on the Confederate constitution as it addresses this and other false claims.

I will provide you the page numbers when I get home. Free on kindle!
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
4,531
he advantage is called self-government. It is unknown since the Civil War,
The Civil War was not about self-government but about slavery from the Southern point of view... Have you ever heard of the "Secession Commissioners"...

Here is a book on them:


In late 1860 and early 1861, state-appointed commissioners traveled the length and breadth of the slave South carrying a fervent message in pursuit of a clear goal: to persuade the political leadership and the citizenry of the uncommitted slave states to join in the effort to destroy the Union and forge a new Southern nation.

Directly refuting the neo-Confederate contention that slavery was neither the reason for secession nor the catalyst for the resulting onset of hostilities in 1861, Charles B. Dew finds in the commissioners' brutally candid rhetoric a stark white supremacist ideology that proves the contrary. The commissioners included in their speeches a constitutional justification for secession, to be sure, and they pointed to a number of political "outrages" committed by the North in the decades prior to Lincoln's election. But the core of their argument was the reason the right of secession had to be invoked and invoked immediately not turn on matters of constitutional interpretation or political principle. Over and over again, the commissioners returned to the same point: that Lincoln's election signaled an unequivocal commitment on the part of the North to destroy slavery and that emancipation would plunge the South into a racial nightmare.

Dew's discovery and study of the highly illuminating public letters and speeches of these apostles of disunion often relatively obscure men sent out to convert the unconverted to the secessionist cause--have led him to suggest that the arguments the commissioners presented provide us with the best evidence we have of the motives behind the secession of the lower South in 186061.

Addressing topics still hotly debated among historians and the public at large more than a century after the Civil War, Dew challenges many current perceptions of the causes of the conflict. He offers a compelling and clearly substantiated argument that slavery and race were absolutely critical factors in the outbreak of war indeed, that they were at the heart of our great national crisis.

....


Even better I found a site that lists some of their speeches and letters from the "Secession Commissioners"... link below...


In the immediate wake of Lincoln's election, several Southern governors appointed "commissioners" to other states with the avowed purpose of consulting with those states on the appropriate course of action. Many of these commissioners were natives of the state to which they were appointed, and many of them were allowed to speak to the state legislature or state convention.
 

Bilbobaggins

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
39
The Civil War was not about self-government but about slavery from the Southern point of view... Have you ever heard of the "Secession Commissioners"...

Here is a book on them:


In late 1860 and early 1861, state-appointed commissioners traveled the length and breadth of the slave South carrying a fervent message in pursuit of a clear goal: to persuade the political leadership and the citizenry of the uncommitted slave states to join in the effort to destroy the Union and forge a new Southern nation.

Directly refuting the neo-Confederate contention that slavery was neither the reason for secession nor the catalyst for the resulting onset of hostilities in 1861, Charles B. Dew finds in the commissioners' brutally candid rhetoric a stark white supremacist ideology that proves the contrary. The commissioners included in their speeches a constitutional justification for secession, to be sure, and they pointed to a number of political "outrages" committed by the North in the decades prior to Lincoln's election. But the core of their argument was the reason the right of secession had to be invoked and invoked immediately not turn on matters of constitutional interpretation or political principle. Over and over again, the commissioners returned to the same point: that Lincoln's election signaled an unequivocal commitment on the part of the North to destroy slavery and that emancipation would plunge the South into a racial nightmare.

Dew's discovery and study of the highly illuminating public letters and speeches of these apostles of disunion often relatively obscure men sent out to convert the unconverted to the secessionist cause--have led him to suggest that the arguments the commissioners presented provide us with the best evidence we have of the motives behind the secession of the lower South in 186061.

Addressing topics still hotly debated among historians and the public at large more than a century after the Civil War, Dew challenges many current perceptions of the causes of the conflict. He offers a compelling and clearly substantiated argument that slavery and race were absolutely critical factors in the outbreak of war indeed, that they were at the heart of our great national crisis.

....


Even better I found a site that lists some of their speeches and letters from the "Secession Commissioners"... link below...


In the immediate wake of Lincoln's election, several Southern governors appointed "commissioners" to other states with the avowed purpose of consulting with those states on the appropriate course of action. Many of these commissioners were natives of the state to which they were appointed, and many of them were allowed to speak to the state legislature or state convention.

Indeed, I have, and I quote from them! You can cite summaries and articles and snippets of documents all you want, but my book takes such documents, quotes them directly, and puts them within the understanding of 1860 America. It will revolutionize your understanding of the events if you stop reading modern writers and allow the south to be understood from their perspective and that of 1860 America! , but you must be willing, and I do not think you are.

Remember, the book is free via Amazon Kindle. So, chapters 2-4 are what I would love for you to read. It is understandable if you don't want to take that much time. I told you I would provide page numbers for you, so regarding the Confederate constitution, see pages 79-87. For the SC secession document, see 117-120, but preferably starting at 105 for context.
 

Bilbobaggins

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
39
Have you read the South Carolina? Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union...

South Carolina never makes a list of grievances against the Federal government. The only concern they have is with slavery and complaining about the actions of other states. I want to point out that in our Declaration of Independence, we gave the English a list of grievances to justify our ending our ties with them. South Carolina offers nothing in the way of grievances.

Have you ever read the full title of the Articles of Confederation? I will give it to you... The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. I believe you understand what the word perpetual means... Our Constitution is an administrative document organizing our government so the Perpetual Union carries over...


The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 states of the United States, formerly the Thirteen Colonies, that served as the nation's first frame of government. It was debated by the Second Continental Congress at Independence Hall in Philadelphia between July 1776 and November 1777, and finalized by the Congress on November 15, 1777. It came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 colonial states.

This became the Constitutional Convention. Delegates quickly agreed that the defects of the frame of government could not be remedied by altering the Articles, and so went beyond their mandate by replacing it with a new constitution. On March 4, 1789, the government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government by establishing a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The document also stipulates that its provisions "shall be inviolably observed by every state" and that "the Union shall be perpetual".


Abraham Lincoln stated:


The purpose of the former document was not only to define the relationship among the new states but also to stipulate the permanent nature of the new union. Accordingly, Article XIII states that the Union "shall be perpetual". While the process to ratify the Articles began in 1777, the Union only became a legal entity in 1781 when all states had ratified the agreement. The Second Continental Congress approved the Articles for ratification by the sovereign States on November 15, 1777, which occurred during the period from July 1778 to March 1781.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw ... is a conditional ratification … Compacts must be reciprocal … The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. — James Madison,, letter to Alexander Hamilton (July 20, 1788), emphasis added.[5]
[6]

In his first inaugural address, George Washington referred to an "indissoluble union", and in his farewell address to the country, telling Americans that they should maintain "the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness."[9] In his farewell address, Washington stated that the union of states was "your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual", and in urging Americans to maintain it, stated that "you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness."[10] Patrick Henry, shortly before his death, urged Americans not to "split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."[11]

There is hope for you... Some states included language to leave but South Carolina was not one of them...

During the ratification of the Constitution, ratifications by New York, Virginia and Rhode Island included language that reserved the right of those states to exit the U.S. federal system if they felt "harmed" by the arrangement. In Virginia's ratification the reservation is stated thus; "…the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression …"
Apologies, for the Union in 1860 and the transformation of it into a nation, as well as the Constitutions radical change see chapter 4 pages 164-217.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,405
Reaction score
3,042
We are speaking on different levels, my friend. America destroys the liberty of all in part because of the Constitution!! No one in America enjoys the self-government that free men have enjoyed historically. My ideas are not my own; they have been shared to humanity for thousands of years before the rise of the modern centralized state! The Confederacy is not my ideal! Far from it. Just less evil than the North.

As for the Confederacy, almost everything you have stated is false and addressed in my book! You don't see "I do not see how Lincoln's view of the Constitution brought on the war" because you have not read my book, and history is taught from post-Lincoln looking back. The South (and almost universally, pre 1850 America, north and South) viewed it this way, but they are not allowed to be heard, which is why I wrote the book! America changed dramatically in the 1850's, and the Republican party was its political party. The South refused to change.

All documented.
Well, I see you're very passionate about me reading your book but you have only stated I am wrong. Since you have much documentation and have written a book, it should not be hard for you to refute me with those sources.

"History is taught from post-Lincoln looking back" does not make sense. Nor does it make sense to say the South has not been heard. I believe they have been heard loud and clear for over 150 years! Some of them, anyway. You can't deny a large portion - millions - of black Southerners (and others) have not only not been heard but have been actively squelched. You may tell 'your truth' but what needs to be told is 'THE truth'. All of it. That's what I prefer.

I'm afraid the 'ideals' you espouse have indeed been common to humanity for thousands of years, and they have caused thousands of wars, ruin, death and general despair. The postbellum South is an example of exactly that. Mississippi went from the richest state in the Union to the poorest - not because of evil Yankees but because of plain, old-fashioned arrogance and pride. In fact, Mississippi is a remarkably good example of where it all went wrong and why it stayed that way for a long time. There were several reasons Davis was selected to be president, but not least of them was he was from Mississippi.
 

Bilbobaggins

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
39
Well, I see you're very passionate about me reading your book but you have only stated I am wrong. Since you have much documentation and have written a book, it should not be hard for you to refute me with those sources.

"History is taught from post-Lincoln looking back" does not make sense. Nor does it make sense to say the South has not been heard. I believe they have been heard loud and clear for over 150 years! Some of them, anyway. You can't deny a large portion - millions - of black Southerners (and others) have not only not been heard but have been actively squelched. You may tell 'your truth' but what needs to be told is 'THE truth'. All of it. That's what I prefer.

I'm afraid the 'ideals' you espouse have indeed been common to humanity for thousands of years, and they have caused thousands of wars, ruin, death and general despair. The postbellum South is an example of exactly that. Mississippi went from the richest state in the Union to the poorest - not because of evil Yankees but because of plain, old-fashioned arrogance and pride. In fact, Mississippi is a remarkably good example of where it all went wrong and why it stayed that way for a long time. There were several reasons Davis was selected to be president, but not least of them was he was from Mississippi.

I believe I already have, it's in my book! It might sound ridiculous but I do not have direct access to my book in a format where I can copy/paste. I could summarize, but that takes a lot of time from a busy me.

It does if we are taught to view our history in light of the winner writing it from a nationalistic perspective. Whether it makes sense to you does not matter; whether it is true does. Many people have been silenced throughout history; they should all be allowed to speak, southerners included, white and black! My chapter on slavery, in part, is an attempt at allowing blacks who endured it to tell us what it was like rather than modern whites in 2023!

The perfect opposite is true. I have a book coming out this year, I will gladly lend you it. The statistics are clear, and the results are obvious! Even the example you cite involved a moment toward realization that caused the civil war and its bloody aftermath. I will look forward to a discussion on that and more with you, as I am sure you will desire to engage and debate it with me.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
4,531
for the Union in 1860 and the transformation of it into a nation, as well as the Constitutions radical change
Here just read the first post on this thread... A usurpation of power in 1860...

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
4,531
Constitutions radical change
The changes to the Constitution were modernizing it to the new realities for the world had changed. Many of those changes were done to keep the reacquired South states from bringing back slavery, protecting the Freedmen's right to vote and lastly making all-state subject to the Bill of Rights.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
4,531
the SC secession document,
I read this document and came away thinking South Carolinians were unhappy children because the children did not want to play by their rules. I point out that the document does not list any grievances(like taxes) about any usurpations by the Federal government of that time. It bemoans Lincoln's election win, recaps history poorly, and whines about other states' behaviors towards slavery. It never once spells out what the Federal government has done to cause the binds to be broken...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
4,531
Indeed, I have, and I quote from them!
You see they speak of slavery as the fundamental institution they are protecting by seceding from the union and this perceived fallacy the Northern people were coming to end slavery...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
4,531
@Bilbobaggins... You words "How often did this slave breeding occur? I provide some historical data to show it was very rare."

I have a link for you:

 
Top