StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The very fact that "Abolitionist" is considered an insult to the common southerners, let alone the motivation to fight at all, makes it clear that it is part of the Slavery Protection motivation that southerners to this day claim poor whites did not have.

I will be more specific. Most likely, the whites raised in that society considered slavocracy perfectly tenable, and even morally obligatory. However, such a statement as the general's cannot be an acceptable platform for making determinations about primary motivations. It is also impossible to know whether Southern males marched to war eager to defend that economy, or simply convinced that the choice was out of their hands. What makes it quite so difficult is, of course, that all of the potential economic and political "havoc" that the North might have raised would have grown out of alterations to the slave system.

Duckie wrote:You would not deny it was a call to fight against blacks and linking blackness to crime and further asking people to fight for whiteness, no?

Not really, no. It would still be a call to self-defense against people that are not inherently "bad" by virtue of being, supposedly, abolitionists, but rather by their supposed actions as murderers, rapists, etc.

Abolitionist is clearly being used as a moral condemnation of the North here, thus its use in a sentence talking about Northern 'crimes', and as an impetus to motivate the south to fight against them and for Slavery- perhaps not all of it, but certainly some of the impetus.

I never disputed that some Southerners fought for slavery. I simply dispute that the quote in any way demonstrates that people were fighting for slavery rather than their state.

Stas Bush wrote:Yeah, it's not the main thrust of his accusation, but the very phrase "abolition hosts" indicates that abolitionism is a very serious issue for Confederate soldiers. Actually, the confederate diary referenced above indicates it as well.

I'm frankly not too surprised "abolitionist" was something of an insult back then. It wasn't until the 1850s that they became anything other than fringe-radical whackjobs. And it doesn't help that the most famous abolitionist at the time, John Brown, was both a murderer and wanted to violently destroy Southern society.

It doesn't, as far as I'm concerned, do anything to change the fact that some Confederate soldiers fought out of patriotism/duty for their state rather than for slavery, Robert E. Lee being probably the most notable example. And that soldier you quoted earlier about how the war aim transformed into emancipation seems to support it to an extent.

TC Pilot wrote:I simply dispute that the quote in any way demonstrates that people were fighting for slavery rather than their state.

What? What else would demonstrate they are fighting for slavery? Their state was a slave-holding government. If they are protecting it and referncing the enemy as abolitionists specifically, they are fighting for slavery.

Stas Bush wrote: What? What else would demonstrate they are fighting for slavery? Their state was a slave-holding government. If they are protecting it and referncing the enemy as abolitionists specifically, they are fighting for slavery.

Not that I would ever argue that the Confederacy was not fighting in defence of slavery, but the governments of Confederate States and the Confederate federal government never directly owned slaves. This was actually a serious problem in the US civil war, when they found they couldn’t get slave owners to rent slaves to the military to build fortifications, and had to pass laws allowing for a form of slave conscription for that purpose, and also work on railroads. The slave owners didn’t like that one bit, since naturally they needed every slave they had to work the plantations. Though, one of the few times slaves were given up willingly for war work was in ordered to mount the guns and build the batteries used to bombard Fort Sumter.

In the end though, the Confederate were willing to give up on slavery for independence, as they eventually passed a law granting freedom to any slave who served in the military for two years. But by then it was 1865, and this was clearly just a last desperate act in the hopes of avoiding four years of death and destruction having all been for nothing.

Stas Bush wrote:What? What else would demonstrate they are fighting for slavery?

Them saying so? I'm sure one can find a better quote than the Civil War equivalent of "Muslim jihadists are attacking! Come fight them or they'll kill you all!"

Their state was a slave-holding government. If they are protecting it and referncing the enemy as abolitionists specifically, they are fighting for slavery.

That's an incredibly disingenuous argument to make, at best. Personal motivations are not dictated from on high by the government they serve under, least of all not for the multitude of conscripts that served on either side.

I'm sure one can find a better quote than the Civil War equivalent of "Muslim jihadists are attacking! Come fight them or they'll kill you all!"

So? Muslim jihadists is a derogatory term which identifies the enemy's cultural and social aims (installation of Islam in a Holy war), much like in the Civil War. You're basically proving the point you're trying to refute - the whole society they lived in, the social structure they served was based on, and included, slavery as one of the foundations.

Stas Bush wrote:You're basically proving the point you're trying to refute - the whole society they lived in, the social structure they served was based on, and included, slavery as one of the foundations.

Where did I say I disputed this? I think you've completely misunderstood what I'm trying to say here.

My argument: "Rogue 9 says people didn't really fight for their states, but rather for slavery. Here's a quote that proves it. I say, that quote doesn't say what you think it says and doesn't change the fact that some people fought for their state, though it is true that some people fought for slavery."

Your argument is based on the idea that Southern states weren't identifying with slavery, making the point of "fighting for their states" moot. That's like the argument that many Nazis fought "for their homeland". That would be true, but the Nazi ideology permeated and warped the concept of homeland.

You're separating their states and slavery, but the ugly truth is that their societies and slavery were inseparable, and the real defense was of that society, not of a particular patch of land.

Then, as far as I'm concerned, the point is irrelevant, if not just simplistic. I'm talking about personal motivations, regardless of the fact that the society they lived in revolved around the institution of slavery.

Stas Bush wrote:Your argument is based on the idea that Southern states weren't identifying with slavery, making the point of "fighting for their states" moot. That's like the argument that many Nazis fought "for their homeland". That would be true, but the Nazi ideology permeated and warped the concept of homeland.

Yeah except you use the word Nazi rather than German. Assigning blanket motivations for an entire generation, particularly as in this case off one or even a handful of primary sources, is stepping into very dangerous territory. I mean, would you argue that the majority of Soviet soldiers fought to protect Stalinism?

thejester wrote:I mean, would you argue that the majority of Soviet soldiers fought to protect Stalinism?

The Soviet Union was invaded by people not intent on abolishing slavery, but abolishing the "untermensch", so that's hardly a just comparison. That aside, a more apt comparison would be the Russian Civil War.

Would you argue that the majority of the Red Army fought to install communism in Russia in the Civil War, or would you argue that they fought for something else?

That's a fitting comparison; in the Russian Civil War, the Red side fought for socialism/communism, other motives were present of course, but communist/socialist social order was one of the main, critical divergence points.

Yet, it is also true that there was a multi-party intervention by Japanese, US, Germans into Russia; and that the Red Army also fought for it's homeland. Oftentimes the invaders were engaging brutal and unforgiving cleansing (Japanese invasion of the Far East). Does this mean the Red Army did not have the higher objective of protecting communism?

Protecting Russia and protecting communism, for the Red Army, were one and the same in the Russian Civil War.

A lot of people seem to want to shove words in my mouth so they can use canned arguments... Pretty much what I expected, and why I was fine leaving things at one post instead of trying to brute de-entrench. Further I've yet to see anyone articulate the "States Rights" issue supposedly involved.

Rogue 9 wrote:

FOG3 wrote:Unless your purpose is pure banality, I fail to see how this even constitutes an argument.

The only state's right issue I'm familiar with in relation to the Civil War is the right to secede from the Union, which none of this challenges. All I see is a hackneyed gotcha maneuver of "look slavery, suxors."

Then you're not looking very carefully. My point is not to simply denigrate the Slave Power by pointing out that they held slaves; that happens by itself without my intervention. My point is that the institution of slavery itself was the cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war. I demonstrated this by showing that it was concern for slavery, not unrelated tyranny of the federal government, that was cited as the primary motivation for the secession by the secessionists themselves. Everyone knows the Confederacy was composed of slave states; simply pointing that out would not add anything.

You want me to name states that had no slaves that were part of the CSA? Like say Arizona who's agenda was to be a separate entity from the New Mexico territory? For the North the war was about the Union, not slavery.

The Civil War was a complex event and the slavery verse emancipation demarcation is one of the least accurate over simplifications.

Are you familiar with the Dred Scott case? Did you know it involved a Missouri slave, named naturally Dred Scott, who was taken to Illinois and Wisconsin? Are you aware of the Sommersett's case that set the precedent or the Massachusetts Case that preceded Dred Scott in 1836? Are you aware the Missouri district court freed Mr. Dred Scott? The Missouri Sumpreme Court reversing the decision with the American Supreme Court deferring to them by a vote of 7-2?

Are you aware the real significance of the case was by its precedence it opened the Territories to slavery? Which the North wanted to keep free of Blacks? As already stated this same state staying a slave state throughout the war?

Harper's Ferry and the follow up was the direct reason for secession, you can't cut those corners sir and pretend to be covering the issue. Unless you really want this to devolve to pointless back and forth surrounding the times when both sides seriously thought about secession. Or are you ignorant of the fact the North almost did so earlier in history.

Rogue 9 wrote:Then they were misguided as well as fucking evil; if there were no slaves, there could be no slave rebellions, precipitated by free blacks or not.

Freeing slaves doesn't magicly teleport them out of America if that's what you're implying. I notice the free pass on Missouri, etc. while ignoring the logistics requirements of your claim. Otherwise are you seriously delving so far into comic book logic you think that either solves the issue or would be perceived as solving the issue by any reasonable person in the South?

You're also ignoring the little problem that fanatics undermine the credibility of those that can be associated with them. Especially when said fanatics were not just anti-slavery but anti-Southern in their vitriol. Just like you're pointlessly doing well after the fact. Power dynamics do not suddenly go out of play because it is the past, sir.

Here's a reference with details on the matter. 1827, more then 4 times as many anti-slavery societies then in the North.

Rogue 9 wrote:John Brown did not, as was already pointed out, wish to indiscriminately slaughter Southerners; he wished to establish an armed haven for escaped slaves. His plan in the Harper's Ferry raid was to head south, drawing off slaves as he went and fighting only in self-defense until he and his men had depleted as much of Virginia as possible of its slaves.

The guy seized a Federal Arsenal, basis as you and your associates say for treason. Yeah, fomenting large movement of slaves armed out of a Federal Arsenal the last iteration of which involved indiscriminate slaughter, shouldn't be a problem huh? The fact your serious when saying that defies disbelief.

These were people, not comic book characters. Plus there's the little matter of who martyred him, and how that was the issue of real significance which you choose to blatantly ignore in favor of... comic book logic.

The Pottawatomie Creek massacre did occur I might remind you, and criminals always blame the victims anyway. I'm sure I can did up a dozen mass murderering sociopaths & paranoid-delusional schizophrenics claiming their intentions were peaceful if I really wanted to without half trying.

Honestly even High School textbooks acknowledge this. Are they part of some Grand Southern Apologist Conspiracy too, that you guys seem to be obsessing over?

Rogue 9 wrote:It requires no spin doctoring at all. The fort was federal property, and the state of South Carolina had no claim upon it. Want proof? Here you go:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

As the above bill passed by the South Carolina legislature twenty-five years before clearly states, all claim of the state to the site of the fort was extinguished, and it was wholly the property of the United States federal government. South Carolinian insurgents attacked the fort without first being fired upon (from batteries that had also been given over to the federal government in like manner, I might add), which is an act of war, and since they were citizens of the United States, an act of treason as well.

So your claim is a bunch of idiots started the war on no one's authority for no good reason? In RL, and you're going to hold this up on high?

You know what you want to hold that up, knock yourself out.

Rogue 9 wrote:Irrelevant to the point, but I'll respond anyway. I shall now post a quote from Lincoln popular among his detractors, but I shall do something that said detractors never do and post the following paragraph as well.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

I say his main motivation was the preservation of Union above all else. You post him elucidating how and why it was the Union above all else in response. Are you agreeing with me or what?

Rogue 9 wrote:As you can see, Lincoln was doing no less than what every President should: Putting his duty ahead of his own personal wishes. Which was an excellent thing for the South, I might add, because of this little gem:

Abraham Lincoln wrote:Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

And? Not a proper abolitionist isn't exactly calling someone pro-slavery, sir. Nor did I remember asserting he wasn't a wall against the Radical Republicans and thus a benefit to the South in many regards. Doesn't change some extremely nasty stuff happened under his watch that pales on in scale practical at the times to what later has been called great atrocities, either.

Rogue 9 wrote:You couldn't be more wrong. The Slave Power's constitution specifically forbade free states from joining the Confederacy.

Confederate Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 3 wrote:The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Robert Barnwell Rhett, chairman of the Slave Power's constitutional convention, directly expressed his wish to form a slaveholders' republic, and his exultation at having done so when the convention was completed. The occasion of secession was the wish to protect the institution of slavery. The Slave Power was not about to abolish slavery as long as it stood as a nation; to do so would obviate the entire reason for its existence.

Are you seriously desperate enough to take a part of the law designed to prevent cases based on the precedent of the Sommersett's Case to somehow magically prove gradual emancipation was not happening? You're kind of missing the mark guy.

Rogue 9 wrote:Yes, there were and are cultural differences, and they were more pronounced at the time of the Civil War than they are today, but the ones that were important were all exacerbated by slavery, primarily the South's agrarian society in contrast to the industrialized North. The existence of slavery permitted that culture to exist; to pretend that they're separate issues is an exercise in gross denial.

[/quote]So you're claim is that the cultures would be homogenous the instant slavery was abolished? Uh-huh. Also I think you're missing a very, very, very important influential group in the North if you think it's just argiculture verse industrialists.

The Mason-Dixon line can in many ways be blamed for giving them some basis to line up along.

FOG3 wrote:A lot of people seem to want to shove words in my mouth so they can use canned arguments... Pretty much what I expected, and why I was fine leaving things at one post instead of trying to brute de-entrench. Further I've yet to see anyone articulate the "States Rights" issue supposedly involved.

Rogue 9 wrote:Then you're not looking very carefully. My point is not to simply denigrate the Slave Power by pointing out that they held slaves; that happens by itself without my intervention. My point is that the institution of slavery itself was the cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war. I demonstrated this by showing that it was concern for slavery, not unrelated tyranny of the federal government, that was cited as the primary motivation for the secession by the secessionists themselves. Everyone knows the Confederacy was composed of slave states; simply pointing that out would not add anything.

You want me to name states that had no slaves that were part of the CSA? Like say Arizona who's agenda was to be a separate entity from the New Mexico territory? For the North the war was about the Union, not slavery.

Are you fucking nuts? Arizona wasn't a state at the time! Regardless, the Confederate constitution forbade the entry of free states, as already pointed out, so even if Arizona achieved statehood and joined the Slave Power, it would be forced to permit slavery.

FOG3 wrote:The Civil War was a complex event and the slavery verse emancipation demarcation is one of the least accurate over simplifications.

It's a good thing I'm not using that demarcation, then. My post does not, even once, make the claim that the Union was fighting for emancipation. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention; I tend to tire quickly when forced to answer irrelevancies.

FOG3 wrote:Are you familiar with the Dred Scott case? Did you know it involved a Missouri slave, named naturally Dred Scott, who was taken to Illinois and Wisconsin? Are you aware of the Sommersett's case that set the precedent or the Massachusetts Case that preceded Dred Scott in 1836? Are you aware the Missouri district court freed Mr. Dred Scott? The Missouri Sumpreme Court reversing the decision with the American Supreme Court deferring to them by a vote of 7-2?

Are you aware the real significance of the case was by its precedence it opened the Territories to slavery? Which the North wanted to keep free of Blacks? As already stated this same state staying a slave state throughout the war?

Irrelevant. The topic of this post is the motivations of the Slave Power, not those of the Union. If you wish me to delve into the constitutional issues of secession, then I can and will do so.

FOG3 wrote:Harper's Ferry and the follow up was the direct reason for secession, you can't cut those corners sir and pretend to be covering the issue. Unless you really want this to devolve to pointless back and forth surrounding the times when both sides seriously thought about secession. Or are you ignorant of the fact the North almost did so earlier in history.

I am quite familiar with it; they would have been equally treasonous had they done so. Since they did not, the point is moot.

FOG3 wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Then they were misguided as well as fucking evil; if there were no slaves, there could be no slave rebellions, precipitated by free blacks or not.

Freeing slaves doesn't magicly teleport them out of America if that's what you're implying. I notice the free pass on Missouri, etc. while ignoring the logistics requirements of your claim. Otherwise are you seriously delving so far into comic book logic you think that either solves the issue or would be perceived as solving the issue by any reasonable person in the South?

You're dodging the entire point of the post, which is to prove that the motivation of the South was the preservation of slavery, not the motivations of the Union. If you'd read it, you would know that.

FOG3 wrote:You're also ignoring the little problem that fanatics undermine the credibility of those that can be associated with them. Especially when said fanatics were not just anti-slavery but anti-Southern in their vitriol. Just like you're pointlessly doing well after the fact. Power dynamics do not suddenly go out of play because it is the past, sir.

Here's a reference with details on the matter. 1827, more then 4 times as many anti-slavery societies then in the North.

Bloody good for them. In 1860, the South seceded over the slavery issue. Which is the point of this thread. Pay attention.

FOG3 wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:John Brown did not, as was already pointed out, wish to indiscriminately slaughter Southerners; he wished to establish an armed haven for escaped slaves. His plan in the Harper's Ferry raid was to head south, drawing off slaves as he went and fighting only in self-defense until he and his men had depleted as much of Virginia as possible of its slaves.

The guy seized a Federal Arsenal, basis as you and your associates say for treason. Yeah, fomenting large movement of slaves armed out of a Federal Arsenal the last iteration of which involved indiscriminate slaughter, shouldn't be a problem huh? The fact your serious when saying that defies disbelief.

These were people, not comic book characters. Plus there's the little matter of who martyred him, and how that was the issue of real significance which you choose to blatantly ignore in favor of... comic book logic.

The Pottawatomie Creek massacre did occur I might remind you, and criminals always blame the victims anyway. I'm sure I can did up a dozen mass murderering sociopaths & paranoid-delusional schizophrenics claiming their intentions were peaceful if I really wanted to without half trying.

Honestly even High School textbooks acknowledge this. Are they part of some Grand Southern Apologist Conspiracy too, that you guys seem to be obsessing over?

John Brown was certainly a traitor against the United States. He was simply one with a moral motivation, as opposed to the traitors of the Slave Power.

FOG3 wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:It requires no spin doctoring at all. The fort was federal property, and the state of South Carolina had no claim upon it. Want proof? Here you go:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

As the above bill passed by the South Carolina legislature twenty-five years before clearly states, all claim of the state to the site of the fort was extinguished, and it was wholly the property of the United States federal government. South Carolinian insurgents attacked the fort without first being fired upon (from batteries that had also been given over to the federal government in like manner, I might add), which is an act of war, and since they were citizens of the United States, an act of treason as well.

So your claim is a bunch of idiots started the war on no one's authority for no good reason? In RL, and you're going to hold this up on high?

You know what you want to hold that up, knock yourself out.

...

No, you blithering idiot, my claim is that the Fort Sumter incident was an act of war by the Slave Power against the Union, not the other way around. You claimed that:

FOG3 wrote:The Fort Sumter incident requiring no small amount of spin doctoring to be proper justification for Lincoln to wage war, hence the rise of terminology such as "The War of Northern Aggression."

South Carolinian insurgents, with the authority of their insurgent government, opened fire on a United States federal installation. That is justification to wage war. Fucking deal with it.

FOG3 wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Irrelevant to the point, but I'll respond anyway. I shall now post a quote from Lincoln popular among his detractors, but I shall do something that said detractors never do and post the following paragraph as well.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

I say his main motivation was the preservation of Union above all else. You post him elucidating how and why it was the Union above all else in response. Are you agreeing with me or what?

No, you said he wasn't a "proper" abolitionist, when in fact he was. He was also principled enough to not abuse the powers of his office to advance his personal agenda. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure, undertaken as part of his authority as Commander in Chief to prosecute the war against the Slave Power. Since Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware had the good sense to not commit treason as a whole, war measures could not apply to them. This isn't a difficult concept.

FOG3 wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:As you can see, Lincoln was doing no less than what every President should: Putting his duty ahead of his own personal wishes. Which was an excellent thing for the South, I might add, because of this little gem:

Abraham Lincoln wrote:Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

And? Not a proper abolitionist isn't exactly calling someone pro-slavery, sir. Nor did I remember asserting he wasn't a wall against the Radical Republicans and thus a benefit to the South in many regards. Doesn't change some extremely nasty stuff happened under his watch that pales on in scale practical at the times to what later has been called great atrocities, either.

War is hell. But bitching about atrocities is morbidly hilarious coming from someone defending a government formed on the principle of perpetuating one of the greatest atrocities in human history.

FOG3 wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:You couldn't be more wrong. The Slave Power's constitution specifically forbade free states from joining the Confederacy.

Confederate Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 3 wrote:The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Robert Barnwell Rhett, chairman of the Slave Power's constitutional convention, directly expressed his wish to form a slaveholders' republic, and his exultation at having done so when the convention was completed. The occasion of secession was the wish to protect the institution of slavery. The Slave Power was not about to abolish slavery as long as it stood as a nation; to do so would obviate the entire reason for its existence.

Are you seriously desperate enough to take a part of the law designed to prevent cases based on the precedent of the Sommersett's Case to somehow magically prove gradual emancipation was not happening? You're kind of missing the mark guy.

Excuse me? First, I haven't seen one syllable out of you showing that gradual emancipation was intended to happen under the Confederate government. Secondly, I quoted their fucking constitution, which made emancipation by the government unconstitutional. Right there, black and fucking white, "In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government." Furthermore:

Constitution of the Confederate States, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 wrote:No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

It could not be much clearer. Legal emancipation was never coming under the government the Slave Power created for itself.

FOG3 wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Yes, there were and are cultural differences, and they were more pronounced at the time of the Civil War than they are today, but the ones that were important were all exacerbated by slavery, primarily the South's agrarian society in contrast to the industrialized North. The existence of slavery permitted that culture to exist; to pretend that they're separate issues is an exercise in gross denial.

So you're claim is that the cultures would be homogenous the instant slavery was abolished? Uh-huh. Also I think you're missing a very, very, very important influential group in the North if you think it's just argiculture verse industrialists.

The Mason-Dixon line can in many ways be blamed for giving them some basis to line up along.

No, that's not what my claim is. My claim is that slavery exacerbated the problem, not that the problem would immediately vanish without slavery, which as we all know it did not.