Biden senior adviser says White House will start acting on reparations ‘now’

You can believe anything you want but historical facts are historical facts. They don’t change simply because you haven’t been taught real history.

There were many reasons for secession, chief among them the unfair tariff congress passed and the fact most of the money the govt collected was spent on northern industry. Very little went to improve the south. Republicans wanted to consolidate power at the federal level. Southerners wanted it kept in the states. Overreach of federal power, and power within Congress are a few reasons, but there were others.

Only four out of 13 states that wrote secession documents even mention slavery as a reason, SC, GA, MS, TX. and none of them cited it as the primary cause.

By comparison, nine State secession declarations do not mention slavery: AL, FL, LA, NC, TN, AR, VA, KY, and MO.

Seven State declarations cite John Brown’s Raid directly or indirectly: SC, GA, MS, TX, FL, KY, and MO.

Six State declarations give Lincoln’s invasion as the primary reason: VA, NC, TN, AR, KY, and MO.

The four States that mention slavery do so in the context of Northern nullification of constitutional guarantees and obligations regarding slavery (e.g., the Fugitive Slave Law and the Fugitive Slave Clause of Art. IV of the Constitution), Northern attempts to foment slave insurrections and murder of Southerners, refusals by Republican governors and courts to honor the Extradition Clause of Art. IV of the Constitution by protecting fugitive members of John Brown’s gang, incendiary publications encouraging slaves to poison their masters and burn homesteads, and the like.

Only two of the four declarations that mention slavery, MS, TX mention slavery on a per se basis, but here again they do so in the context of the irresponsible demands by Northern abolitionists for immediate and uncompensated emancipation and for political equality of whites and Negroes: “It [the demand of Northern abolitionists] seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.” (MS) This, however, is only one among the long list of reasons for secession given by TX and MS in their declarations.

There is some ambiguity about the declarations as regards the States of Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Missouri. Kentucky and Missouri were overrun and occupied by Federal troops before the secession conventions could be fully assembled, and so their declarations were issued by their governments in exile. Florida and Louisiana gave no reasons in their declarations, as none were deemed necessary, but later some reasons were unofficially presented.

Only 6% of southerners owned slaves so you’re telling me that 94% went to war to keep an institution that did not benefit them in the least. The south consisted mostly of poor farmers. It doesn’t make sense. Two hundred thousand Union troops deserted after the EP. They weren’t going to die to free black men. So the slavery as a reason for war makes no sense.

“Believe me no solider on either side gave a ** about slaves, they were fighting for other reasons entirely in their minds. Southerns thought they were fighting the second American revolution, norther’s thought they were fighting to hold the union together [With a few abolitionist and fire eaters on both sides].”
– Shelby Foote

There were many reasons, Chief among them the unfair tariff congress passed and the fact most of the money the govt collected was spent on northern industry. Very little went to improve the south. Republicans wanted to consolidate power at the federal level. Southerners wanted it kept in the states. Overreach of federal power, and power within Congress are a few reasons, but there were others.

Only four out of 13 states that wrote secession documents even mention slavery as a reason, SC, GA, MS, TX. and none of them cited it as the primary cause.

By comparison, nine State secession declarations do not mention slavery: AL, FL, LA, NC, TN, AR, VA, KY, and MO.

Seven State declarations cite John Brown’s Raid directly or indirectly: SC, GA, MS, TX, FL, KY, and MO.

Six State declarations give Lincoln’s invasion as the primary reason: VA, NC, TN, AR, KY, and MO.

The four States that mention slavery do so in the context of Northern nullification of constitutional guarantees and obligations regarding slavery (e.g., the Fugitive Slave Law and the Fugitive Slave Clause of Art. IV of the Constitution), Northern attempts to foment slave insurrections and murder of Southerners, refusals by Republican governors and courts to honor the Extradition Clause of Art. IV of the Constitution by protecting fugitive members of John Brown’s gang, incendiary publications encouraging slaves to poison their masters and burn homesteads, and the like.

Only two of the four declarations that mention slavery, MS, TX mention slavery on a per se basis, but here again they do so in the context of the irresponsible demands by Northern abolitionists for immediate and uncompensated emancipation and for political equality of whites and Negroes: “It [the demand of Northern abolitionists] seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.” (MS) This, however, is only one among the long list of reasons for secession given by TX and MS in their declarations.

There is some ambiguity about the declarations as regards the States of Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Missouri. Kentucky and Missouri were overrun and occupied by Federal troops before the secession conventions could be fully assembled, and so their declarations were issued by their governments in exile. Florida and Louisiana gave no reasons in their declarations, as none were deemed necessary, but later some reasons were unofficially presented.

Only 6% of southerners owned slaves so you’re telling me that 94% went to war to keep an institution that did not benefit them in the least. The south consisted mostly of poor farmers. It doesn’t make sense. Two hundred thousand Union troops deserted after the EP. They weren’t going to die to free black men. So the slavery as a reason for war makes no sense.

“Believe me no solider on either side gave a ** about slaves, they were fighting for other reasons entirely in their minds. Southerns thought they were fighting the second American revolution, norther’s thought they were fighting to hold the union together [With a few abolitionist and fire eaters on both sides].”
– Shelby Foote

No, they didn’t. The Corwin Amendment guaranteed slavery would be legal in perpetuity. It was passed BEFORE secession, so the south could have kept legalized slavery forever by simply staying in the Union, so please explain why they left. . Lincoln promised NOT to interfere with slavery where it was legal.

Secession and war are two different things. You are obviously having a hard time telling the difference. The south went to war because it was invaded. And before you bring up Sumter, let’s look at what really happened at Fort Sumter. Sumter was fired upon because Lincoln sent warships and 1200 troops plus landing craft into Charleston Harbor. I’ll be glad to post a timeline of actual events. Gustavo Fox planned the whole thing with Lincoln’s approval. After the firing on Fort Sumter Lincoln sent the following letter to Fox.

“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter [sic], even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. Very truly your friend A. LINCOLN”

Northern newspapers wrote the following after Sumter…..

The American Standard in New Jersey wrote on April 12:

“If this result follows—and follow civil war it must—the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated . . . And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: ‘Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed.’”

The Providence Daily Post editorialized on April 13:

“We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a party better than he loves his country . . . Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor . . . he clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction . . . What, really, do we want of the fort? It is not worth to us, while South Carolina remains out of the Union, a brass farthing.”

On April 16, the Buffalo Daily Courier wrote:

The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy . . . If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces, had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished.”

Finally, the New York Evening Day Book wrote on April 17:

“We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South . . . We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding . . . Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it.”

Sorry, but you’re wrong. The war was about secession, not slavery.

The post war attitudes of Southerners to former slaves was the same as pre-war. If you want to see racism in the South in the era of the war, look at the Carpetbaggers.