Friday, February 8, 2013

WHAT SOUTHERN LEADERS BRAGGED OF IN 1861 -- CONFEDERATE APOLOGIST DARE NOT WHISPER NOW



SOUTH HATED 


 "STATES RIGHTS" 


WHEN KANSAS REJECTED SLAVERY 







Bet you did not know that Southern leaders REJECTED states rights when Kansas rejected slavery.

Reject?  Actually they hated states rights -- and promised war if Kansas people rejected slavery. Southern leaders -- including United States Senator David Atchison, were already killing people in Kansas, and had been for years, who voted and spoke  against slavery.

Jefferson Davis had been helping thugs kill people in Kansas, since 1854.     Here is a speech by US Senator David Atchison, as he gets ready for one of his murderous raids into Kansas:




Did you ever hear of the Five Southern Ultimatums?

May 9, 1861, Southern newspapers ran the headline "THE TRUE ISSUE"  and listed Five Ultimatums the North needed to do immediately, or face war.






No one -- not one person in the entire country -- was surprised.  


Southern leaders had been killing folks in Kansas for six years already- - the killing and torture by Southern leaders was as vile as anything done by Taliban --- see US Senator David Atchison speech below, urging death and torture of people in Kansas who dared vote against slavery, or even speak against slavery.


Personally killed voters in Kansas - US Sentator David Atichison, bragged about taking 1700 men to Kansas,
promised 5000 more to "kill every abolitionist in the Territories".




 According to Edward Pollard, who wrote probably the first "history" of the Confederacy in 1865, bragged about it.   He claimed -- and he was right -- that the North had been "amply warned"  that electing a man against the spread of slavery was "A declaration of war" against the South.

Indeed Pollard was right - the North was warned -- David Atchison, US Senator had bragged about it.   So did 

Here is David Atchison's speech to a group of thugs, before one of his raids into Kansas to kill anyone against slavery, and anyone who spoke against slavery.  This was BEFORE the Civil War.



New York papers printed the Five Ultimatums, two days later, and suggested Lincoln obey -- of course, Lincoln could not force slavery into Kansas.  Kansas had voted against slavery, once by 98% against slavery.  No one in their right mind expected Lincoln to obey the goofy war ultimatums.




Jeff Davis wanted Lincoln to be handed the Five Ultimatums, but he would not see Alexander Stephens, nor anyone else who had the Five Ultimatums or any message like it. He already knew what they wanted, they had been demanding the spread of slavery for 60 years, the entire  history of the US since 1800 was little more than Southern leaders pushing slavery again and again, where it had been outlawed.

Only now -- Kansas fought back, and no one was fooled, on either side.  Kansas rejected slavery by the ballot, and by war.

  



Kansas made all the difference.  Kansas laid bare the violence and deception by Southern leaders -- who were all for "state's rights"  and popular sovereignty until the public again, and again, and again, rejected slavery in Kansas.

Jefferson Davis came up with this "logic" -- blacks are not human beings, they are inferior beings, and as such are property, not persons.

Therefore, it does not matter what the public thinks in Kansas, they can not prevent anyone from "enjoying" Kansas with their "property".

Don't believe me -- read his own damn book about it.






The first organized attack to kill abolitionist was in 1855, when 1000 men, led  mostly likely by slave owner and US Senator Davis Atchison, raided the federal armory at Liberty Missouri -- took the guns and ammunition, and went to Kansas to kill.

Kansas voted against slavery anyway, which just pissed off David Atchison and the South generally.  God ordained slavery, and Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery -- 98% vote didn't matter,

When that attempt failed, Atchison promised to take 5000 men next time, and kill every abolitionist in Kansas.




Just so happens, Atchison and Stephen A Douglas were good friends, and arranged for the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, which had prohibited slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, but allowed it South of a geographic line. The South had demanded the "Compromise" a few years before, so they could spread slavery in Texas, Arkansas and Missouri.




But now, the exact same folks who demanded that "compromise" so they could  spread slavery in Texas Missouri and Arkansas, , now called that a "trick of the devil" in one paper, and insisted people in Kansas should be able to vote on slavery.

So the people in Kansas DID vote -- and rejected slavery.  

WHich pissed the holy hell out of the lunatic bullies in Southern leadership.  They thought they had Kansas "in the bag" that sending 1000 men to kill, would be enough. Nope.  Wasn't.

That's when shit hit the fan.



Even though Kansas rejected slavery for 8 years by fighting against the thousands of men slave owners sent to threaten and kill them.

Like US Senator, and slave owner, David Atchison -- he bragged about going to Kansas to "Kill every abolitionist" in the territory.
Stephen Douglas close friend and slave owner,
David Atchison, US Senator.
Bragged about going to Kansas with 5000 men  to "Kill every abolitionist in the Territories"


Oh you didn't know that?  Funny what your history book "forgot" to tell you about.

Before Atchison bragged he would take 5000 men, he took 1700 men, for other killings and threats.   Why?  Because Kansas whites were against slavery -- and kept voting and fighting AGAINST slavery.

Sound like state's rights to you?  Of course not.  

See how SOuthern sociopaths "justified"  violence in Kansas, when and because Kansas rejected slavery. 

History text books do mention "Bloody Kansas"  but they never tell you candidly Southern leaders went to war -- and promised more war -- BECAUSE Kansas rejected slavery.  


Why don't your history books tell you?  Because for over 100 years, Southern states have been cry babies, and their school boards shit their pants and demanded such information was kept out. 

Along with most things we show you - most US text books present it in a way not to piss off Southern and Confederate apologist. Hey, 150 years of letting Southern states control text books, is enough.



Davis Atchison, for example, a US Senator, who with Stephen A Douglas, got the Missouri compromise repealed, to allow the spread of slavery further.   They planned to FORCE Kansas whites to vote for slavery, by taking 1000 men, one time, 1700 men another time, to kill and intimidate Kansas whites.


It did not work -- Kansas STILL rejected slavery.

So Atchison famously promised to bring 5000 and kill ALL the abolitionists, next time.   

That was not some nut - that was a US Senator, a slave owner, and he had thousands of men, and was going to take thousands more -- to kill and threaten. Why? Because Kansas voters rejected slavery.

Sound like state's rights to you?  Really?



This was not the only attempt to use massive force to kill abolitionist in Kansas.  Remember, Douglas and Atchison removed the Missouri Compromise - - supposedly so Kansas whites could vote on it.

DOUGLAS FLIPS ON SLAVERY
TO GET SUPPORT OF HIS RAILROAD PROFIT

Douglas was one of the Senators who got the "Missouri Compromise" though -- allowing slavery to spread, but only below a certain geographic line.    It was against numerous laws and the Louisiana Purchase to allow slavery to spread there, but the "Compromise"  was the South getting to spread slavery into Missouri, Texas, Arkansas.


Remember, the SOUTH demanded that, and promised it was all they wanted.

A few years later, however, South got Douglas to now kill the very Compromise he and they wanted.  Douglas had spoke so over the top in support of the Missiouri Compromise -- claiming it was "enshrined in our hearts, forever settling the issue of slavery in this great country".


The Missouri Compromise has become a sacred thing" said Davis, "enshrined in the hearts of the American People... which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb".

Which was  bullshit -- the Compromise allowed massive spread of slavery, but below that geographic line

MORE MORE MORE

But the South, within a few years, wanted more -- more land for more slavery, and to spread slavery throughout all the West -- including the center of the country, Kansas and Nebraska.  But they were bragging they wanted much more even after that "All the way to the Pacific" screamed David Atchison, above.

But the Compromise would have to go - the South had promised to keep slavery SOUTH, remember?   But now they wanted much, much more.

All the way to the Pacific, and Oregon too - and by the way, we might take California.   

It wasnt but a few weeks after Missouri Compromise, which allowed spread of slavery BELOW a certain geographic line, that Southerners started to demand more spread -- far NORTH of that line, specifically into Kansas Nebraska, and Oregon.



( The best place to learn history is from Southern newspapers at the time, with editors and Southern leaders bragging endlessly about spreading slavery -- by violence if need be).

No one told you that did they?  Getting the Missouri "Compromise" was a joy -- till they wanted even more.

The "deal" to allow the spread of slavery into Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas, was to keep slavery OUT of Kansas and Nebraska and anything NORTH of the georgraphic line set in the agreement.

the South was joyous about the spread of slavery, and boasted of it, -- but then demanded more, and the North cried foul. 

The Northern politicians knew the Southern leaders were slave  -crazy, and half way expected them to keep pushing the spread of slaver by violence or deception. 

But Stephen A Douglas surprised them -- he, as much as anyone, was the "brains" behind the Mo Compromise.  

Yet Douglas soon repudiated the compromise, and demanded that Kansas folks get to vote.

But like true sociopaths, when Kansas did vote against slavery, the Southern leaders - including Douglas -- came up with excuses to force slavery into Kansas anyway.


DOUGLAS PAY OFF

Douglas cleverly included his own Pacific Railroad plan -- where he would get fabulously wealthy --with the Missouri Compromise repeal, so the South would support him.  Davis was a frequent house guest of Jefferson Davis, according to Davis letters, and bossom buddies with the Missiuri Senator, David Atchison, who wanted a piece of the Pacific Railroad action too.


He got the two things in the same vote, at the same time.  The South actually wanted a lower route for the first train to the West, but they eagerly voted for Pacific railroad, to get their spead of slavery.

Naturally, all the slave states loved it -- spread of slavery time -- and voted with, and loved, Douglas, for it.

But not  a few years before, Douglas is the guy that  pushed the Missouri Comprise through, saying it was 



WHen Kansas whites voted against slavery-- all hell broke lose. 


No one told you that did they? That's a shame, because everyone spoke of it then.   In fact, everyone was very focused on it -- Southerners proud of it, and Anti slavery Northerners, like Lincoln, aghast.



And in the middle of all that, Stephen A Douglas and the US Supreme Court rule blacks are not even human beings, but are inferior beings, and are property, NOT  PERSONS.




The Confederate States of America was founded to spread slavery for GOD -- literally founded on spread of slavery -- according to their own leaders.

Just like the USA was founded on (rhetorically anyway) "all men are created equal" -- Southern leaders said that was "religious error" because God ordained blacks to be enslaved.

That's not what I say now, that is what SOuthern leaders, their President and Vice President, and Southern documents, and Southern books, and Southern headlines, said then.  At the time, SOuthern leaders were in agreement,  their nation was FOUNDED on the "great moral truth" that blacks are inferior beings.

And Southern leaders said states do NOT have rights to reject slavery because blacks were "so inferior" they were not human persons.  

Who said so? Glad you asked. 

The US Supreme Court said it.





You will never hear a Confederate apologist  today say blacks were "so inferior"  they were actually an "inferior being" given to white man by God to do the hard labor.




You will never hear Confederate apologist demand the spread of slavery into a state that rejected slavery 3 times by vote, and for four years by war.

You will have to get that from Jeff Davis books, at the time.





Persons of African race were not,  and could not be acknowledged as part of the people.

NOT PART OF THE PEOPLE - THEY ARE PROPERTY


  GETTING A DIFFERENT EXCUSE 


Southern leaders said so.  Loudly, and proudly.  No, no one teaches this extreme ugly truth now, but SOuthern leaders boasted of it, out the ass, at the time. 


Southern leaders, after they created the CSA, issued five ultimatums.  All five were about the spread of slavery.  

Lincoln would not obey their war ultimatums, listed with much bravado in Southern papers -- see for yourself below.

 Lincoln was an evil man -- because he sought to stop the SPREAD of slavery.  Specifically, the First War Ultimatum was for Lincoln to allow the spread of slavery in Kansas, specifically by name, Kansas. 

Never mind that Kansas voted 98% against slavery,  never mind that Kansas people fought against this spread of slavery.   Never mind logic, or truth, or votes.   Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery, said Davis, and the COnfederate leadership.

Oh you never heard that?   Its not usually in history books today, but it was headlines at the time.  

Southern leaders boasted -- BOASTED -- that Kansas must accept slavery or their would be war.  Not kinda war, but war.  




1) Southern leaders demand for spread of slavery AGAINST states rights.

2) Southern leaders search of a different excuse -- because they hated states rights by 1861

3) All Lincoln Douglas debates  -- as well as the Southern leaders demands to spread slavery -- were about Dred Scott decision that blacks were not human for purposes of the US Constitution.  


THE RESISTANCE TO THE SPREAD OF SLAVERY
 INTO KANSAS 
  WAS "THE INTOLERABLE GRIEVANCE"  



Ever notice,  Confederate apologists today dare not whisper what their leaders shouted from the rooftops at the time?









You will never hear a Confederate apologist say States Rights or
"popular sovereignty"  was a trick of the devil.


You will have to get that from Southern newspapers at the time.




HOUSE DIVIDED SPEECH
The most basic fact of the Civil War most often ignored, or glossed over now, was not ignored or glossed over then.

Southern leaders hated "state's rights" and "popular sovereignty" by 1861.

Oh, yes, early on they DID say states rights, about every 40 seconds or so, to justify the spread of slavery.



But when Kansas rejected slavery -- and California wasn't about to allow slavery, Southern leaders almost overnight dropped state's right's excuse.  Quite the opposite.

Suddenly they used a different excuse. We tell you what that was, though Jefferson Davis made it quite clear at the time.

______________________________________________________

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATES


No one missed the irony of Southern state's flip flop on state's rights. Northern newspapers  pointed it out frequently.   Lincoln pointed it, in his own way,  in  every Lincoln Douglas debate. 

You know about Lincoln's famous "House Divided"  speech?   That speech was largely about the Southern leaders deceptions and frauds of their "justification"  for the spread of slavery, specifically Dred Scott decision.

What do schools and "historians" tell people today that Dred Scott was about ?  Citizenship!  Infact, Eric Foner tries to pass it off as a "rather slim ruling"  about "Congress's right to bestow citizenship".

Nonsense -- Davis and the Southern slave owners on USSC all said it was about PROPERTY -- human, (persons) or property.

That was how Davis himself said it. That is how the Taney Court said it -- and Taney himself said it over and over and over.  

That is how Lincoln himself said it.  SO the people actually there, actually doing things, they all spoke in terms of human vs property. 

See this video clip from 1939 movie -- it's a very good distillation of the both man's speech. In fact, the screen writers obviously got copies of the actual debates, because most of the lines are taken verbatum from the debates as they appeared in the paper.

Of course, the video is necessarily condensed, but neither man's opinion was distorted in the least, these are their words, almost exactly, and these are the main points in the debates.


 THIS IS A VIDEO --CLICK ON IT

Southern leaders had done 180 degree turn on states rights, one newspaper calling "popular sovereignty"  a trick of the devil!!
In fact, Jeff Davis said it this way --  bragging of it.



 You probably saw this Davis quote before -- this is why  he said this quote -- because he was rejecting states rights, rejecting popular sovereignty  -- yes, he claimed states rights and popular sovereignty when it got him more slavery, and rejected states rights and popular sovereignty when it slowed him down from spreading slavery.  





But in Davis own book, written long after the war, he still said the "resistance" to slavery in Kansas was "the intolerable grievance".

It's a shame our history books never examine the difference between excuses given, and reasons things are done. But they don't.  Worse, they just omit Davis repeated and emphatic rejection of states rights AND popular sovereignty 



 KANSAS CHANGED EVERYTHING  


 The "prequel" to the Civil War was the fight to spread slavery into Kansas, from 1850 or so, right up to 1861.

Kansas voters (white men) rejected slavery overwhelmingly in 1855, but slave owners were not satisfied.  

In 1857,  Slave supporters had their own "constitution" vote,  in Lecompton, but there was no place on their ballot to vote against slavery.

You never heard that?  Shame on your history teacher, this was as basic as it gets.  The 1857 vote was rigged, no place on it to vote against slavery. One of the most important facts in US history, was the rigged vote in Kansas.

That fraudulent vote was the "Lecompton"  vote, and it fooled no one.  Even Steven Douglas, a Northern ally of slave owners, called it fraudulent, after which Jeff Davis forever hated him.

Kansas folks then voted again - and again, and again -- all three times overwhelmingly rejecting slavery. One vote was 98% to 2% against slavery. And of course the 4 year war to reject slavery.



Davis, however, insisted all that  did not matter!  Kansas rejection of slavery by vote did not matter!  Kansas rejection by 3 votes and a war, did not matter!



The Confederate Constitution specifically said slavery "shall" be spread into Kansas -- even though Kansas had voted overwhelmingly against it.



CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION DEMANDED SPREAD OF SLAVERY..... 

Did the COnfederates know Kansas had rejected slavery overwhelingly?

Of course they knew, Kansas was the biggest news and controversy in the United States Congress, and in newspapers, for years.



SOUTHERN NEWSPAPER  HEADLINES BOASTED  THIS IS
"THE TRUE ISSUE"


As the Civil War grew nearer, Southern leaders used euphemisms about slavery less, and were more direct.






The excuse -- the new excuse -- was Dred Scott decision.  This is how Jefferson Davis himself described Dred Scott decision.





The Taney Court declared


1) Blacks are inferior beings

2) Blacks are so inferior they can not be "part of the people"


3) Blacks are part of the "property" clauses of US Constitution only.


4) No state, no Congress, can bestow "peoplehood" to blacks






This is from Davis -- he wrote this...




Persons of African race were not,  and could not be acknowledged as part of the people.

That was Davis quoting the Taney Court!  Blacks were not, and COULD NOT BE acknowledged as part of the people.

They were property.   Period.


Therefore, as property, any property owner could take his "property" into Kansas.  Kansas had to obey the US constition as decided by the slave owners on the USSC.

IT did not matter if Kansas voted 98% against slavery -- they must accept slavery -- and protect that slavery by legislation!.




  STATES RIGHTS EXCUSE  


Southern leaders -- especially Confederate leaders -- shouted this from the rooftops.  Jefferson Davis boasted of it in speech after speech, and wrote about it before, during and after the Civil War.


The "status" of blacks was the status of property, specifically NOT the status of persons, by "clear declaration" of Dred Scott.



You probably heard of Lincoln Douglas debates, right? What you don't know, is that the Dred Scott decision was the main topic of every Lincoln Douglas debate.

At the time, Davis and others spoke candidly -- blacks were inferior beings, said the Supreme Court.  And as inferior beings, they were
not equal to whites for purposes of Constitution -- in fact, they were property, and therefore as property, the owner of that property was protected. Specifically  no state, no territory, no act of Congress, can over ride this part of the Constitution to change that status of blacks as property.


The "status" of blacks = inferior beings = property under the Constitution.






Davis was emphatic -- Dred Scott, he wrote, changed everything.

 Because of the "inferior nature" of blacks, they were property for purposes of the Constitution.


 DEMANDING SPREAD OF SLAVERY 


You probably never heard of the Five Southern Ultimatums, but almost everyone else did, at the time.  They were headlines in Virginia newspapers -- and New York papers ran the same Five Ultimatums two days later.


The Civil War was two weeks away -- Southern states had already seceded    The first official act of the Confederacy was this -- they demanded the spread of slavery.


As the Virginia paper itself boasted, this was the "TRUE ISSUE" was the headline -- was their demands to spread slavery.  New York papers suggested Lincoln obey the demands. 


Lincoln, however, could not possibly obey this. Spread slavery into Kansas? Kansas people had overwhelmingly rejected slavery -- yet here the CSA first official act was in essence a declaration of war -- spread slavery into Kansas.\\













NO ONE SURPRISED


 Not one person in the United States was surprised, at all, when Richmond newspaper ran the headlines about demanding spread of slavery as a war ultimatum.  Their newspapers and speeches had been about this for years.


It may come as a surprise to people now, who are told erroneously that  Southern leaders were about "states rights".  Quite the opposite was true, and in 1861, Southern leaders were quite proud of that. They have learned to reject states rights, when Kansas rejected slavery.

Davis, as shown, used Dred Scott decision to justify the demands to spread slavery into Kansas.   But after secession, Dred Scott decision was not binding on the Confederacy -- that was a USA Taney court decision.


So how then did Davis justify forcing slavery into Kansas?  He said popular sovereignty  the will of the people, is not the concern.  Look at this famous Davis quote, he was justifying force of slavery in to Kansas... with these words 








SOUTHERN BOASTS

Edward Pollard, editor of Richmond newspapers, bragged in his book, written just after the Civil War, that the South had "clearly warned"   that the election of Lincoln, because he was against the spread of slavery, "would be taken as an Act of War"  against the south.

 Lincoln however, would do anything but allow slavery to spread,  and then stand by while rebels attacked.   Some say Lincoln "tricked" South into striking first, but that is not so. The South had been attacking for decades, one way or another.
___________________________________________________





It was clear the real concern of Southern leaders was to spread slavery, whatever excuse was needed.















Northern leaders noted the Five Ultimatums to spread slavery, even if your history teacher "forgot" to mention them... Here is from a speech by Ernest Jones, in 1863, speaking of Davis Five Ultimatums
.
"Then why did they offer Jefferson Davis's ultimatum?  Was that for independence or for slavery? 

It —it was for the lash, not for liberty, that their ultimatum issued.  Independence! aye! independence to maim the slave—independence to renew the slave trade—independence to spread slavery over the earth that God made free,the independence of Satan to create a hell and spread its confines to the gates of heaven. 
(Confederacy)   has sought to overrun the West with slavery.  Nay!  "Mexico and central America are open to us," cry the Southern leaders—they publicly avow their intention of spreading slavery among the nations—they are "God-sent missionaries" they say—and their mission is to "extend slavery wherever God and nature carry it."

Toombs, in his speech to Georgia officials, was quite clear -- we either expand slavery or we perish.   


Toombs said, essentially, this talk of stopping the spread of slavery is a trick to kill us. Anti slavery radicals are  "binding us in" and we will have to "sting ourselves to death" like a scorpion surrounded by fire.


 Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy.


The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will  make it sting itself to death.
 One thing at least is certain, that whatever may be the effect of your exclusion from the Territories, there is no dispute but that the North mean it, and adopt it as a measure hostile to slavery upon this point. They all agree, they are all unanimous in Congress, in the States, on the rostrum, in the sanctuary - everywhere they declare that slavery shall not go into the Territories. They took up arms to drive it out of Kansas; 

Their own leaders were livid that Kansas rejected slavery -- Davis, Toombs, the Confederate Congress spoke about it openly in speeches, and ultimatums -- slavery must be spread into Kansas.

The North was keeping slavery out of the territories -- that was how the North would make us "sting ourselves to death" from the overabundance of slaves.

Have you heard of the "Cornerstone Speech" by Alexander H Stephens? He was the most famous orator of his era, and his series of eight speeches were carried in Southern newspapers.  He went on tour of eight cities to tell them about the new Constitution just adopted by Confederate leaders.

Crowds cheered the speech, this was not some bad Northern writer years later accusing South of being based on slavery and spread of slavery for God.  This was the Vice President of the Confederacy, repeatedly, at great length (the speech was two hours long) bragging about the foundation of the Confederacy.




C



The "inferior nature" of blacks was the cornerstone of the Confederacy --- bragged the Vice President, too.  Alexander Stephens gave a series of 8 speeches, to cheering crowds,  explaining the Confderate Constitution within days after helping to write it.




This was the basic demand - spread slavery. 
Davis even wrote of this in his book -- Rise and Fall of the Confederacy...the intolerable grievance....




A few "details" you didn't know.

Southern leaders were not coy about it, not clever, not timid.   Their speeches, books, and documents were quite clear -- spread slavery or their will be war.

Not kinda, not sorta, not in a way.  This did not come from bad old "Northern" historians later, it came from Jeff Davis, Alexander Stephens, Robert Toombs, at the time, as loudly and as clearly as they could make it.

Jefferson Davis insisted blacks were "so inferior"  that Kansas could  not legally reject slavery - Kansas  had  voted 98% to keep slavery out.   But Davis  demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, both before, and after, the start of the Civil War.  

  In fact, he boasted about it, from the rooftops, at the time.

Blacks were "inferior beings" insisted Davis in writing, and as such were not "part of the people"  but where part of your property. 

Therefore, said Davis, Kansas people's 98% vote against slavery did  not matter:  Slaves were property, and Kansas had to "respect and protect" that property.



Why was Davis and others so violently set on spreading slavery into Kansas?  Even after Kansas rejected slavery overwhelmingly?


Because -- bluntly -- there were too many slaves in the South, and soon blacks would outnumber whites.  This was common knowledge in the South, no one pretended otherwise. 

 There were dozens of speeches about this --  here is a quote from one....




"Before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will about to eleven millions of persons.   What shall be done with them?  We must expand or perish"
SLAVE REBELLION IN HAITI  - DEATH OF ALL WHITES

The fear of  the growth of slave population was basic to Southern culture, and politics, and therefore, South's demand to spread slavery.  Here is from Florida's "Declaration of Causes"  why it had to leave the United States -- the  "death by slow fire" that will come if Lincoln prevents the spread of slavery.






See the emphasis in the original?   This fear of slave uprising may be news to you, but it was everyday fear in some areas of the South.   And as slavery grew exponentially in some areas, the fear grew too.

 S

Just speaking against slavery was a "erroneous" religious belief.   South Carolina was furious that people in the North were even allowed to form groups or publish books against God's wish for slavery.



When Davis said  the North  "deprived the Southern States" of equality -- he was talking about Kansas voters rejection of slavery by vote. How dare people in Kansas reject slavery!!   Dred Scott decision says they can not!






Why couldn't Kansas decide for itself?   After all, didn't states have rights to decide things like that?  Was not the South all about states rights?

No - state's rights was always and excuse, never a reason.   Men who sell children and have women tied up to be whipped, do not really care about rights anyway.  But they do care about excuses to justify it.







SOUTHERN LEADERS LOUD & PROUD 
        DEMANDS TO SPREAD SLAVERY





People today think Civil War was about the South "protecting" slavery against Lincoln's threat to end it.  No.  Lincoln never threatened to end it,  LINCOLN concern was to stop the SPREAD of slavery.



In fact, Southern books at the time, bragged that they warned the North -- "in no uncertain terms"    that electing Lincoln  would be taken as an "ACT OF WAR"




Remember that -- electing Lincoln was an "ACT OF WAR"   because of Lincoln's resistance to the spread of slavery.


 The slave uprising in Haiti, still in memory to people of the South, killed every white person on the islands.  You might not know the Southern leaders used this fear -- but they did.  Did they really believe whites would be killed?

Hard telling, but they sure said it at the time.






  
The "rapid increase" of density of slave numbers frightened Southern leaders.  In another generation, Toombs said, slaves would outnumber whites in key areas, and "We will be exterminated"

EX -- TERM -IN - ATED if we do not spread slavery. Spread it where? To Kansas.  




Sound like state's rights to you?  Kansas votes -- several times - overwhelmingly to keep slavery out. Everyone knew it, but that didn't matter.









_________________________________________________




That's not someone apologizing -- he was bragging about it


Pollard lists the Cornerstone speech first, as well anyone should.  Vice President Stephens gave this speech a dozen times, to cheering crowds.  It was reported in newspapers ---word for word.   The South was ecstatic about it!











Cornerstone Speech



Alexander H. Stephens

March 21, 1861

Savannah, Georgia
........
I was remarking that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world..... This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.
This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will
.


The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This (SLAVERY) was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.


[Thomas]Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.


The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.


This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth [that white man is superior and should enslave the Negro]


This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this,[slavery] as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests?


[Our nation, the Confederacy] is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society.


Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.


With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the [biblical]curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.


The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His [God's] ordinances, or to question them. For His [God's] own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His [God's] laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else.


Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.
Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that "in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread," and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.
But to pass on: Some have propounded the inquiry whether it is practicable for us to go on with the confederacy without further accessions? Have we the means and ability to maintain nationality among the powers of the earth? On this point I would barely say, that as anxiously as we all have been, and are, for the border States, with institutions similar to ours, to join us, still we are abundantly able to maintain our position, even if they should ultimately make up their minds not to cast their destiny with us. That they ultimately will join us be compelled to do it is my confident belief; but we can get on very well without them, even if they should not.
We have all the essential elements of a high national career. The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we embrace five hundred and sixty-four thousand square miles and upward. This is upward of two hundred thousand square miles more than was included within the limits of the original thirteen States. It is an area of country more than double the territory of France or the Austrian empire. France, in round numbers, has but two hundred and twelve thousand square miles. Austria, in round numbers, has two hundred and forty-eight thousand square miles. Ours is greater than both combined. It is greater than all France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, including England, Ireland, and Scotland, together. In population we have upward of five millions, according to the census of 1860; this includes white and black. The entire population, including white and black, of the original thirteen States, was less than four millions in 1790, and still less in 76, when the independence of our fathers was achieved. If they, with a less population, dared maintain their independence against the greatest power on earth, shall we have any apprehension of maintaining ours now?
In point of material wealth and resources, we are greatly in advance of them. The taxable property of the Confederate States cannot be less than twenty-two hundred millions of dollars! This, I think I venture but little in saying, may be considered as five times more than the colonies possessed at the time they achieved their independence. Georgia, alone, possessed last year, according to the report of our comptroller-general, six hundred and seventy-two millions of taxable property. The debts of the seven confederate States sum up in the aggregate less than eighteen millions, while the existing debts of the other of the late United States sum up in the aggregate the enormous amount of one hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars. This is without taking into account the heavy city debts, corporation debts, and railroad debts, which press, and will continue to press, as a heavy incubus upon the resources of those States. These debts, added to others, make a sum total not much under five hundred millions of dollars. With such an area of territory as we have-with such an amount of population-with a climate and soil unsurpassed by any on the face of the earth-with such resources already at our command-with productions which control the commerce of the world-who can entertain any apprehensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or not?
It is true, I believe I state but the common sentiment, when I declare my earnest desire that the border States should join us. The differences of opinion that existed among us anterior to secession, related more to the policy in securing that result by co-operation than from any difference upon the ultimate security we all looked to in common.
These differences of opinion were more in reference to policy than principle, and as Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in 1801, after the heated contest preceding his election, that there might be differences of opinion without differences on principle, and that all, to some extent, had been Federalists and all Republicans; so it may now be said of us, that whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in having a co-operation with our border sister slave States, if the worst came to the worst, that as we were all co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not.
In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me, that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this, an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. Their works speak for them; the provisional government speaks for them; the constitution of the permanent government will be a lasting monument of their worth, merit, and statesmanship.
But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the result of this revolution?
Will every thing, commenced so well, continue as it has begun? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Providence, may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry, patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail if we become divided if schisms arise if dissentions spring up if factions are engendered if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable.
We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue, that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is essential to good government Organized upon principles of perfect justice and right-seeking amity and friendship with all other powers-I see no obstacle in the way of our upward and onward progress. Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.
The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new assimilation. Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them.
But at first we must necessarily meet with the inconveniences and difficulties and embarrassments incident to all changes of government. These will be felt in our postal affairs and changes in the channel of trade. These inconveniences, it is to be hoped, will be but temporary, and must be borne with patience and forbearance.
As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry.
The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave
That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?
Source: Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, Before, During, and Since the War (Philadelphia, 1886), pp. 717-729.




I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands– the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection– or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.
If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!

Robert Toombs's Speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 13, 1860

In November, 1860, after Lincoln had been elected President, Governor Joe Brown of Georgia called the legislature into session to consider the question of calling a secession convention. The legislature heard from the leading Georgians of the day on the question. This is the speech of future C.S. Secretary of State Robert Toombs, delivered on Nov. 13, 1860.(Text taken from Secession Debated, by Freehling and Simpson; scanned in by Dan Waugaman, to whom I am much indebted for the assistance.)
GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: I very much regret, in appearing before you at your request, to address you on the present state of the country, and the prospect before us, that I can bring you no good tidings. The stern, steady march of events has brought us in conflict with our non-slaveholding confederates upon the fundamental principles of our compact of Union. We have not sought this conflict; we have sought too long to avoid it; our forbearance has been construed into weakness, our magnanimity into fear, until the vindication of our manhood, as well as the defence of our rights, is required at our hands. The door of conciliation and compromise is finally closed by our adversaries, and it remains only to us to meet the conflict with the dignity and firmness of men worthy of freedom. We need no declaration of independence. Above eighty-four years ago our fathers won that by the sword from Great Britain, and above seventy years ago Georgia, with the twelve other confederates, as free, sovereign, and independent States, having perfect governments already in existence, for purposes and objects clearly expressed, and with powers clearly defined, erected a common agent for the attainment of these purposes by the exercise of those powers, and called this agent the United States of America.
The basis, the corner-stone of this Government, was the perfect equality of the free, sovereign, and independent States which made it. They were unequal in population, wealth, and territorial extent - they had great diversities of interests, pursuits, institutions, and laws; but they had common interests, mainly exterior, which they proposed to protect by this common agent - a constitutional united government - without in any degree subjecting their inequalities and diversities to Federal control or action. Peace and commerce with foreign nations could be more effectually and cheaply cultivated by a common agent; therefore they gave the Federal Government the sole management of our relations with foreign governments. The conflicts of interests and the passions of rulers and people bring wars - their effectual prosecution and the common defence could be more certainly and cheaply attained by putting the power of each under the control of a common agent; hence the power of peace and war was given to the Government. These powers made armies, navies, and foreign agents necessary - these could only be maintained by a common treasury. Besides, we had a large debt, contracted at home and abroad in our War of Independence; therefore the great power of taxation was conferred upon this Government. Conflicting commercial regulations of the different States shackled and diminished both foreign and domestic trade; hence the power to regulate commerce was conferred. We had a large common domain, already added by the several States for the common benefit of all; purchase and war might make large additions to this common domain; hence the power over existing and future territories, with the stipulation to admit new States, was conferred. Being independent States, in such close proximity, acts seriously affecting the tranquility of some might be done by others; fugitives from labor and justice in one might seek sanctuary in others, producing strife, and bloodshed, and insecurity; therefore the power was conferred in the common agent, and the duty imposed by the compact upon each confederate to remedy these evils. These were the main objects for forming the Federal Government; the powers it possesses were conferred chiefly with the view of securing them. How have these great duties been discharged by the Federal Government and by our confederates?
The Executive Department of the Federal Government, for forty-eight out of the first sixty years under the present Constitution, was in the hands of Southern Presidents, and so just, fair, and equitable, constitutional and advantageous to the country was the policy which they pursued, that their policy and administrations were generally maintained by the people. Certainly there was no just cause of complaint from the Northern States - no advantage was ever sought or obtained by them for their section of the Republic. They never sought to use a single one of the powers of the Government for the advancement of the local or peculiar interests of the South, and they all left office without leaving a single law on the statute-book where repeal would have affected injuriously a single industrial pursuit, or the business of a single human being in the South. But on the contrary, they had acquiesced in the adoption of a policy in the highest degree beneficial to Northern interests. The principles and policy of these Presidents were marked by the most enlarged and comprehensive statesmanship, promoting the highest interests of the Republic. They enlarged the domains of commerce by treaties with all nations, upon the great principle of equal justice to all nations, and special favors to none. They protected commerce and trade with an efficient navy in every sea. Mr. Jefferson acquired Louisiana, extending from the Balize to the British possessions on the north, and from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean --- a country larger than the whole United States at the time of the acknowledgement of their independence. He guaranteed the protection of the Federal Government by treaty to all the inhabitants of the purchased territory, in their lives, liberties, property and religion --- sanctioned by law the right of all the people of the United States to emigrate into the territory with all of their property of every kind, (expressly including slaves,) to build up new States, and to come into the Union with such constitutions as they might choose to make. Mr. Madison vindicated the honor of the nation, maintained the security of commerce, and the inviolability of the persons of our sailors by the war of 1812. Mr. Monroe acquired Florida from Spain, extending the same guarantee to the inhabitants which Mr. Jefferson had to those of Louisiana. General Jackson compelled France, and other nations of Europe, to do long deferred justice to our plundered merchants. Mr. Tyler acquired Texas by voluntary compact, and Mr. Polk California and New Mexico by successful war. In all their grand additions to the wealth and power of the Republic, these statesmen neither asked nor sought any advantage for their own section; they admitted they were common acquisitions, purchased by the common blood and treasure, and for the common benefit of the people of the Republic, without reference to locality or institutions. Neither these statesmen nor their constituents sought in any way to use the Government for the interest of themselves or their section, or for the injury of a single member of the Confederacy. We can to-day open wide the history of their administrations and point with pride to every act, and challenge the world to point out a single act stained with injustice to the North, or with partiality to their own section. This is our record; let us now examine that of our confederates.
The instant the Government was organized, at the very first Congress, the Northern States evinced a general desire and purpose to use it for their own benefit, and to pervert its powers for sectional advantage, and they have steadily pursued that policy to this day. They demanded a monopoly of the business of ship- building, and got a prohibition against the sale of foreign ships to citizens of the United States, which exists to this day.
They demanded a monopoly of the coasting trade, in order to get higher freights than they could get in open competition with the carriers of the world. Congress gave it to them, and they yet hold this monopoly. And now, to-day, if a foreign vessel in Savannah offer[sl to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber to New-York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for doing your carrying. This same shipping interest, with cormorant rapacity, have steadily burrowed their way through your legislative halls, until they have saddled the agricultural classes with a large portion of the legitimate expenses of their own business. We pay a million of dollars per annum for the lights which guide them into and out of your ports. We built and kept up, at the cost of at least another million a year, hospitals for their sick and disabled seamen when they wear them out and cast them ashore. We pay half a million per annum to support and bring home those they cast away in foreign lands. They demand, and have received, millions of the public money to increase the safety of harbors, and lessen the danger of navigating our rivers. All of which expenses legitimately fall upon their business, and should come out of their own pockets, instead of a common treasury.
Even the fishermen of Massachusetts and New England demand and receive from the public treasury about half a million of dollars per annum as a pure bounty on their business of catching codfish. The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government on his industry to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent from the year 1791 to this day. They will not strike a blow, or stretch a muscle, without bounties from the government. No wonder they cry aloud for the glorious Union; they have the same reason for praising it, that craftsmen of Ephesus had for shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," whom all Asia and the world worshipped. By it they got their wealth; by it they levy tribute on honest labor. It is true that this policy has been largely sustained by the South; it is true that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction - a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South.
Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands.
With these vast advantages, ordinary and extraordinary, one would have supposed the North would have been content, and would have at least respected the security and tranquility of such obedient and profitable brethren; but such is not human nature. They despised the patient victims of their avarice, and they very soon began a war upon our political rights and social institutions, marked by every act of perfidy and treachery which could add a darker hue to such a warfare. In 1820, the Northern party, (and I mean by that term now and whenever else it is used, or its equivalent, in these remarks, the Antislavery or Abolition party of the North,) endeavored to exclude the State of Missouri from admission into the Union, because she chose to protect African slavery in the new State. In the House, where they had a majority, they rejected her application, and a struggle ensued, when some half a dozen of Northern men gave way, and admitted the State, but upon condition of the exclusion of slavery from all that country, acquired from France by the treaty of 1802, lying north of thirty- six degrees thirty minutes, north latitude, and outside of the State of Missouri. This act of exclusion violated the express provisions of the treaty of 1802, to which the National faith was pledged; violated the well-settled policy of the Government, at least from Adams's administration to that day, and has, since slavery was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States, violated the Constitution itself. When we acquired California and New- Mexico this party, scorning all compromises and all concessions, demanded that slavery should be forever excluded from them, and all other acquisitions of the Republic, either by purchase or conquest, forever. This position of this Northern party brought about the troubles of 1850, and the political excitement of 1854. The South at all times demanded nothing but equality in the common territories, equal enjoyment of them with their property, to that extended to Northern citizens and their property ~ nothing more. They said, we pay our part in all the blood and treasure expended in their acquisition. Give us equality of enjoyment, equal right to expansion - it is as necessary to our prosperity as yours. In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death. One thing at least is certain, that whatever may be the effect of your exclusion from the Territories, there is no dispute but that the North mean it, and adopt it as a measure hostile to slavery upon this point. They all agree, they are all unanimous in Congress, in the States, on the rostrum, in the sanctuary - everywhere they declare that slavery shall not go into the Territories. They took up arms to drive it out of Kansas; and Sharpe's rifles were put into the hands of assassins by Abolition preachers to do their work. Are they mistaken? No; they are not. The party put it into their platform at Philadelphia - they have it in the corner-stone of their Chicago platform; Lincoln is on it - pledged to it. Hamlin is on it, and pledged to it; every Abolitionist in the Union, in or out of place, is openly pledged, in some manner, to drive us from the common Territories. This conflict, at least, is irrepressible - it is easily understood -we demand the equal right with the North to go into the common Territories with all of our property, slaves included, and to be there protected in its peaceable enjoyment by the Federal Government, until such Territories may come into the Union as equal States-then we admit them with or without slavery, as the people themselves may decide for themselves. Will you surrender this principle? The day you do this base, unmanly deed, you embrace political degradation and death.
But this is only one of the points of the case; the North agreed to deliver up fugitives from labor. In pursuance of this clause of the Constitution, Congress, in 1797, during Washington's administration, passed a Fugitive Slave law; that act never was faithfully respected all over the North, but it was not obstructed by State legislation until within the last thirty years; but the spirit of hostility to our rights became more active and determined, and in 1850 that act was found totally insufficient to recover and return fugitives from labor; therefore the act of 1850 was passed. The passage of that act was sufficient to rouse the demon of abolition all over the North. The pulpit, the press, abolition societies, popular assemblages, belched forth nothing but imprecations and curses upon the South and the honest men of the North who voted to maintain the Constitution. And thirteen States of the Union, by the most solemn acts of legislation, wilfully, knowingly, and corruptly perjured themselves and annulled this law within their respective limits. I say willfully, knowingly, and corruptly. The Constitution is plain - it was construed in 1793 by Washington and the Second Congress. In the Senate, the bill for the rendition of fugitives was unanimously passed, and nearly unanimously passed by the House of Representatives, and signed by Washington. All the courts of the United States, Federal and State, from the Supreme Court of the United States to the Justice Courts of all the States whose actions have ever come under my notice, construed this Constitution to mean and intend the rendition of fugitive slaves by law of Congress, which might be aided, not thwarted, by State legislation, until the decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held otherwise, and that decision was unanimously overruled by Northern and Southern judges in the Supreme Court, and which Court, in the same case, unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of the act of 1850. But these acts were not only annulled by the abolition Legislatures, but annulled under circumstances of atrocity and aggravation unknown to the legislation of any civilized people in the world. Some of them punish us with penitentiary punishment as felons for even claiming our own slaves within their limits, even by his own consent; others by ingenious contrivances prevent the possibility of your sustaining your rights in their limits, where they seek to compel you to go, and then punish you by fine and infamous punishments for asserting your rights and failing to get them. This is the fidelity of our brethren (!) to their plighted faith their oft-repeated oaths! Yet some excellent people among us want some more of such securities for our rights, our peace, and security. God Almighty have mercy on these poor people, if they listen to such counsellors. No arm of flesh can save them. Another one of our guarantees in the Constitution was, that fugitives from justice, committing crimes in one State and fleeing to another, should be delivered up by the State into which they might flee to the authorities of the State from whence they fled and where the crime was committed. This constitutional principle is nothing more than the law of nations necessary to the security and tranquility of sovereignty, and so universally respected and acknowledged that we have treaties with all civilized nations by which that duty is mutually secured in all high crimes, (political excepted,) and it is every day executed by us and for us under their treaties. But as early as 1837 or 1838 two citizens of Maine came to Savannah, stole a slave, fled to Maine, and two successive Governors refused to deliver up the culprits, the real grievance being that they had only stolen slaves - a pious work, rather to be encouraged than punished. Georgia demanded, remonstrated, threatened, and submitted to the wrong.
It is true the Legislature authorized the Governor to call a convention of the people to take into consideration the mode of redress. But what are called moderate, wise counsels prevailed. Excellent conservative ay, that's the word - conservative men advised us not to disturb the glorious Union about so small a matter; we submitted, and submission brought its legitimate fruits. Within a year or two after, a similar case occurred with New-York, while Seward was Governor. He refused, and attempted to cover himself under the idea that there could be no property in slaves. Virginia made the same demand on him, with like results and like submission; and from that day to this that constitutional right has been practically surrendered in the case of negro-stealing. But our Northern brethren, having in this case, as in all others, gained an inch, demanded an elf. We still fancied that if this provision of the Constitution would no longer protect our property, it would protect our lives. Vain and foolish hope! Last year John Brown made a raid on Virginia. He went with torch and rifle, with the purpose of subverting her government, exciting insurrection among her slaves, and murdering her peaceable inhabitants; he succeeded only in committing murder and arson and treason. One of his accomplices (a son) escaped to Ohio, was demanded, and the Governor of Ohio refused to give him up; another fled to Iowa; he, too, was demanded, and refused. It is true both of these miscreants (the Governors of these States) attempted to cover their plain violation of the Constitution and their oaths with flimsy pretexts about formalities, but they failed to hide from us the great fact that it was sympathy with the cause of John Brown which gave sanctuary to his confederates. If these men had have fled to Great Britain or France, we would have received them back and inflicted upon them the just punishment for their infamous crimes under our treaties. But they were wiser; they fled among our brethren; we had no treaty with them; we had only a Constitution and their oaths of fidelity to it. It failed us, and their murderers are free, ready again to apply the incendiary's torch to your dwelling and the assassin's knife and the poisoned bowl to you and your family. Do you not love these brethren? Oh! what a glorious Union! especially "to insure domestic tranquility."
I have shown you what this party has done, and declared in the national councils, in the State Legislatures, by and through their executive departments. Let us examine what they are at as private citizens. By the laws of nations, founded on natural justice, no nation, nor the subjects or citizens of any nation, have the right to disturb the peace or security of any other nation or people, much less to conspire, excite insurrection, discontent, or the commission of crimes among them, and all these are held to be good causes of war. For twenty years this party has, by Abolition societies, by publications made by them, by the public press, through the pulpit and their own legislative halls, and every effort - by reproaches, by abuse, by vilification, by slander - to disturb our security, our tranquility - to excite discontent between the different classes of our people, and to excite our slaves to insurrection. No nation in the world would submit to such conduct from any other nation. I will not willingly do so from this Abolition party. I demand the protection of my State government, to whom I own my allegiance. I wish it distinctly understood that it is the price of my allegiance. You are here, constitutional legislators - I make the demand to-day of you. Gentlemen, I have thus shown you the violations of our constitutional rights by our confederates; I have shown you that they are plain, palpable, deliberate, and dangerous; that they are committed by the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the State governments of our confederates - that all their wrongs are approved by the people of these States. I say the time has come to redress these acknowledged wrongs, and to avert even greater evils, of which these are but the signs and symbols. But I am asked, why do you demand action now? The question is both appropriate and important; it ought to be frankly met. The Abolitionists say you are raising a clamor because you were beaten in the election. The falsity of this statement needs no confirmation. Look to our past history for its refutation. Some excellent citizens and able men in Georgia say the election of any man constitutionally is no cause for a dissolution of the Union. That position is calculated only to mislead, and not to enlighten. It is not the issue. I say the election of Lincoln, with all of its surroundings, is aufficient. What is the significance of his election? It is the indorsement, by the non-slaveholding States, of all those acts of aggression upon our rights by all these States, legislatures, governors, judges, and people. He is elected by the perpetrators of these wrongs with the purpose and intent to aid and support them in wrongdoing.
Hitherto the Constitution has had on its side the Federal Executive, whose duty it is to execute the laws and Constitution against these malefactors. It has earnestly endeavored to discharge that duty. Relying upon its power and good faith to remedy these wrongs, we have listened to conservative counsels, trusting to time, to the Federal Executive, and to a returning sense of justice in the North. The Executive has been faithful - the Federal judiciary have been faithful the President has appointed sound judges, sound marshals, and other subordinate officers to interpret and to execute the laws. With the best intentions, they have all failed - our property has been stolen, our people murdered; felons and assassins have found sanctuary in the arms of the party which elected Mr. Lincoln. The Executive power, the last bulwark of the Constitution to defend us against these enemies of the Constitution, has been swept away, and we now stand without a shield, with bare bosoms presented to our enemies, and we demand at your hands the sword for our defence, and if you will not give it to us, we will take it - take it by the divine right of self-defence, which governments neither give nor can take away. Therefore, redress for past and present wrongs demands resistance to the rule of Lincoln and his Abolition horde over us; he comes at their head to shield and protect them in the perpetration of these outrages upon us, and, what is more, he comes at their head to aid them in consummating their avowed purposes by the power of the Federal Government. Their main purpose, as indicated by all their acts of hostility to slavery, is its final and total abolition. His party declare it; their acts prove it. He has declared it; I accept his declaration. The battle of the irrepressible conflict has hitherto been fought on his side alone. We demand service in this war. Surely no one will deny that the election of Lincoln is the indorsement of the policy of those who elected him, and an indorsement of his own opinions. The opinions of those who elected him are to be found in their solemn acts under oath - in their State governments, indorsed by their constituents. To them I have already referred. They are also to be found in the votes of his supporters in Congress - also indorsed by the party, by their return. Their opinions are to be found in the speeches of Seward, and Sumner, and Lovejoy, and their associates and confederates in the two Houses of Congress. Since the promotion of Mr. Lincoln's party, all of them speak with one voice, and speak trumpet-tongued their fixed purpose to outlaw four thousand millions of our property in the Territories, and to put it under the ban of the empire in the States where it exists. They declare their purpose to war against slavery until there shall not be a slave in America, and until the African is elevated to a social and political equality with the white man. Lincoln indorses them and their principles, and in his own speeches declares the conflict irrepressible and enduring, until slavery is everywhere abolished.
Hitherto they have carried on this warfare by State action, by individual action, by appropriation, by the incendiary's torch and the poisoned bowl. They were compelled to adopt this method because the Federal executive and the Federal judiciary were against them. They will have possession of the Federal executive with its vast power, patronage, prestige of legality, its army, its navy, and its revenue on the fourth of March next. Hitherto it has been on the side of the Constitution and the right; after the fourth of March it will be in the hands of your enemy. Will you let him have it? (Cries of "No, no. Never.") Then strike while it is yet today. Withdraw your sons from the army, from the navy, and every department of the Federal public service. Keep your own taxes in your own coffers - buy arms with them and throw the bloody spear into this den of incendiaries and assassins, and let God defend the right But you are advised to wait, send soft messages to their brethren, to beg them to relent, to give you some assurances of their better fidelity for the future. What more can you get from them under this Government? You have the Constitution - you have its exposition by themselves for seventy years - you have their oaths - they have broken all these, and will break them again. They tell you everywhere, loudly and defiantly, you shall have no power, no security until you give up the right of governing yourselves according to your own will - until you submit to theirs. For this is the meaning of Mr. Lincoln's irrepressible conflict - this is his emphatic declaration to all the world. Will you heed it? For myself, like the Athenian ambassador, I will take no security but this, that it shall not be in the power of our enemies to injure my country if they desire it. Nothing but ruin will follow delay. The enemy on the fourth of March will intrench himself behind a quintuple wall of defence. Executive power, judiciary, (Mr. Seward has already proclaimed its reformation,) army, navy, and treasury. Twenty years of labor, and toil, and taxes all expended upon preparation, would not make up for the advantage your enemies would gain if the rising sun on the fifth of March should find you in the Union. Then strike while it is yet time.
But we are told that secession would destroy the fairest fabric of liberty the world ever saw, and that we are the most prosperous people in the world under it. The arguments of tyranny as well as its acts, always reenact themselves. The arguments I now hear in favor of this Northern connection are identical in substance, and almost in the same words as those which were used in 1775 and 1776 to sustain the British connection. We won liberty, sovereignty, and independence by the American Revolution - we endeavored to secure and perpetuate these blessings by means of our Constitution. The very men who use these arguments admit that this Constitution, this compact, is violated, broken and trampled under foot by the abolition party. Shall we surrender the jewels because their robbers and incendiaries have broken the casket? Is this the way to preserve liberty? I would as lief surrender it back to the British crown as to the abolitionists. I will defend it from both. Our purpose is to defend those liberties. What baser fate could befall us or this great experiment of free government than to have written upon its tomb: "Fell by the hands of abolitionists and the cowardice of its natural defenders." If we quail now, this will be its epitaph.
We are said to be a happy and prosperous people. We have been, because we have hitherto maintained our ancient rights and liberties - we will be until we surrender them. They are in danger; come, freemen, to the rescue. If we are prosperous, it is due to God, ourselves, and the wisdom of our State government. We have an executive, legislative, and judicial department at home, possessing and entitled to the confidence of the people. I have already vainly asked for the law of the Federal Government that promotes our prosperity. I have shown you many that retard that prosperity - many that drain our coffers for the benefit of our bitterest foes. I say bitterest foes - show me the nation in the world that hates, despises, villifies, or plunders us like our abolition "brethren" in the North. There is none. I can go to England or France, or any other country in Europe with my slave, without molestation or violating any law. I can go anywhere except in my own country, whilom called "the glorious Union;" here alone am I stigmatized as a felon; here alone am I an outlaw; here alone am I under the ban of the empire; here alone I have neither security nor tranquillity; here alone are organized governments ready to protect the incendiary, the assassin who burns my dwelling or takes my life or those of my wife and children; here alone are hired emissaries paid by brethren to glide through the domestic circle and intrigue insurrection with all of its nameless horrors. My countrymen, "if you have nature in you, bear it not." Withdraw yourselves from such a confederacy; it is your right to do so - your duty to do so. I know not why the abolitionists should object to it, unless they want to torture and plunder you. If they resist this great sovereign right, make another war of independence, for that then will be the question; fight its battles over again - reconquer liberty and independence. As for me, I will take any place in the great conflict for rights which you may assign. I will take none in the Federal Government during Mr. Lincoln's administration.
If you desire a Senator after the fourth of March, you must elect one in my place. I have served you in the State and national councils for nearly a quarter of a century without once losing your confidence. I am yet ready for the public service, when honor and duty call. I will serve you anywhere where it will not degrade and dishonor my country. Make my name infamous forever, if you will, but save Georgia. I have pointed out your wrongs, your danger, your duty. You have claimed nothing but that rights be respected and that justice be done. Emblazon it on your banner - fight for it, win it, or perish in the effort.