SOUTHERN LEADERS LOUDLY AND PROUDLY DEMANDED THE SPREAD OF SLAVERY
AND PROMISED WAR IF THEY DID NOT GET IT.
Most educated Americans recognize a few words from Lincoln's First Inaugral Address:
"We are not enemies -- but friends. We must not be enemies".
Lincoln specifically said he had no intention or means to "interfere" with slavery in the South. He only wanted to stop the spread of slavery in the territories. Kansas had voted against slavery a stunning 98% to 2%.
The spread of slavery into Kansas, however was very much the issue. Davis demanded the spread of slavery -- specifically into Kansas. Even the Confederate Constitution says slavery must be spread -- into KANSAS.
n a way -- that's perversely true.
Not many Americans know Davis and Confederate response to Lincoln. Remember, Lincoln just promised his goal was to just stop the spread of slavery.
The response was this: The Five Southern Ultimatums. There were not demands about rejoining the Union. These were demands Lincoln and the US must obey, to avoid war.
All five ultimatums were about the same thing - the spread of slavery. Not the protection of it. Not tariffs. All five were about one basic thing, the spread of slavery -- INTO KANSAS.
Richmond newspapers May 9, 1861, ran the Ultimatums as headlines, with the banner "THE TRUE ISSUE".
What was the true issue? The demand to spread slavery!
Where did they want slavery to be spread? Kansas.
New York papers suggested Lincoln obey, give the South what they wanted. The South were always the tuff guys, the bullies. They were led by slave masters, who spent their lives using violence and threats of it, to get what they wanted. They did not bluff.
SOuthern leaders -- 100% were either slave owners, or from slave owning families -- were used to getting what they wanted, by violence. In 1820, then again in 1850, they threatened secession and violence if slavery was not spread then. No one stood up to them.
Jeff Davis himself thought this would be the same. He promised to "drink all the blood spilled below Mason -Dixon line" caused by secession. And he was right! But the South made a big mistake. They did not just secede. They promised -- and delivered -- war, when their Ultimatums to spread slavery were ignored..
____________________________________________
LINCOLN COULD NOT OBEY
Lincoln could not obey if he wanted to. He could not force slavery into Kansas. Remember, Kansas just voted against slavery overwhelmingly. Further, Kansas fought a bloody four year war against the thugs sent by Southerners to force slavery there -without success.
But Lincoln did not want to obey. His whole purpose in life, for years, was to stop the SPREAD of slavery, as the first step in killing it everywhere. Like a cancer --Lincoln said -- stop the spread of it first. It will then die.
Ultimatums, called "THE TRUE ISSUE" by Southern papers, was that slavery be spread into Kansas by force. Kansas MUST "accept and respect" slavery. Kansas legislature MUST pass legislation to protect slavery.
If you don't believe it, it's in the Southern Constitution.
Exactly as Southern headlines shouted -- spread of slavery is the true issue -- the Southern Constitution mandated the spread of salvery into Kansas.
Remember -- Kansas had just voted 98% to 2% to keep slavery out. OUT. Massive rejection of slavery in Kansas. But the war ultimatums -- not requests, not suggestions, but the official WAR ULTIMATUM was to spread slavery into Kansas.
The Confederate demands to spread slavery into Kansas came before the ink was dry on the Confederate Constitution. In fact, the demand to spread slavery was actually in the Constitution itself!
And the first action taken by the Confederate government was to demand the spread of slavery. Starting to get the picture yet?
Davis claimed "states rights" did not apply to slavery, because blacks were not -- get this -- human. Dred Scott decision said that -- see Davis refer to that decision.
This is from Jeff Davis, explaining why states and no right to stop slavery.
 |
| DAVIS SAID NEGROES WERE NOT HUMAN FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTITUTION |
__________________________________
What happened to that "states rights" stuff?
That was BEFORE Kansas rejected slavery. When Kansas rejected slavery, Southern scum had to change their excuse. They found it, in the Dred Scott decision.
Your history teacher in school no doubt told you about Dred Scott case. What they left out, because it's so horrible, is that this decision said blacks were not human - they were not "part of the people". They were not part of "all men are created equal".
Blacks, said the Dred Scott decision, were "so inferior" that no white man could possible think they were equal, nor were blacks human in God's eyes. Southern leaders all said God intended blacks to be inferior, and whites to be superior. And the Dred Scott court agreed- - blacks were "so inferior" no white man could even give blacks rights.
It was not just that blacks were "so inferior". Dred Scott went further. States nor Congress could possibly grant them any rights. The rights belonged to the owner of the slave, not the slave. The slave had no more rights than a cow or dog. The owner had the right, not the dog.
The South used "states rights" when they could beat, intimidate or fool a state to accept slavery. But Kansas said no. Hell no. Hell no way. Kansas voted 98% to keep slavery out.
So what did the South do then? Well, the scum sucking pigs did this -- they said popular sovereignty was "a trick of the devil"!!
That's right -- popular soverignty was the phrase to let the people decide. Suddenly though, that was a trick of the devil!
Satan, said a Southern paper, was "the first abolitionist". And the only way white people could vote against slavery, is if they were led by the devil. Really -- that's how wacko Southern defenses of slavery got.
Even Robert E Lee said abolitionist were "trying to destroy the American Church" and "were on an evil course".
Southern political leaders were not coy, or ashamed, or confused, about their war ultimatums. In fact they were quite proud of their demands. Jefferson Davis himself wanted Lincoln handed the war ultimatums personally.
This aspect of US history is so ugly, that the South especially is reluctant to face up to it. What Southern leaders bragged about at the time, Southern apologists today pretend never happened.
Southern papers saying they should get Kansas -- but California too....claiming they were cheated out of California....
Southern papers saying they should get Kansas -- but California too....claiming they were cheated out of California....
_____________________________________________
Lincoln defined the issue as the South's demand to spread slavery. Southern leaders said the same thing! There was no dispute about this issue then -- no matter if your history teacher says it was about tariffs, or "various factors". Of the five demands listed by the Southern newspaper in Richmond, all five were about the spread of slavery -- INTO KANSAS.
Davis changed from claiming "state's rights" to claiming blacks were not human for the purposes of "all men are created equal" and said that Dred Scott decision meant Kansas, nor any state, even Northern states, could not stop slavery: This is from Davis himself, explaining why Kansas had to accept slavery, even when 98% of the voters said to keep slavery out.
Blacks -- anyone of any "African" blood -- were not, and "could not be" acknowledged as part of the people! They were not human, in effect, under the Constitution. They were property, and as property Kansas could not keep slaves out.
When Davis said those words "could not be" he meant specifically no state had a right to bestow upon blacks those rights of humanity. They were property. Just as the Dred Scott decision said -- blacks were "so inferior" no white man could possibly believe blacks had any rights a "white man" must respect.
Now you know why Dred Scott decision was so important -- as slavery became known as barbarious and vile, by such books as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" - the "average" white in new states were rejecting slavery. Dred Scott case, therefore, is what Davis himself used to demand the spread of slavery into Kansas.
At one point, Davis himself, during the Civil War, promised to invade the North, and enslave all blacks there -- to reunite the US as a slave nation, as God intended. There is another thing your history teacher forgot.
 |
| Davis promising to invade the North "by progress of our arms" will enslave all blacks there, permanently. |
The Southern leaders listed their Ultimatums -- all -- all -all were about the spread of slavery. Davis was very clear emphatic and detailed, as was the VIce President of the Confederacy, with his "Cornerstone" speech, bragging that God ordained the South to spread slavery of blacks as a biblical punishment. See below.
The Cornerstone speeches, Davis demands, the Five Ultimatums -- you may wonder how you missed this in school, but this was typical and well understood by BOTH sides and the dispute between slave owners in the South, and abolitionist in the North, like Lincoln.
In fact, newspapers editors North and South backed their respective geographic sections, although New York papers suggest Lincoln obey Southern demands, and let slavery spread, why fight it?
WHen these Ultimatums appeared in papers, North and South, no one said "Wow, that's odd, you demand to spread slavery?"
Lincoln said this too many times to count --in fact, his famous "House Divided Speech," if not his entire return to politics, was about that. People act like Lincoln's House speech was something about a divided nation. Read it close -- he is exposing the lunacy and devious treachery of the Southern leaders, using every deception, and willing to use violence, to spread slavery by deceit because they could not spread it any other way.
Lincoln essentially said -- slavers are trying to rip the US apart so they can spread slavery by any means. We can not let that happen.
Many people try to "accuse" LIncoln of only caring about the Union. Lincoln did care about the Union -- as the only way to stop the spread of slavery. And unless you know how tenaciously, violently, Confederate leaders were trying to spread slavery, you can't really appreciate Lincoln's strategy to stop them.
__________________________________________________
As Lincoln wrote to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, your side is for the spread of slavery, but we believe it should not spread. This is the only real difference between us.
Stephens agreed entirely. In fact, he bragged that God chose the Confederacy to spread slavery -- see his Cornerstone speech below.
As to Lincoln's note to Stephens:
You think slavery is right, and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It is certainly the only substantial difference between us... A Lincoln.
_____________________________________________________________________________
DAVIS SAID THE SAME THING
.gif)
In fact the South accused Lincoln of planning to destroy slavery -- and endangering the lives of Southerners -- by stopping the SPREAD of slavery.
Do you know who agreed with Lincoln? Jefferson Davis for one, but essentially the entire Confederate leadership, emphatically agreed that if slavery would not spread, slaves would become "so numerous" slave owners would have to kill them "with our own hands".
Do you know who agreed with Lincoln? Jefferson Davis for one, but essentially the entire Confederate leadership, emphatically agreed that if slavery would not spread, slaves would become "so numerous" slave owners would have to kill them "with our own hands".
There was an uncanny similarity between Lincoln's position and Davis. Both agreed the spread of slavery was the issue. Davis said in his own book that Lincoln's resistance to the spread of slavery was "the intolerable grievance".
 |
| FROM JEFFERSON DAVIS BOOK, WRITTEN 1881 |
Davis called the spread of slavery -- Lincoln's resistance to it -- "the intolerable grievance" even as late as 1881.
This reiterates Confederate demands to spread slavery, as his own war ultimatums declared in 1861. This was no secret. No one was surprised. This was the central issue in US history from 1820 on.
Davis would say bluntly "spread of slavery" in 1861, but by 1881, he reverted back to euphemisms, like "Southern Rights ...in exclusion from the Territories" But when he spoke of "Southern rights in the territories" he meant, and everyone knew he meant, the right to spread slavery into Kansas, though Kansas people had voted against slavery overwhelmingly.
Just because our politically correct text books don't focus on this, this was very much the focus to everyone involved.
Southern RIGHTS? Remember -- your history teacher said it was about "states rights". States rights was a term the South used to spread slavery -- until Kansas rejected slavery.
Once Kansas rejected slavery emphatically, everything changed. No longer could the South pretend it was about a "right". Now, the spread of slavery was ordained by GOD, and the people in Kansas had no say about it.
Men who have girls tied up to be whipped, sell children, and claim GOD ordained it, did not ever give a shit about rights anyway. Men always use excuses, and the South had to use the ultimate excuse -- GODS WILL.
Notice Davis omits in his book any mention that Kansas people had just voted 98% to 2% to keep slavery out forever? Of course he knew that well. But unless Kansas accepted slavery -- the Confederacy fell apart. In fact, the Confederate Constitution specifically demanded Kansas accept slavery.
Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery, and their legislature MUST pass laws to that effect. This was not a suggestion -- it was a war ultimatum.
______________________________________________________________________
WERE SLAVE OWNERS CRAZY? NO. THEY WERE AFRAID.
It's easy to see Souther slave owners as lunatics - especially when you learn about their naked and vile demands to spread slavery for GOD.
But there was more going on. Essentially, slave population was growing too large, slave prices fell, and to counter that, slave owners demanded more and more slave children. Unless the area for slavery spread, slaves would outnumber whites -- and slaves did outnumber whites in parts of the South.
As Civil War approached, and Lincoln said he was against any spread of slavery, Kansas rejected slavery. Lincoln was openly trying to lock slavery down - to destroy it. But that would mean race riots, rebellion, and the fear and hatred grew worse every year.
But for years Southern leaders had bragged about spreading slavery into Kansas and beyond. Mixed with the fear of slaver rebellion, mixed with the religious nonsense about GOD ordained the spread of slavery, and you have the explosive mix that blew up in 1861.
Davis and others already had plans to turn Mexico and Cuba into extensions of the USA -- now the CSA -- and Southern newspapers demanded California be forced to accept slavery too.
In fact, at one point during the Civil War, Davis himself promised to invade the North "by force of arms" and enslave all blacks there, too.
The rhetoric before the Civil War is what actually led to the Civil War. Ego and status was on the line. To defend slavery as "A divine gift from God" as Davis did, did not allow Davis to then say "Oh,so people in Kansas don't want slavery, that's fine".
We will be "exterminated" insisted Robert Toombs, if slavery is not spread. Stopping the spread of slavery "is like burning us to death" said the Florida declaration of causes.
Davis himself said Lincoln's resistance to the SPREAD of slavery was "the intolerable grievance".
No one was talking about destroying slavery where it was -- Lincoln's plan, one he advocated openly -- was to kill slavery by stopping it's spread, and like a cancer, it would die if it could not spread.
Oh -- they didn't teach you Southern leaders were scared shitless of the doubling, and doubling again, of the slave population? Welcome to real history -- as told by the South itself.
Southern newspapers carried the "FIVE ULTIMATUMS" which Richmond papers called "THE TRUE ISSUE" In fact,Richmond editor Edward Pollard would brag about the spread of slavery -- for God -- as the "true issue" all the way through 1865.
Remember, by May of 1861, the South had already seceded - these war ultimatums were demands that the USA must allow the South to spread slavery into Kansas, or there would be war.
And remember this -- Kansas voted to keep slavery out, by a vote of 98% to 2%. So Southern leaders were spitting in the face of "states rights" at the same time they demanded the spread of slavery for God.
The people in Kansas did not want slavery --they had just fought a four year war to keep it out, and voted to keep it out. Yet Southern leaders first action as a new country, was to demand the spread of slavery into KANSAS!
Unfortunately, politically correct school books - which for 100 years were edited in Texas -- tended to gloss over Southern demands to spread slavery.
New York papers the next day suggested Lincoln obey the South - why bother with slavery in Kansas? Preventing slavery from spreading into Kansas was not worth war.
No one was surprised at the demands to spread slavery -- Southern leaders had been demanding that for decades. The spread of slavery -- or stopping the spread of it -- was "the oxygen in the air" as one historian noted. Everything revolved around it.
The slave owners had long used "states rights" or "popular soverighty" as an excuse -- when they could force or control public opinion. But Kansas was too far away, and not under the control of slave owner's money.
SOuthern documents -- such as Florida Declaration of Causes, showed what all Southern leaders said one way or another -- stopping the spread of slavery would destroy us, our families, and our "biblical rights" to enslave.
South Carolina Declaration of Causes said the North had "committed grievous religious error" by even allowing "open societies" to exist who preached against slavery! In the South, it was against the law to preach or write or speak publically against slavery. South Carolina slave owners were particularly hateful of "Northern" societies that preached and wrote against slavery.
Lincoln would do anything -- anything at all -- except allow the spread of slavery. Again and again Lincoln said that stopping the SPREAD of slavery would kill it eventually. In fact, Lincoln saw no other way to kill slavery, other than stop it's spread and wait for the "cancer" to kill the host.
The Southern leaders actually agreed with Lincoln -- if he could stop the spread it slavery, Toombs told cheering crowds, it was cause the extermination of the white man.
Yes -- things were that intense.
Slavery would kill the host -- the South-- in other words, only if they could not spread slavery, because of the rapid increase in slave populations. In vast parts of the South, slaves already outnumbered whites, and everyone knew it. The memory of Haiti, where the outnumbered white slave masters were all killed by the slaves in an open revolt, was a constant fear, and growing fear, in the South.
That is what Toombs was talking about when he yelled "EXPAND SLAVERY OR WE WILL BE EXTERMINATED" . That is what Southern documents were talking about when they said preventing the spread of slavery "will be [as if] they torture us to death by slow fire"
Each slave state held conventions of some sort, and issued papers something like the US "Declaration of Independence" which are called "Declaration of Causes" now. While not every state's documents survived, they all spoke feverishly about slavery - and most specifically said slavery MUST spread. No one thought this was unusual, this was the dispute for decades.
Mississippi Declaration said Lincoln would "[deny] the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories".
Davis said Lincoln's resistance to slavery in Kansas was "the intolerable grievance".
Unless you know history well, you can easily read those documents and not notice the repeated references to "Territories" or "Kansas". But that was very much the issue, and Southern leaders said so loudly and proudly.
When the South issued their war ultimatums to spread slavery into Kansas, there was not a single newspaper anywhere -- North or South -- that asked "What's that about"? Everyone already knew the issue was the spread of slavery, it was the issue tearing the US apart for decades, and now with the election of Lincoln -- and Kansas voting against slavery -- the proverbial shit had hit the fan.
Southern leaders insisted they would decide what Kansas did about slavery, NOT the people in Kansas.
Each slave state held conventions of some sort, and issued papers something like the US "Declaration of Independence" which are called "Declaration of Causes" now. While not every state's documents survived, they all spoke feverishly about slavery - and most specifically said slavery MUST spread. No one thought this was unusual, this was the dispute for decades.
Mississippi Declaration said Lincoln would "[deny] the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories".
Davis said Lincoln's resistance to slavery in Kansas was "the intolerable grievance".
Unless you know history well, you can easily read those documents and not notice the repeated references to "Territories" or "Kansas". But that was very much the issue, and Southern leaders said so loudly and proudly.
When the South issued their war ultimatums to spread slavery into Kansas, there was not a single newspaper anywhere -- North or South -- that asked "What's that about"? Everyone already knew the issue was the spread of slavery, it was the issue tearing the US apart for decades, and now with the election of Lincoln -- and Kansas voting against slavery -- the proverbial shit had hit the fan.
Southern leaders insisted they would decide what Kansas did about slavery, NOT the people in Kansas.
Vice PResident Stephens, a personal friend of Lincoln, went to see him in order to avoid war. Lincoln would not see him, but sent him a note saying, your position is that slavery must spread, our position is that it must not spread. I see no resolution to those positions"
,
Most of us have heard that the South was for "states rights". Not so much.
When Kansas rejected slavery 98% to 2% -- Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery there too.
They didn't just demand it -- they promised war, and bragged about it. They were not coy, they were loud and proud of their demands to spread slavery -- for God. Those Southern leaders who didn't use God as the excuse, as Davis, Lee, Stephens and most others did, used survival. Spread slavery or we will die.
x
This is one of several things your Texas edited text books "forgot" to mention candidly. Southern leaders for years had demanded the spread of slavery for God, and for survival. Slaves were becoming "too numerous" and we will have to kill our slaves "with our own hands" or spread slavery.
 |
| Florida "Declaration of Causes" explaining why they seceded. |
The Confederate Constitution mandated slavery be spread -- in fact, that was a bragging point about the document, in newspapers and speeches.
Davis and Stephens BOTH bragged that spreading slavery -- as God's will -- was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy. SO it wasn't some drunk at a bar, it wasn't some "Northern historian" later. It was the Southern leaders -- essentially all of them -- from the top down, bragging about it. Spread slavery for GOD.
_______________________________________________
Slavery must be "accepted and respected" in Kansas -- said Southern newspapers, books, speeches and documents.
The Confederate Constitution is based - - literally - on spreading slavery into Kansas.
No territory, in other words, could decide itself. They were talking about Kansas, which Southern leaders had been on the war path about for years.
In fact, Southern demanded that the Kansas legislature, and US Congress, pass legislation to force slavery into Kansas.
These were "Ultimatums" -- war ultimatums. They were not suggestions. They were not negotiation points. Southern newspapers and leaders called them "Ultimatums".
And notice -- these were Ultimatums by the Confederacy -- not by Southern states. Southern states had already seceded. This was the CSA demanding the spread of slavery.
Demanding the spread of slavery -- under promise of war - was the first thing the Southern leaders did, after they adopted their Constitution. The same men, wearing the same clothes, on the same day, formed the Confederacy -- and issued those war ultimatums,.
________________________________________________
WHY NO ONE WAS SURPRISED
It may surprise people today to learn the South promised war if slavery was not spread, but it surprised no one at the time. In fact Northern newspapers suggested Lincoln should obey the Southern Ultimatums. Lincoln would do anything except that -- and of course the Southern leaders knew it.
The spread of slavery was the oxygen in the national air from 1820 on -- again and again Southern slave owners demanded more land for slavery. Again and again, the North was unwilling to stand up to the militaristic South, who were essentially the Taliban, the extremist, of the century. Slave owners did not bluff -- they got what they wanted by violence, and when they issued threats - like the war ultimatums above -- they were not just talking. They had already been planning for war. They already had plans in place.
Southern leaders closer to 1861, started to "forget" the states' rights excuse, and were more honest -- demanding the spread of slavery even though Kansas rejected slavery overwhelmingly.
In fact Southern newspapers, who once bragged about "popular sovereignty" as the reason to spread slavery, now called popular sovereignty "a trick of the devil"
So before Kansas rejected slavery, popular will to enslave was the excuse. Actually, as Hiton Helper showed, if they allowed real elections and real free speech in South, slavery would have been voted OUT. But by controlling what people could write, read and hear, slave owners had a monopoly on public discussion.
Even preachers could be -- and were -- arrested for preaching against slavery. No church was allowed to preach against slavery. Southern states controlled what churches could say, and not say.
In fact, that oppressive control of religion, speech, and of course, the spread of slavery, is EXACTLY what Southern leaders had in mind for Kansas. That is what they demanded -- that they control the speech, religion, and essentially the thoughts legally expressed in Kansas, and the rest of the US, if they had their way.
People today have no idea -- none -- that the South oppressed more than blacks. Whites were controlled too -- as far as their ability to speak,write, read, and decide race issues themselves.
____________________________________________________
ALEXANDER STEPHENS SPEAKING TOUR
The Vice President of the Confederacy went to a speaking tour to explain the Constitution- - and it was he, explicitly and at great length who explained the CSA was founded on the "great moral truth" that the inferior black race to be enslaved per the will of God. The CSA, he boasted, would spread this great truth to the rest of the world.
Other nations, he explained, allowed slavery for a time -- but never like the SOuth. Only blacks would be enslaved, as God intended. And GOD intended blacks to be punished -- slavery was the punishment.
This speech -- while it might seem bizarre now, was not bizarre at all. Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, and others had same much the same thing, just not in thousands of words. The exact sentiment is found in other books, sermons, and personal letters of Southern leaders.
It's only odd to us now, because we are not told of these absurd religious claims by Southern leaders.
Stephens did not just this speech once, he gave it, or versions of it, at least 10 times. Southern papers -- and books -- hailed it as a masterpiece. Stephens was considered the best orator in the Confederacy. Had the South won, and slavery spread, it would be his speeches, not Lincoln's, that children would learn. He would be called the man that saved the US -- for slavery.
This punishment of blacks would be perpetual, and should spread around the world. This was the real "revolution" the South was establishing, Stephens was essentially preaching. The first step in spreading this great truth, was the Confederate States of America.
When did you hear that taught in schools? Never. Southern leaders bragging -- repeatedly and at length -- that their nation was founded on the principle that God is punishing blacks!
Furthermore, Davis and other Southern leaders said much the same thing -- but not at such length or specificity.
_________________________________________________
BLACKS ARE NOT HUMAN FOR PURPOSES OF LAW
Read Jeff Davis own explanation why Kansas could not claim "states rights" to keep slavery out. Davis said blacks are not people -- not "part of the people" -- but are property.
Why not teach these horrible principles in our schools? There is probably not 1 in 100,000 people who have any idea that Southern leaders promised war if slavery was not spread.
There is probably not 1 in a million that realize Davis claimed blacks were not even human for purposes of the Constitution -- they were property.
This is what Lincoln was saying in every speech! He said it over and over and over. And he said it clearly -- you would think his own repeated references to this would get some notice, but they do not.
Davis -- and the slave owners on USSC --specifically said blacks were in effect NOT HUMAN for the purposes of slavery laws. Therefore Kansas could not keep slavery out, any more than they could stop people from bringing in their dogs, their wagons, or their pigs.
Davis wanted the Five Ultimatums presented to Lincoln personally before any military action -- but he was not listened to.
Alexander Stephens, the Vice President, in a speech he gave 10 times to cheering crowds, and reported in the newspapers at that time, was very clear -- our nation is founded on the great truth that God wants the white man to enslave the inferior black race...and to spread that great truth to the rest of the world
The Dred Scott decision was precisely about the "humanness" of a slave -- yet we teach it as if it was about "citizen ship" Bullshit. Citizenship? No.
It was about the human ness -- are blacks human, are they part of the human race that God gave rights to?
The Taney Court said -- NO. They are not human for the purposes of the Constitution. Nor can they be made more than property by any state.
No state -- not Kansas -- not Missouri -- not Illinois -- not Maine - could legally keep slavery out, once Dred Scott was "decided"
Lincoln kept telling people -- in his House Divided Speech especially - this will tear the US apart. We can not continue like this -- because of the Dred Scott decision. We will be all one thing, or all another, because of Dred Scott!
Why is that not taught? It was known by people North and South.
Davis bragged about it - that's right, Davis and Southern leaders used Dred Scott to get rid of states rights. Just as Lincoln knew and said many times,
Yet we do not teach it in those terms. Big mistake,.
The USSC led by Roger Taney -- declared in Dred Scott that blacks were "so inferior" it was not possible for a rational white man to assume blacks were "part of the people" in the Declaration of Independance.
Blacks, for purposes of the Court, were property, and had to be recognized as such. There for the protection of "property" clause in the Constitution ruled slavery -- not rights for men. As property, no state, no Congress, could not elevate the role of property to the role of man. As Davis wrote.....
+(1).jpg)
Lincoln's goal for years was to stop the SPREAD of slavery. He said repeatedly that slavery is like a cancer --if you can stop the spread of it, you will kill it.
Lincoln -- in his famous "House Divided Speech" was talking about this very thing -- claiming the South was trying to spread slavery by force and deceit Now, with Kansas rejecting slavery, scum like Davis had a problem. If they respected states rights, slavery could not spread.
So the answer was easy -- dream up a different excuse. Before, it was "states rights". But when that excuse did not work, "blacks are property" would have to do.
Lincoln knew the South's supposed "concern"for states rights was only if states accepted slavery, and the South would turn on states rights the same minute a state rejected slavery.
Lincoln “Chief-Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory,”Lincoln went on to show that by denying US Congress and Territories the ability to keep slavery out -- that Southern leaders essentially put their own will to spread slavery as the only permissible legally recognized authority. Once Dred Scott was decided that way, SOuthern leaders could -- and did -- demand the spread of slavery regardless of any state or territory's vote to keep slavery out.
Davis showed LIncoln was correct -- in his demands to spread slavery into Kansas. Lincoln correctly predicted the Dred Scott decision is what Southern leaders would use to force slavery into Kansas.
That is exactly what Southern leaders did- - in fact, it's the first thing they did as a new nation, in their “Five Ultimatums'”
Lincoln knew what he talked about. The Confederate leades, literally in the same clothes they wore when they created the CSA constitution in Montgomery and declared their independence from USA – simultaneously demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas.
Slavery was vile and cancerous anyway, LIncoln insisted, but the excuse of "states rights" was always an excuse. Never a reason.
States right (to spread slavery) was always the excuse, used by the South for decades. But when Kansas rejected slavery -- in a vote 98% - 2% to keep slavery out -- Southern leaders promised war. Not sorta, not kinda, they promised and delivered war. Southern leaders -- Davis, Stephens, Toombs, the entire Confederate leadership -- were quite clear, quite emphatic in 1861. Spread slavery or face war. Southern newspapers called the "Southern Ultimatums" to spread slavery "THE TRUE ISSUE". No one was surprised. No one said "what are you talking about?" The spread of slavery was the constant, unrelenting, passionate issue. When Southern newspapers ran the story of their leaders' demands to spread slavery -- Northern newspapers actually suggested editorially, in reply, that Lincoln obey the demands. Why worry about the spread of slavery? The South would do it anyway, and no one wanted a war about it. You won't hear that now, because Southern apologist don't want to admit slavery was the reason for the Civil War. Technically, they are right. It was not slavery itself that was their issue -- it was the SPREAD OF SLAVERY -- for God -- by violence if need be. And at the time, they bragged about it. They did not admit it -- they BRAGGED about it. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INTOLERABLE GRIEVANCE: It was not just the hubris, the excitement, the power drunk nature of slave owners creating their own county -- Davis would explain this even years later, this in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government". He said even later, that the "Intolerabe grievance" was LIncoln's resistance to the spread of slavery in "the territories". He meant Kansas. And remember, Kansas had just rejected slavery 98-2% to keep slavery out!! Yes, earlier, the South yelled "states rights" to spread slavery. But they wanted Kansas -- and California -- and wanted control of Cuba, and Mexico., Davis had been planning to spread slavery into these areas for years.  Because of Dred Scott Davis was right -- per Dred Scott -- slaves were not even human for purposes of the Constitution. The USSC court said in that decision, that blacks were "so inferior" no white man could possibly assume blacks were part of the "all men are created equal" part of the Declaration of Independence. Here again, Davis himself wrote it:  Davis himself said it was the issue of spreading slavery into Kansas. Davis himself said it was Dred Scott decision that made that mandatory -- that Kansas could not decide. That is what Davis said in his own book. Here is from Dred Scott decision
[blacks are an] inferior
order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race....
and so far inferior, that they [have] no rights which the white man was bound to respect;
Because of the "inferiority" of the black race, who are "unfit to associate" with whites they can not be made "persons" for purpose of the Constitution. They are property. Not persons. And just as other "property" could not be made into "persons" by any act of Congress, so too, the slave "property" could not be made into persons by any Congress, or any state. ______________________________________________________ We have cleaned up the Dred Scott decision when we teach it to children -- it was about "citizenship" we say. Bull shit. The USSC ruled that for the purposes of rights, blacks were not even human. They were property. DO you see Davis saying that himself? African race are not, and COULD NOT BE - acknowledged as part of the people. They were not people for purposes of the US constitution, the Dred Scott court ruled. NOT PEOPLE. They were property, for purpose of the Constitution. And as property, all states must respect that property. Overnight -- as Lincoln had said over and over -- the Dred Scott decision would do exactly that. It would remove any state from even giving blacks rights or freedom or anything else. He was soon proved exactly right. Southern leaders all demanded the spread of slavery, or promised war. And they said it was because of Dred Scott decision. Just like Lincoln said they would -- they did. They said the Dred Scott decision meant they decided -- not people in Kansas -- if they would allow slavery or not. And they MUST allow - respect, and protect slavery. _______________________________________________ Southern leaders loudly and proudly promised war -- to spead slavery for God. as was their right. Suddenly Southern slave owners decided they -- not the people in Kansas -- would decide Kansas rules for slavery. And they had to. Slavery was "a divine gift" said Davis. Alexander Stephens went on a successful speaking tour, to cheering crowds, declaring that the Confederacy would spread the "great moral truth" that white men are ordained to enslave the black race -- and punish the negro -- for sins of Cain. Black skin was "the mark of Cain". You probably didn't hear this in your history class. But Southern leaders bragged about it at the time. Southern leaders used every means to spread slavery into Kansas, even when 98% of voters wanted to keep it out forever. How's that for states rights? In fact, in Southern papers, they called popular sovereignty "a trick of the devil". Abolitionist were from Satan -- against GOD. The goofy extreme rhetoric about God and the spread of slavery by violence, is another thing we dare not teach our children, or it would scare the shit out of them about religion. States rights quit being an excuse for the South in 1861, Confederates were spreading slavery for GOD, said Vice President Stephens. It was "the first nation on earth" to do slavery per the will of God -- total subjugation of the inferior blacks, by the superior white race. Crowds cheered. Newspapers printed the speech with glowing reviews. Only AFTER the Confederates lost the war, did Southern leaders go into hyper drive to pretend otherwise. Their books, speeches, newspapers, even sermons, bragged about spreading slavery for God, before the war.  Jeff Davis said much the same thing, promising in 1863 that he would invade the North, and make slaves of all people with black blood there, again saying "complete subjugation" of the black race by whites, as God intended. Perpetual slavery -- and he would invade other countries, other states, to do it. He wanted to make this declaration "so their will be no confusion in the future." Gee-- wonder why Davis folks never mention that speech? ____________________________________________________ NO ONE SURPRISED AT SOUTHERN DEMANDS TO SPREAD SLAVERY The Southern Ultimatums were in Southern papers first -- with much editorial approval. Two days later, New York papers reran the Southern Ultimatums to spread slavery, and suggested Lincoln obey -- it was not worth it to fight the South, since they would spread slavery as they always did. No white person should fight to stop the spread of slavery. But no one -- NO ONE-- said "Well, that's odd, why would they want to spread slavery into Kansas when Kansas just voted 98% to keep slavery out." For two generations, the South's insane, violent and absolutely ruthless efforts to spread slavery defined the growth of the country. Every new state coming in, was a huge deal, because the South insisted a slave state must come in, if a free state came in. Slavery -- the expansion of it -- was in every newspaper, nearly every day. Southern newspapers were obsessed with the spread of slavery. Violence and threats were typical. Southern leaders were used to violence, they used it on slaves. They did not make idle threats. When they promised war, if slavery was not spread, no one thought they would not do it. The only question was, when, and were? _________________________________________________________ Our Confedracy, said Stephens, was established by God's will with "the great moral truth" that whites are superior race, and intended by God to enslave the black inferior race. 
Confederate leaders in May of 1861 insisted the Confederacy was "ordained" of God to spread slavery of the inferior black race, as God's punishment to that race, in the bible.______________________________________________________________________ CANT BE A LITTLE BIT FOR SLAVERY -- The South had screamed "God ordained slavery" so long, used it to spread slavery for generations, that they could not say "Oh well" when Kansas voted against it, even by 98%.
If slavery was God's will -- Kansas had no business stopping it. Period.
And because Southern leaders relied on extremely crazy parts of the bible, it was not just slavery -- God wanted whites to punish the "inferior race" for sins supposedly committed by blacks in Garden of Eden. Really. This was not some drunk, some kook, spouting this "whites must punish blacks" -- this was their Vice President, giving the Cornerstone speech 10 times, to cheering crowds. See speech below.
So in a way, Southern bragging and extreme rhetoric, left them no room for slow transition to end slavery. They could not even allow news states to reject slavery. When you brag about God wanting slavery -- how to suddenly say "Never mind"? It would be to obvious they were faking the God thing all along. It pretty much boils down to that.
___________________________________________________
SPREAD SLAVERY INTO KANSAS OR ELSE.
If Southern leaders cared about "states rights" -- then when Kansas voted 98% to keep slavery out, that would have been the end of it -- but that made them promise WAR. They did not say let's negotiate, they did not ask Kansas people to reconsider -- they promised WAR -- then delivered war, and they were P R O U D of it.
Even writing in 1866, when the graves were still fresh, Southern editors bragged that they had fought to spread slavery for God. Only when slavery was dead dead dead, did Southern editors change gears to "states rights" Literally, what they bragged about before, suddenly they were pretending never was an issue, much less their BIG issue. ______________________________________________  Southern documents, like Texas Declaration of Causes, said the "odious" restriction of by people in Kansas and the "majority of Congress" to keep slavery out was their primary reason for secession -- they listed it FIRST. Robert Toombs did not invoke GOD -- but said "EXPAND SLAVERY OR WE WILL BE EXTERMINATED." The Florida Declaration said just stopping the SPREAD of slavery was "like burning us to death slowly" So when Kansas said -- no no no no slavery, Southern leaders went ape shit, to be blunt. How DARE those people in Kansas stop the spread of God's will! In fact, one editor of Southern paper said the devil was an abolitionist, and that allowing people in the new states to decide slavery for themselves was "a trick of the devil".
___________________________________________________
ECHOS OF THE PAST What the Jeff Davis and Southern leaders bragged about at the start of the Civil War -- till Southern books, Southern documents, Southern Speeches, and Southern newspapers bragged about it: Spread slavery for God -- and for our survival -- or there will be war. .Confederate leaders in May of 1861 insisted the Confederacy was "ordained" of God to spread slavery of the inferior black race, as God's punishment to that race, in the bible. |
Southern newspapers in Richmond boasted in May of 1861 that the SPREAD of slavery was "The TRUE ISSUE"
No one was surprised. No one North or South said "Wait, are you kidding". When the South issued their Ultimatums, they were treated as normal. Because everyone knew it, this was the central issue for two generations.
It's only a surprise to use, today, if we have no clue the spread of slavery was the oxygen in the air -- and what the slave power had been spreading every day, by means fair and foul, for 40 years or more.
Read Lincoln's "House Divided Speech." That is what it was about -- the Southern leaders unrelenting spread of slavery by any means, including violence. He was exactly right.
_____________________________________________________
Lincoln's written note to Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy said this:
You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.Yours very trulyA. LINCOLN
Lincoln was adamant about only one thing -- no to the spread of slavery. Lincoln thought stopping the spread of slavery was the way to kill it. And said so.
Guess who agreed with him? His Southern enemies. Davis, Toombs and other Southern leaders accused Lincoln of having his goal to end slavery where it was -- by ending the spread.
Ending the spread of slavery will kill us, said Toombs. Slaves were becoming "so numerous" that Southern folks were already terrified of slave revolt.
This was the overwhelming issue in the US from 1810 on -- spread slavery or not? And from 1850-1860, it became an issue of life and death. People don't understand that now, they are not taught that, but you see it all over the papers and documents. Spread of slavery was a safety issue, as well as a Godly issue, to the South.
And it was discussed as such. If you brought back leaders from the South to life, they would be astonished that people did not know they were trying to spread slavery, by violence if need be. They said so quite clearly at the time.
___________________________________________________
As Lincoln had predicted for years -- slavery had to spread, or it, like a cancer, would kill the host.
We have let that basic truth get watered down. Big mistake. Lincoln spoke politely, carefully. While in the South, they were screaming for blood. Spread slavery, they were saying, or there will be war.
And there was war.
__________________________________________________________________
Lincoln was right -- which is why Lincoln was so focused, absurdly so some thought, to agree to anything - anything -- but the spread of slavery. Promise never to bother it, have a "super" amendment to Constitution, absolutely guarantee anything -- except do not allow the spread of slavery.
Lincoln haters later would spin that as Lincoln didnt really care about ending slavery. Oh yes he did. But he first saw he had to stop the spread of it. To say Lincoln did not care about ending slavery, is like saying you dont really care to end a cancer in you, because you first want to stop the spread.
IF he could keep the Union together- and only if he could keep it together --could he stop the spread of slavery, and kill slavery.
We will be all one thing, or another, he said. This is what he was talking about.
_______________________________________________________________
DEMANDS TO SPREAD SLAVERY WAS NO SURPRISE - TO ANYONE
That was no surprise to anyone alive in 1861, the spread of slavery was the huge issue in every election, every dispute, for decades. That is what speeches were about, books, sermons, legislation, and hatred, on both sides.
The SPREAD of slavery was why Lincoln got back into politics. It's why Stephen Douglas ran for Senate -- to assure the spread of slavery in return for their support for his rail road plans. The spread of slavery was the brain tumor of American politics -- it got your attention, everyone's attention.
The language changed -- not the issue.
Before secession, the South at least tried to give the excuse of "states rights". If you read their documents and speeches, they often refer to "our rights" in the territories. They mean the spread of slavery.
Now, however, Kansas voted 98% to 2% to keep slavery out -- forever. How did the South respond, as a new nation? They promised war if they were not allowed to spread slavery into Kansas. It took less than 24 hours! Gone was the BS about states rights -- now the devil was an abolitionist, and "the evil serpent" had tricked the people in Kansas. Slavery MUST MUST be enacted and protected in Kansas; Lincoln and the Kansas legislature MUST not just allow the spread of slavery, it's almost so crazy, they seemed to demand slavery be spread for them!
______________________________________________________________________
That made sense, if you realize the Southern leaders had convinced themselves they were -- silly as this sounds now -- on a mission from God. No, I am not kidding.
You heard that right -- Confederate leader (Vice President Stephens) went on a speaking tour to cheering crowds, bragging -- bragging -- that their nation was chosen by God to spread the "great moral truth" that white men should not only enslave the inferior race, but God chose the Confederacy to spread that truth, (by violence if need be) to the rest of the white world.
IF you justify slavery, torture, selling children, sexual obedience of slaves (yes, it's bibilical) you can't do it sorta kinda. YOu are either using the bible and it's really crazy parts about beating slaves to death, and sexual obedience of slaves, or you dont. And the Southern leaders were very very very much defending slavery by claiming it was Gods wish.
This has been whitewashed out of our history books, as much to spare religion as the South.
Slavery before, Stephens said, was done against God's wishes. It was temporary, or whites could be enslaved to. Not so with the Confederacy! he bragged --our slavery is built upon God's will, and our foundation, our cornerstone, is slavery of inferior black race.
Gee -- they forgot to teach that in schools. But that's just the start of what is so vile, they don't teach it.
_________________________________________________
BRAGGING ABOUT OPPRESSION.
Did you know the South bragged about oppressing free speech, and freedom of religion? They did, they were excited and happy with laws that made it a crime to openly oppose slavery, or write, or read, or own books or pamphlets against it. Even preachers were arrested for simply owning a book QUESTIONING slavery.
If you wanted to get your neighbor in trouble, in the South, you could do it by accusing them of owning a book that was against slavery. You could be, sometimes were, arrested and whipped for it.
Bet they didn't tell you that in your history class.
 |
| God's Holy Word, Debow bragged, "silenced all opposition to slavery." |
In 1843, James Debow, of Debow's Review, bragged, "God has silenced all opposition to slavery by his Holy Word".
Debow was sort of the FOX NEWS of his day. People read him mostly for agricultural information, but he was also a zealot for slavery and the spread of it. Any opposition to slavery, was an opposition to God.
It was not just GOD stopping opposition to slavery, it was Southern laws against speaking writing or even reading against slavery. You could not even read books against it!
Did you know ships were searched, in Southern ports, for books or pamphlets against slavery?
Even those against slavery because they just hated blacks anywhere, were deported, and their printing presses destroyed, because they were against slavery. Cassius Clay was one such printer. He loathed blacks with a passion, so he was against slavery because they were black. Even he had to stop printing.
He was closed down, and escorted out of the South, and told not to return.
The laws against speaking or writing or owning books against slavery were called "anti-incendiary laws" and are undoubtedly why slavery would not be removed -- it was illegal, literally, punishable by whip, to speak, preach, or even write books against slavery.
It would be hilarious if it were not so violent, but the anti-incendiary laws were justified by the Orwellian logic that such communication might "dissatisfy a slave".
Heaven forbid anyone say anything to "dissatisfy" a slave.
____________________________________________________
Richmond editor Edward Pollard bragged that the South had had warned if Lincoln was elected -- it was the North's fault. They had been "distinctly warned" that electing Lincoln (because he was against the spread of slavery) would be taken as an "ACT OF WAR".
ACT OF WAR
ACT. OF. WAR. That's right, this isnt what someone made up later to make the South look bad. This is what the Southern leaders and editors were bragging about -- then!
Electing a candidate that was against the spread of slavery, they would take, as an ACT OF WAR. Five ultimatums to spread slavery.
_____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Probably the best way to learn the Civil War is to read Southern newspapers leading up to it.
A Southern book, bragging about how Confederates had warned the North, that slavery was from God, and must be spread, is called "Echoes of the South". In it, Edward Pollards lists a dozen speeches, and Southern documents, that made it abundantly clear, the spread of slavery is why the Confederacy was created, and why they would go to war to spread slavery, if need be.
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.
Thank you for telling the truth and providing an easily accessible archive of the facts . The Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy, among others, have buried the truth in a pile of BS about states rights and "Slavery was on it's way out" propositions. Many people were/are taught lies about slavery and the Civil War, then they pass those lies along to their children. That has to stop.
ReplyDelete